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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 530: The One with Jack Thorne, Transcript

January 19, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-one-with-jack-thorne).

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

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

**John August:**
This is episode 530 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, we’ll look at making TV in the U.S. versus the UK, and what writers on either continent need to know. Then we’ll discuss disability on screen and behind screen. As we get ready to move into 2022, we’ll focus on some goals you can control. Now, Craig, since you and I are not well versed on several of these topics, could you suggest someone who could talk to us more eloquently about these issues?

**Craig Mazin:**
When you’re looking for somebody who is eloquent and you can’t find that person, you immediately to turn to Jack Thorne. One of my past One Cool Things, one of my favorite writers and one of my favorite people in the world, Jack is, among other things, very tall. He is wonderfully British and a spectacularly good and almost as importantly, spectacularly prolific writer. Among his as many brilliant credits are the The Aeronauts, National Treasure, not the looking for treasure in the U.S., but National Treasure, the sexual abuse scandal film that was done in the UK, Wonder, Enola Holmes, The Secret Garden. Television credits include His Dark Materials, Skins, Shameless, and the play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, along with the miniseries This is Britain. Basically Jack is kind of the cornerstone, as far as I’m concerned, of modern English screenwriting for feature and television, and again, one of my favorite people in the world. If he weren’t already wonderful enough, he’s gone and kind of out-sainted you, John, which is really hard to do, by giving voice to an issue that has gotten a bit of a short shrift as our industry, global industry, has attempted to rectify sins of the past and do better for everyone working within. That is advocacy for disabilities and the representation of disabilities and disabled folks on screen. Welcome Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. You’re very nice.

**Craig Mazin:**
I agree.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne manages to be incredibly humble. Even in emails, you could hear his voice. This is the first time I’m really meeting him, but you could hear his humility in an email like, “Oh, I shouldn’t even be on the show.” It’s like, of course you should be on the show. Thank you very much for agreeing to join us here.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re very kind. I feel like I sort of thrust myself upon you, but yes, all good.

**John August:**
Now we’re going to talk about these things, but I also want to, for a bonus topic, get into the differences between American English and British English and sort of how you reveal which side of the pond you’re on in your screenwriting and whether you should basically put the U’s in the words when you’re writing a British thing. We’ll get the official answer from you about writing American versus writing British.

**Craig Mazin:**
Just spoiler alert. Don’t use the phrase fanny pack when you’re writing in England.

**John August:**
Now, as I was watching your MacTaggart lecture, which we’re going to put a link in the show notes to, it was one of Craig’s previous One Cool Things, we have questions about it from our listeners, but as I started listening to it, I recognized that this is a famous lecture given every year at the Edinburgh Film Festival, Edinburgh TV Festival I guess, about television. Can you just give us a sense of what the MacTaggart lecture is? Your being chosen for it was an honor, of course, but also probably a huge responsibility. Then we can maybe transition into really talking about British television, because I kind of only barely understand it.

**Jack Thorne:**
The MacTaggart is a big thing. It’s had all sorts of different stages in its existence. More recently it’s had quite a lot of makers talk. Michaela Coel famously gave a speech which laid the groundwork for what became I May Destroy You. Before that there was a period when it just basically took the most powerful people in television and gave them a microphone, which included at one point an excruciating lecture from James Murdoch. It’s had lots of different iterations. Everyone from Dennis Potter to Troy Kennedy has done it at different points, and it was a ridiculous honor to be given it, and as you say, a huge responsibility, because coming out of COVID in particular, it was clear what I needed to talk about, but whether I had the necessary means to talk about those things, whether I had the moral power to talk about those things, were questions I really wrestled with.

**Craig Mazin:**
Let’s talk about your moral qualifications. By the way, I should apologize. The shows you work on were called This Is England, not This Is Britain, but I’m a donkey, so this’ll happen every now and again. Why were you wondering if you were morally qualified to deliver this talk? In what ways do you have any kind of personal insight into this, or why this? Why connect it to this topic for you?

**Jack Thorne:**
I walk a really weird line where disability is concerned in that I was a disabled person. I had a physical breakdown when I was 21. I got this condition called cholinergic urticaria, which left me unable to move. I became allergic to heats in all its forms. I became allergic to sunlight. I became allergic to radiators. I became allergic to my body movement. Every time I moved, I provoked an allergic reaction. I spent six months flat on my back, and then slowly but surely I worked out how to get better. I got on the right medication and I got the right doc support. It was about 12 to 15 years of my life, I was very limited in terms of what I could do, but I got better.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now during that time, there’s this theater company in the UK called Graeae. Graeae are this wonderful company, disabled-led, that’s trying tell stories about the disabled experience with disabled performers and disabled writers and disabled makers. They have this open day. I went along to this open day, unsure whether I belonged or not. I talked to a woman there called Alex Baumer, and she said, “Of course you belong here. You are a disabled person.” It felt like something just kind of … My back straightened. It was like, “Oh right, this is where my pain makes sense,” because the thing is, if you are battling pain every day as I was, you don’t really know who to talk to about it. There comes a point where people get a bit bored of hearing you talk about it, and so you sort of stop talking about it. That thing of being part of a community of people for whom pain was an everyday occurrence and who navigated these things, and it didn’t mean that I had someone to moan to, it just meant that I felt like I belong somewhere.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I talk about myself now is I was a disabled person, I am now a member of the disabled community. Whether that’s legitimate or not, I don’t know, but it’s what I cling to because I think that that experience and what happened to me is a history that’s still very current in my body, and it’s a history that’s still very current in my head. I’m trying to, as much as I can, do disabled work and have disabled performers and disabled makers within my shows. I am in no way an angel where that is concerned. I have got it wrong a huge number of times. As I talk in the lecture, I have been a coward a huge number of times. That question as to can I talk about this, is it legitimate for me to talk about this, and how will people feel about me holding the microphone when I talk about these issues, when I’m not someone who has the stigma and the attacks, who isn’t coping currently with a disability, how will people feel about me being the one that’s holding that microphone?

**Craig Mazin:**
They seem to feel pretty good about it, from what I can tell. The response was dramatic and it was extremely well received, and for good reason. You have chosen an excellent cri de coeur, and you have delivered it beautifully. One of the things you talk about are the notion of invisible disabilities. Disability is something that affects everyone sooner or later. This is a universal condition at some point for everyone. Chronic pain is something that an enormous amount of people live with silently. I myself have lived with chronic pain now for about four years. I don’t talk about it much, or ever. Here I am. I’m okay. We carry on. I’m very British this way I suppose. I should start saying English. I’m very English this way. It is something that everybody deals with to some level or another.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the things that I really admire about you is that while you have talked a little bit about how and why you came to be inside of this movement, you also don’t make it about yourself. You recognize that there are tiers of disability and that there are people who have been more egregiously treated and more egregiously left out. That is something that is happening on both sides of the camera, behind and in front, in terms of how people, when we create characters who are disabled, how we treat and portray them, who we hire to cast them, who is writing those characters. All these questions are now coming to the forefront in a way that I think had not happened until people like you, not only you, but people like you really started banging the gong over the last few years.

**Jack Thorne:**
The way I see it is that I’m temporarily in a spotlight for a moment. I was given that spotlight by the MacTaggart, and my job is to get out of that spotlight as fast as possible, which would be nice, personally would be nice, in order to let more legitimate people come to the front. I’m trying to do that in my working practice too, in terms of co-writing and producing and trying to change the dial so that the spotlight is filled with those people that it should be.

**John August:**
Great. Before we get to some of the recommendations about improving portrayals of disability on screen and the work behind screen, can we talk a little bit about the environment in which you’re giving this lecture? Because I don’t think we have anything equivalent to this in the United States. We have upfronts, which is the annual meeting of big advertisers where they pitch their big new shows. In the film industry we have the big exhibitor screenings where we’re talking about things. We don’t have a situation where there is one point of focus saying this is the state of the industry, this is an important thing we must focus on, whether it be you talking about this, Michaela Coel or Rupert Murdoch. We don’t have anybody talking about this and what needs to change, why it needs to change. I think you also bring up in the lecture is that television actually does have a moral responsibility because it is in everyone’s home. Can you talk to us about how television functions in the UK and if you feel like that might be different than how it functions in the U.S? I feel as an outsider, I think there is a central authority to television in the UK that does not exist in the U.S.

**Jack Thorne:**
That’s really interesting. It’s not something I’ve especially thought about in terms of comparing the two, but we do, I suppose, wrestle a bit more in this country, maybe with the general state of the industry rather than specific programs. The MacTaggart is supposed to be that conversation, what should TV be, because yeah, I think that TV is hugely important. I think it’s the stimulation of a conversation. If you look at the trajectory of where we are, I think TV, sometimes it’s reflecting society and sometimes it’s pushing society on. The movement between the West Wing to Succession is quite a stark point. What it means that we want society reflected that way, or is the reflection provoking the society that is, is I think a really, really fascinating question and something I think about an awful lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
You’ve got a situation in the UK where there seems to be a lot more state involvement in practically everything, and television is no exception. BBC, I don’t know if it is technically the most viewed channel on television, but it’s certainly-

**Jack Thorne:**
I would suspect so. I would suspect so.

**Craig Mazin:**
In the United States, PBS gets about 12 people a week watching it. I apologize, PBS. I know it’s more than that, but it’s very small. As John says, all of our gatherings, whether it’s the Television Critics Association or the upfronts as you mentioned, it’s all commerce. It’s all about selling. That’s partly because it is entirely a question of corporations and not at all a question of the state, and therefore there is no governmental interest or point of view in the United States. Television is an industry and it is not necessarily ever promoted as some kind of potential lever for good. I think that is a cultural difference between the United States and the UK that is stark. It makes a lot of sense that in the UK television and culture in general would be spoken about both in terms of commerce, but also in terms of how to promote the public good. I’m interested in how you feel things have gone practically. I know that at least in the public space of discussion, your lecture, as I mentioned before, was incredibly well received. It was reprinted and revideoed everywhere. I think it’s the kind of thing that makes people feel really good to talk about. My question is are they just talking about it or are things changing? Because ultimately I feel like the only prayer we have over here is in this instance seeing some leadership from your side of the pond.

**Jack Thorne:**
As part of what has happened in the last year, I’ve been part of this pressure group. We call ourselves a pressure group called Underlying Health Condition. We call ourselves Underlying Health Condition because we are angry at the appropriation of that phrase to describe essentially disabled people and disabled deaths. Certainly in the first half of the pandemic, the idea of dividing deaths in two seemed to go everywhere, where it was like, okay, there’s one set of deaths that we worry about and then there’s one set of deaths that we really don’t. We had our first Omicron death in this country recently. you saw the question being asked everywhere, which is, did he have an underlying health condition, in that should we be concerned or is it just happening to disabled people? We formed this pressure group, and we formed this pressure group to look at TV. My lecture came out of that pressure group, and now we’ve launched a report on the back of our findings. A number of different things have happened in the last six months, that straight after the lecture that the BBC and Netflix and Channel Four made commitments to disabled programming. There were certainly mooted commitments from Sky and Channel Five too.

**Jack Thorne:**
What we are focused on, I mean Underlying Health Condition, which isn’t just me, it’s me, Katie Player and Holly Lubran, who are two people that work behind the scenes, and Genevieve Barr, who is an actress and a co-writer of mine, we’ve done three things together, and a writer in her own right too, and what our focus has been on is accessibility, because TV is incredibly inaccessible. I’ve been sitting on panels with disabled actors and makers for the last 15 years, and at the start of every discussion, the first question that basically comes up is how do we make TV accessible to us, because we can’t use the toilet.

**Jack Thorne:**
Underlying Health Condition did a survey of facilities companies and of studio spaces. Facilities companies, one of the starkest findings was there is one accessible honey wagon. The honey wagon is our name for toilets. I don’t know whether you call the toilets-

**Craig Mazin:**
We call it that too.

**John August:**
Honey wagon, right.

**Jack Thorne:**
There’s one accessible honey wagon in the whole of the UK. For 20% of the population, there’s one toilet that they can use. I hear stories all the time from friends who are wheelchair users about trying to restrict how much they use the toilet, because using the toilet costs the production time, and they do not want to be responsible for costing the production time, because this is the reality for disabled people all the time, which is we do not want to cause trouble. If we cause trouble, we might not get hired again. On panels, every single time that would come up. From friends, every single time that would come up. We set out, trying to work out how our industry could break down the barriers, how we could reform the way that the industry functions so that if you are a disabled person, you are not excluded by the space you work in. The response to that has also been very good. We are at the start of that process. It’s going to require a big injection of time and money. Who knows what practical things will come out? Certainly at the moment I’m talking to very senior people in the BCC and Channel Four and ITV and in Sky and Amazon and Netflix, and going to find ways to address our recommendations. There is stuff happening. It’s just it’s going to take a while. It’s going to be hard.

**Jack Thorne:**
In terms of what you say about the U.S, that’s really interesting. We work closely with the One In Four Coalition, which was set up by a wonderful talent manager called Eryn Brown. What she’s done is amazing. One of our key recommendations is for an accessibility officer on every set.

**John August:**
That’s interesting.

**Jack Thorne:**
That comes from One In Four. They have been at the forefront of that. They say the same as you, which is maybe, if Britain, which is a smaller community with more government, maybe if Britain sets about answering some of these questions, then the ripples can be felt in the U.S.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s really interesting.

**John August:**
We’re going to put links in the show notes to both the Underlying Health report and the One In Four Coalition to see the recommendations. There’s overlap between the two of them, but I want to focus on the four key recommendations that you have in your report, which they seem very practical, which really speaks to the fact that you are a person who makes television and understands that you need to actually be able to do things and achieve things and make things happen. The first recommendation is a line in every budget for needed adjustments. Talk to us about adjustments that might need to come up in a budget to make a show accessible to a disabled person.

**Jack Thorne:**
That was about making the production responsible for those adjustments. By the way, you say in terms of practicality, I am useless. I am one of the least practical people alive. Katie Player, who’s one of my co-writers on this, is a production manager. She understood behind the scenes a lot better than us. When it was coming up with these recommendations, she has been an invaluable part of that. The idea is that there is small fund, and by small we’re talking 5,000 pounds adjustable down if you’re a smaller production, which is available for interpreters, is available for ramps, is available for a stool, is available for anything that the accessibility officer or coordinator suggests that just might make the experience better. It’s not a radical sort of like, “Yeah, we’re going to have to build something specifically for a purpose.” It’s about adjusting what we’ve got.

**Jack Thorne:**
Katie worked on a show of mine a few years ago and managed to get a hold of a ramp that she now takes with her wherever she goes. She was working on another production where the ramp didn’t quite go down to the floor because the trailers were a bit higher, so someone built her a little wooden extension to the ramp. Those sorts of things, it’s not a huge amount of money, but it can make a huge difference that the production is prepared and ready and considering the adjustments that might be required for a disabled person.

**Craig Mazin:**
It doesn’t seem like that an enormous amount of resources are required. What’s required is a minimum of care. When we all started in the business and somebody was walking around, let’s say on some sort of elevated space in a scene, they would walk around and the stunt people would say, “Don’t get too close to the edge,” and you wouldn’t get too close to the edge. Now we tether people and we paint it out digitally because we have safety standards that are stricter. Yet as we have advanced the cause of safety where we can, we don’t have disabled accessible toilets or a trailer that has something other than steps on it. I watch even people who aren’t disabled but merely old struggle on sets. I struggle on sets at times just to get around and over things. It is not the most hospitable place. Changing things would not require a lot of money. It seems to me that it just needs attention, a small amount of attention, which is why I’m desperately hopeful that this kind of attention that you’re bringing to this is going to work.

**Craig Mazin:**
Normally what you hear is, “Yes, no, of course, and we’re absolutely looking into these things, but it’s a large budget item,” and rah rah blah blah blah, of course. They’re discussing this while they’re having dinner and charging it back to the production. Something for instance, you mentioned the idea of a disability coordinator I think. Is that what you called it, a disability coordinator?

**Jack Thorne:**
Accessibility.

**Craig Mazin:**
Accessibility coordinator. Even better. We have intimacy coordinators now. We never did before. In the old days there would be sex scenes, there would be scenes with nudity, and some of those sex scenes were violent and criminal in nature, and people would just do it. A lot of weird stuff happened. A lot of bad stuff happened. There was certainly an enormous amount of pressure on people and confusion about boundaries. Now we have an entire professional class of people who appear to help mitigate those problems. We’ve had somebody like that on our set, not for a sex scene, but just because there was something that involved some nudity. It was amazing having her there. She made everything really clear and simple. It was a relief. I would think that productions would want this, because it’s a relief to have somebody help you navigate through it, especially if you are running the production and you aren’t disabled and you don’t have a lot of personal experience with people with disabilities. Then let’s just hire the people who do and let’s make everybody comfortable and welcome, physically comfortable and physically welcome.

**Jack Thorne:**
Absolutely. Disability is a spectrum. It could be that there are people who identify as disabled and for whom the accessibility coordinator will make a huge, huge difference immediately. There are others on the set who won’t necessarily know how to talk about what’s going on with them. To have someone that they can talk to privately about what needs they might have that the production isn’t automatically addressing will make a huge difference to the comfort of their lives and their ability to do the job. It’s such a small thing, but it could just create an unbelievable change in how people feel going to work. It stops things happening like, a friend of mine’s a producer, the production was on the fourth floor, the lift stopped working, so they put her in the canteen. She wasn’t part of the production from then on. She was just excluded on the outside of it. That happens all the time. If you have someone that’s just there to go, “This doesn’t work. We need to address it in a different way. We need to radically think about things or just moderately think about things,” the difference could be profound.

**Craig Mazin:**
We’ll get to lift versus elevator later.

**John August:**
Our premium members can hear about the lift versus elevator debate. Now you were talking about the needs on a set or the physical needs of a place, but one of your recommendations seems more targeting who gets to actually be able to write on programs. This is freelancer funds coming out of the high-end TV pool, which is where I recognize that I don’t know how British TV works, because what is a-

**Craig Mazin:**
What is that?

**John August:**
… high-end TV pool? Your MacTaggart lecture also mentions different tiers of budgets. Can you talk us through what those are? Because it’s really confusing to me.

**Jack Thorne:**
I don’t know it all. High-end TV is everything I believe above 750,000 pounds an hour. That’s about a million dollars would it be?

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
About a million.

**Jack Thorne:**
The high-end TV pool was formed a little while ago. It was a commitment by broadcasters that if your show was above that tariff, if your show budgeted above that tariff, then you would pay not .5% of your budget into a pool, which was for training purposes for people coming into the industry. It’s run by an amazing group called Screen Skills. Screen Skills have been talking to us about whether they could be part of this freelancers fund. It would be amazing if they can. The idea is that it’s not .1% on top of that, which would just allow for disabled people who have needs to have those needs cared for.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was working on a show. Someone’s call was at 6:00 a.m. Now if their call is at 6:00 a.m. that requires a carer to be with them at 3:00 a.m. They don’t have the money in their budget, their personal budget, to have a carer with them at 3:00 a.m. If they had access to this freelancers fund, that would allow for it. Similarly, deaf people and having an interpreter around both on set and off set so that they are not excluded from the processes that are happening off set as well as on set. All these things require someone to make life work more easily for those who have impairments. A freelancers fund would allow for that.

**Jack Thorne:**
Now we have something in the UK called Access to Work, which is for disabled people to access, which is supposedly for that, for the adjustments that they need that go beyond what an industry would pay for them, so that the industry wasn’t paying for them so that the government pays that bit so that the industry still pays their wage and so people aren’t excluded from work. It’s a very, very brilliant scheme. Unfortunately, it doesn’t operate very well in the TV sector because our jobs are very transitory, can happen very quickly, and also Access To Work has had quite a few cuts to it in the last 15 years under the Tory government, which has meant that it operates a little less well than it used to, well a lot less well than it used to.

**Jack Thorne:**
We think that this fund, which the rich in the TV industry will pay for, you know that everyone that makes high-end TV is rich in comparison to the rest of the country, our industry is doing very well compared to the rest of the country, would allow for a world in which disabled creatives would have power over their own agency.

**John August:**
The point to bring up here is that it’s one thing, with it probably equivalent thing American with Disabilities Act, which requires that place of employment, place you need to go into are accessible. It’s one thing if you have an office worker who’s making sure that getting into the office building and the use of the office building is accessible, but a freelancer going from show to show to show, in television or in film, they cannot count on the fact that things are going to be accessible for them. Some sort of funds that let them bring their accessibility with them feels crucial. I think that gives me some hope that some of these changes can be implemented. As we saw with the advent of COVID that studios really wanted to be back in production as they found ways to, “Okay, we’re going to set up COVID funds. We’re going to figure out how to do this thing.” It was really difficult, but you know what? We made a lot of good film and television during the pandemic once we figured out how to do this stuff. They can spend money when it’s in their interest to spend money.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh yes. Think about this, John. Every day our production is providing health support and services to every single member of our crew in the form of COVID testing and making sure that everybody has PPE and all of that stuff. We do it. There’s an entire job now, and an entire team of people working for the guy who’s in charge of COVID compliance. We have cleaners that we didn’t used to have before. We were able to mobilize an entire new department, new division of people that cost new amounts of money so that otherwise healthy people wouldn’t get sick. We seem to struggle with anything that would help people who live with a disability. That’s just shocking. It’s the sort of thing, and Jack, don’t beat yourself up, you’re doing amazing work, I know you’ve mentioned your cowardice, I don’t note any of it. I think the sin out here in the world of not being Jack Thorne is a general obliviousness. It’s very easy to be oblivious about this sort of thing, until it gets you, and then harder, a lot harder to be oblivious.

**John August:**
Let’s talk about differences between the U.S. system and the UK system. The UK system has this sense of moral authority in television and in industry grappling with a thing. We don’t have that, but we do have unions. We do have, in ways that the UK doesn’t have, we have bodies that set standards for things. It does feel like in terms of performers being able to do their job on sets, that feels like a thing that SAG wrestles with, to a degree to which writers have the ability to participate in a writers room, to have interpreters be available for them if they need them. That feels like a WGA thing, the same with DGA. We have groups that can mobilize tremendous pressure to get some of these things done, and I would not be surprised if as we push forward here, we’ll see these unions step up to demand some of these changes happen. It won’t happen the same way. It may not happen as quickly. I think some of these things can and should happen.

**John August:**
I’m also reminded that when we added the parental leave benefit to the WGA, which is a new thing we won, one of the artist rule to make is that, listen, everybody who works for Netflix right now gets paternity leave, gets parental leave when they have a kid. It just seems right that the writer who’s creating that show should have the same benefits as the executive who’s running that thing. I can imagine a situation where people who are working for the studios right now have expectations that their workplaces can be wheelchair accessible for people who need to use wheelchairs. The same should apply to our sets. I think that logic sometimes can help and help people think about why they need to be thinking about this and why they need to be ready to spend some money to make that happen.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that. I’d not considered that the unions could be a huge, huge role. You’re right, the power of your unions is so much bigger than the power of the unions in this country. The idea that they could provoke this change, it’s really warming, it’s really huge, really exciting to hear actually.

**Craig Mazin:**
All they have to do is work together, which they’ve never done before [inaudible 00:30:51].

**John August:**
Even working under their own self-interest though, some things can change. It tends to build upon each other, so things do happen. We have two listener questions that came in which were very specifically designed for you to come on the show, not even knowing that you’d come on the show. Megana, can you help us out with some of these questions that we’ve gotten?

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight asks, “Craig-”

**Craig Mazin:**
Here we go.

**Megana Rao:**
“Your cool thing has broken me. Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart lecture was extremely impactful. I feel broken because I’m concerned I’m taking the wrong lessons or that I’m being selfish. Originally I was writing a story with a main character who had been disfigured in military service. Later I decided to pare it down to a mental health issue like PTSD, because I just didn’t think that I should write it, as I have no experience with physically disabled people, but I can’t help reference the embarrassingly large number of stories put to screen that have clearly been written by people who don’t have the slightest clue how their character should sound or how those events should play out.

**Megana Rao:**
“Mr. Thorne’s speech has made me think about a lot of things that I don’t have answers for. I want to write for female characters, because in my life the women around me have been so valuable and interesting that I’m inspired to write with them in mind. I listen to the voices of marginalized people speak on how they feel. They just want a place at the table, starting with their faces in popular culture. I fall immediately into self-doubt and concern for what my place is in producing that culture. I am a near radioactive level of white bread American. Should I even participate?

**Megana Rao:**
“Jack Thorne spoke passionately and with great vulnerability about a group of people that just wants dignity and a fair shake. How do I participate in the business of storytelling that doesn’t perpetuate the endless narrative of the singular white male voice telling the world what culture is?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, that’s a simple question and I’m sure you can answer that in, I’ll give you seven words.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think authorship is something we’re all wrestling with right now. I write a lot of female characters. I write a lot of female character-led dramas. I always have. It’s something that I’m asking about myself why I do that and whether I have right to do that.

**Jack Thorne:**
When it comes to disability, one of the groups that spoke at our event, we had this launch event, and we didn’t want it just to be about Underlying Health Condition, we wanted it to be about all the major disability groups in British television. We had lots of different people speak. One of the people that spoke was this man called Laurence Clark who outlined how a writers room should be run for disabled people and what consideration should be given when having disabled people in the room. It’s really complicated because you’re talking about a group that have been historically excluded. It’s a very, very small group. It’s a group where being given authorship is not something that historically has happened. I don’t quite know whether no one should be writing disabled people except for disabled writers. I certainly think disabled writers need to be part of a discussion when it comes to writing disabled characters, and they need to be a senior part of that discussion, and they need to be armed so that future authorship is exclusively disabled, because as the caller says, there has been historically a huge amount of ignorance, and quite dangerous ignorance put on the screen by people who didn’t know better but should’ve known better and have perpetuated myths about the disabled experience, which has been incredibly damaging to disabled people everywhere.

**Craig Mazin:**
Well said. I think Scared of Umbrage but Desperate for Insight, don’t fear my umbrage, I have no umbrage for you. I feel for you. I would suggest that somewhere along the line in our bourgeoning and justifiable desire to include people who have been traditionally excluded and to have better, fuller, clearer, and truer representations of all sorts of people on screen, we have lost sight of what the word fiction means. Particularly when we’re talking about fiction in drama, everybody is writing something they’re not. There is only one story you can write that is perfectly true to yourself, and that is your autobiography, and even that will probably be garbage. We are professional liars, who like actors, occupy the minds of people we are not. That is literally the job. What’s happening I think is that some people are having an existential crisis about what it means to actually be a fiction writer.

**Craig Mazin:**
What I do think is critical, and we’ve said this on the show many times, is that you have to approach material with respect. You have to approach the lives of other human beings with respect. Here’s the deal. Doesn’t matter how good your intentions are. If you are a bad writer, your writing will be bad. If you are a good writer but a callous writer, your writing will be probably put off in that pile of what they call lazy or tropey or oblivious. You have to be both good and you have to have your ears open, you have to have your eyes open, and you have to have some humility. You have to talk to people. When you are writing a character, and if that character’s disabled in a way that you don’t have personal experience with, find people who do, who are already willing to discuss these things, not people that you know who that you can then burden your questions upon, but rather there are groups, advocacy groups. The Writers Guild is very good about putting you together with people who want to talk about these things, who are interested in helping. If you do get into a position, a privileged position where you can hire people, hire them. That’s important.

**Craig Mazin:**
When you are writing characters who are a different race than you are or a different gender and then you cast those people, talk to the actors and ask them, “How did we do? What did we get wrong? What did we get right? Let’s have that discussion.” What we should not do is box ourselves off into a place where we can only write who we are. If anything, that would mean fewer representations of disabled people on screen. What I like about what Jack is doing is that he’s advancing in a rising tide manner everybody’s opportunity. If you write something great that provides opportunity for better representation and employment of different people than you, then that’s a victory for everybody.

**John August:**
One moment of the current discourse I’m following closely is West Side Story. West Side Story is an iconic musical that is problematic when you look back at the original incarnation of it. You look at this new incarnation and Tony Kushner’s work on it, and you can see that like a Jack Thorne, he was very concerned about his role in telling the story and making sure to find the information about the communities he’s writing about and what the communities were like at that time and how this could all fit together. It’s a difference between letting that concern guide you to do more and harder work and letting that concern stop you from ever trying to do that work. That’s I think what Scared is wrestling with. I think you may be looking at it as a blockade, a wall preventing you from actually doing the work, when in fact it is a challenging path for you to go down, but really it’s an invitation to really explore what’s out there.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, what’s your take on this question?

**Megana Rao:**
I agree with all of the things that you guys have said. One other thing that came to mind is I watched an interview with Ariana DeBose, who plays Anita in West Side Story. She is a Black Latin woman. She talked about going to the interview with Steven Spielberg and saying, “I’m not going to take this role unless you honor what it means for Anita to be played by a Black Latin woman.” They were really receptive to that and made the changes in the script and worked with her on doing those things. I think that speaks to what you were saying, being open to the experiences that your actors or actresses who are representing these characters bring to that material as well, even in the later stage of the process.

**John August:**
Megana, you have one more question that feels very much on topic here.

**Megana Rao:**
Great. Mike from London asks, “I got COVID in May of 2020 and subsequently developed long COVID. Most of my symptoms have improved since then, but I’m still suffering extreme fatigue and post-exertional malaise. In short, getting COVID seems to have triggered chronic fatigue syndrome. Before this I was a healthy 27-year-old with dreams of writing for Hollywood. I improved as a writer each year and was starting to see a small amount of success. I was a semifinalist in the Nicholl last year and was getting some reads from managers and production companies, but unfortunately, getting long COVID has made everything much more difficult. I now have to be careful not to use too much energy in a single day. Even a small amount of activities, like going on a short walk and writing two or three pages, can be enough to completely exhaust me for a few days. Just writing this email feels like a huge mental drain, and because of this, I know I won’t have energy to write this evening. All of this on top of having to somehow keep my job has left me worried that I’ll never reach my goal of being a working writer. I’m wondering if you know or are aware of any working writers with similar chronic diseases. How has their disability informed the content of their writing and their process?”

**Craig Mazin:**
Rough situation there, Mike. First of all, we are still learning a lot about long-term COVID, long COVID, long-haul COVID as it’s sometimes called. We don’t know if it’s permanent. It is very tempting when you are in the middle of something difficult as, Jack, you are in the middle of your disability. I’m sure it seemed to you at the time like it would be permanent, which is terrifying, I assume. I’ve certainly felt that way about my situation.

**Jack Thorne:**
I was told by a doctor, “You won’t get better.”

**Craig Mazin:**
Even if you’re not told by a doctor, you’re told by your own fear center in your brain that you’re not going to get better. That is really terrifying. First things first, it seems to me, Mike, you just have to honor the reality that you’re in. The reality that you’re in is you can only do what you can do. You can’t do more than you can do. If I told you that the only way to be a working writer would be to climb 100,000 steps a day, no matter what your situation would be, you wouldn’t be able to do it. That’s not a failure. That’s just reality. Accept the reality that you have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Perhaps as a relatively young person, in fact rather young, half my age, sir, or ma’am, give yourself a little bit of time here. Maybe what you could do is concentrate on what you might be able to do to get a little bit better, if there is that ability, and if there’s not, then take the time to readjust your life. If you write, I think it says writing two or three pages in a day is enough to completely exhaust you for a few days. Then that’s what you can do. You can write two or three pages for every few days. By the way, I know a lot of great writers that have zero problems who do exactly that. If they’re two or three great pages a day or two or three great pages a week, that’s two or three more great pages than almost everyone else can write in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Count the blessings, but also accept the reality. Make your peace with it. Mourn what you’ve lost. Do anything you can that’s available to you. In terms of resources, yes, I think Google is your friend. There’s got to be some groups of writers living with disability and working with disability and chronic disease. John, does the Writers Guild have a resource or a group for something like this?

**John August:**
I don’t know that they do. I know that there are committees that have writers with disabilities, but I don’t know. This is actually I think a great question for Jack to answer, because this feels like this is not an accessibility kind of issue, this is not even a representation issue, this is like it’s hard for me to do the thing that I want to be doing situation. Do you have experience with this?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yeah. I would say try and find a community, because that’s what gave me the most solace. In terms of the UK there’s two groups I would say to go to straight away as you’re a Londoner. The first is a group called DANC, which is D-A-N-C, or also called Triple C, which is confusing, but I think it’s www.triplec.org.uk. Then there’s another group called DTPTV, deaf and disabled people in television, who are also amazing. They are on Facebook and Twitter. Both those organizations have a community of people that you can talk to about this stuff. Reach out to them. Make yourself part of it. Become a member of the community. I think you’ll find that there’s lots of other people going through similar things. My experience of that was feeling like I had a home. Once you feel like you have a home, I think everything gets a bit easier. I’m so sorry you’re struggling. I really hope it doesn’t stay with you, but if it does, there are lots of people who are going through chronic fatigue and who do produce beautiful work, behind and in front of the screen, very good friends of mine who do find ways to manage their condition, and as a result of finding ways to manage their condition, find a way to have a fruitful career in our industry.

**Craig Mazin:**
Great.

**John August:**
Great. Our last little bit is hopefully inspiring. Actually I think does fit in well with this last question, which is basically do the things you can do and control the things you can control. This comes off of a TikTok by Franchesca Ramsey, but it’s Ashley Nicole Black, friend of the show, who had retweeted it, put it on my timeline here. Let’s take a listen to what Franchesca says.

Franchesca Ramsey:
If you’re a writer, winning an Oscar or selling a $100,000 movie, those are huge goals, those are awesome, but you can’t control those right now. So many things have to happen in order for those doors to open and those opportunities to come to you. Instead, shifting your goal to something you can control, like write 10 pages a day or take a writing class, start a writing group, finish my feature, try a pilot new genre, those are things that you can control, and then you can actually cross them off your list and feel like you are accomplishing things that are helping you get to the place that you want to get in your life.

**John August:**
That’s Franchesca Ramsey. Ashley Nicole Black also had said if your goal was to be cast on Saturday Night Live, you’re giving all of your power to Lorne Michaels to cast you on Saturday Night Life, but if your goal is to learn how to write great sketches, that’s a thing you can learn how to do. Jack, as a incredibly prolific writer here, what can you tell us about the work you control versus the work that makes it out in the world ratio in your life?

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s so interesting, isn’t it, that I’m still wrestling with now, to be honest, in terms of, “Oh, but if I do this, then I can get this. Then if I get this, then maybe people will like me.” I don’t think that goes, that feeling.

**Craig Mazin:**
I already like you.

**Jack Thorne:**
You’re weird.

**Craig Mazin:**
So true.

**Jack Thorne:**
It’s strange in terms of thinking about my career. I remember ringing my parents so excited because I had a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic, and my parents being completely nonplussed by a lunchtime reading at the Young Vic and me realizing that it was a huge achievement for me, but no one else quite being able to see it. I think that thing of just constantly seeing rungs of a ladder and then going, “Oh right, if I do this and if I do that.” I suppose what she’s saying is try to avoid the ladder entirely and just celebrate what you do every day. To be honest, I’m nowhere near able to do that yet. It’s a good goal for me for 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s funny, the word goal maybe is part of the problem, because I think sometimes people, what they outline as a goal is really a symptom. Winning an award is a symptom of something. So is being cast on Saturday Night Live. You have a goal, and the goal should be something that only can be things you can control. It’s not just focus on goals you can control. If you can’t control it, it’s not a goal, as far as I’m concerned, because the only purpose of the word is some target that you can hit. You try and be the funniest you can be, and then you show up for an audition and let’s see what the symptom is. You try and write the best you can write, and then you hand it out in the world, let’s see what the symptom is. Let’s see what the reaction is. Everything goal-oriented is probably a bit of a trap. The only way to get there is to immerse yourself in the process. If goal has an antonym, I suppose it’s process. Process is everything.

**Craig Mazin:**
The work is unromantic. We talk about this on the show all the time, how unromantic writing is and how angry I get when I see portrayals of writing on screen. You want to talk about bad portrayals on screen, writers getting some sort of mystical burst of energy and typing a novel all night and then it’s celebrated and the next thing they’re at a book signing. I hate this crap. I just want to fire it into the sun.

**Craig Mazin:**
Maybe, maybe if you want to get to the next third eye in the forehead level of achievement here, don’t have any goals at all. Just try and write. How about that? Just create stuff. Try and access what feels honest and good to you and enjoy it for what it is. I will tell you the thing that I’ve done that was received the best was not a goal-oriented thing. There was absolutely no expectation that it would even get made. The goal concept sometimes is a liar that whispers stuff in our ear and turns our head from the path.

**John August:**
I think it’s so important to distinguish goals that can actually be achieved under your own efforts versus goals that you just rely on the universe working out a certain way, which I think Saturday Night Life is a universe working out a certain way. The goals that are under your own control to some degree, like wanting to run a marathon, “I want to finish a marathon,” okay, if that’s your goal, great, but what are the actual things you need to do in order to get yourself up to being able to run a marathon. Completing a marathon is a lagging indicator. If you got to that point, it’s only because all the leading indicators, which were how many short runs were you able to do, how far could you go. All the work that it would take to get up there, that’s what you could actually focus and do, which is basically putting on your shoes and starting to run. You’re not going to put on your shoes and start to run a marathon. You’re going to put on your shoes and start to run a mile and then two miles and eventually you’ll get up there. Frustratingly, writing is just that hard work of page after page, mile after mile. To be more inspiring going into this, maybe go into 2022 thinking about forget your goal, let’s focus on what you’re actually trying to do each day and make that work rewarding.

**Craig Mazin:**
What if we take the goal away, meaning let’s take the reward away. Doctors make a the bin Laden mistake. Megana and I are both unlicensed medical doctors, so I think we both understand this. Doctors put an enormous emphasis on the scale, on your weight. This is automatically a very goal-oriented thing. “You’re 240 pounds. You need to be 160 pounds.” That’s a goal. No one’s pretty much going to get there. What’s sad is for a lot of people, that goal isn’t even revenant to their well-being.

**Craig Mazin:**
If they simply just made certain changes in their life for the sake of bettering their health, with the promise of no reward, if I say to you, “Look, I’ve looked into your future. If you do the following things, you will not lose any weight at all, but you will live another 10 years,” and so we’ve taken away all the reward. You’re not going to wear the skinny pants. You’re not going to look like the person on the cover of the magazine. All that’s garbage. What you are is going to be happier and healthier. Would you take that deal or not?

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s hard for people, because what you’re saying is it’s just process. Goals that are distant and far off like that and intangible are really hard, whereas when someone says, “Okay, I’ve got a goal. I’m going to be 150 pounds. I’m going to do the thing. I’m going to be on the cover of Men’s Health,” that’s when they fail, inevitably. You’ve set yourself up for failure by turning the goal into the goal.

**Megana Rao:**
Something Ashley said in her tweet was that she added what she wants the work to feel like as part of her goals. She says, “I wanted to work in a calm, fun environment, which makes decisions easier to make.” I also think shifting from thinking about goals, how you want the experience of the process to be, I don’t know, that’s not a concept that I’d heard before, but definitely something I want to use in 2022.

**Craig Mazin:**
I like that too. Look, in the U.S. the goal always has a dollar sign in front of it. We’re trained this way from birth. The whole thing is basically fame and fortune, fame and fortune, fame and fortune. When you look among the class of the famous unfortunate, you find a lot of misery and bad behavior, because humans are human, as it turns out.

**John August:**
We should also call out Ashley Nicole Black for her new deal at Warner Brothers. She’s joining Craig over there in HBO Max land.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that was a goal that just happened. I doubt that was her goal. It’s a symptom of her good work.

**John August:**
Indeed.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s a process symptom. Well done.

**John August:**
Any last thoughts on goals, Mr. Jack Thorne?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m interested in the notion that, because the show that you’re referring to, which I know you probably get bored of talking about, but the show that you’re referring to happened despite setting a goal with Chernobyl, and yet that was you taking a fork in the road, wasn’t it? That was you going, “I don’t want to write the sort of shows I’ve done before, so I’m going to take a fork in the road.” That is you setting yourself a goal of working in a new genre, working in a new way, and challenging yourself in a way that you hadn’t challenged yourself before to do a certain type of work. By doing that, and I think that you’re probably the starkest example of someone that’s done that, of writers that I can think of, you changed the whole trajectory of your working life. Is that not a goal? Is that not a, “I am going to put my head down on a stone and rub it until I get to a different place for myself.”

**John August:**
What a metaphor that was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I don’t know if it was a rubbing stone. I think I wanted to do it because I felt like it was worth doing. When I did it, there was no promise of anything. Really the only promise was that it would likely just be ignored. Nor did I know if I could do it. I just wanted to. It to me very much was there was no real money involved, there was no guarantee of anything, nor was I doing it with any expectation that you would need to be watched. I honestly thought that it would mostly end up being a thing that substitute teachers would show the social studies class on a rainy day in high school. It really was not goal-oriented. A lot of what I do, I’m very haphazard about a lot of things, I have to admit. When I find that I start thinking about how to create outcomes, that’s actually where I get into trouble, because artificial things start to seep their way in. Maybe I’m a bad person to ask this question to, because my career has been weird and meandering and confusing. There’s not a lot of shape to it. I have a lot of notes on the narrative of my own life and career. It’s not a well told story. Weird fits and starts. You have a much better narrative, Jack Thorne. That’s a story. I like that story. That’s a good one.

**Jack Thorne:**
The distinction between going, “If I do this, I’m going to win an Emmy,” and, “If I do this, then I might find a tad more professional well-being in my soul,” I found your example very motivating and very interesting in terms of the choices we make for ourselves. That is a goal, is it not? I suppose it’s just that that interests me.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think that sometimes people underestimate the joy I had in prior work to all that, because I really did enjoy them.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m not saying you didn’t. If your character was singing the I want song, you used the word I want, there would be a moment where you were making a film that you were enjoying and you said, “I want to write about the Soviet Union, and I feel like I’ve got a way of singing about the Soviet Union,” and then the audience would be on their feet.

**Craig Mazin:**
See, that’s the thing about writing. I love that this is something that was specifically targeted by Franchesca Ramsey to creatives, is that there’s nothing in between you and the doing of a creative thing, unless it requires a lot of money, but writing doesn’t. You don’t even need to get to goal step. If you want, and I did want to write something, write it. That’s the best part. It’s not even a goal. It’s there. You can do it. You can paint whatever you want. You can write whatever you want. You can sing whatever you want. All that’s there. Now are people going to watch it? Is it going to get made? Will it be popular? Are you going to get money? Will you get a big deal? All that stuff happens after.

**John August:**
It’s completely out of your control, which is of course-

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s completely out of your control, exactly. In a weird way, if your goal is to write something amazing, you can take that write out of the goal column and put it right into the I’m doing it today. You don’t have to wait. A goal to me isn’t the future. Maybe I just am confused about the concept. There’s nothing stopping you right now today from writing anything you want. It’s free, which is wonderful.

**John August:**
Now in our discussions of goals, Megana has in our little workflow here a year in review. Our goal with Scriptnotes was not to have 500 episodes in 10 years in Scriptnotes, but-

**Craig Mazin:**
Jesus.

**John August:**
We hit that-

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god that wasn’t a goal-

**John August:**
… this last year.

**Craig Mazin:**
… because I wouldn’t have done it.

**John August:**
Lord no. We were listened to in 198 different countries.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh god.

**John August:**
We had 2.15 million downloads so far this year in 2021.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh my god. Now wait, with that 2.15 million downloads, I presume that’s just three people that just keep redownloading it over and over.

**John August:**
It’s all bots. It’s bots all the way down.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s bots. Just bots.

**John August:**
A bit of housekeeping, we’re hoping to do another random advice episode. That’s this episode where we just answer random listener questions that don’t have anything to do with writing at all. It could be about relationships. It could be about real estate. It could be about the proper fork to use for a certain meal. If you have random advice questions, send those into Megana, ask@johnaugust.com, and we’ll get a special list of those together and we’ll answer random things that are not about writing.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’ll be fun. We should have Jack on for that as well. I think Jack should be the new … Let’s just have him all the time.

**John August:**
Absolutely. It’s time for our one cool things. Craig, do you have a one cool thing?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, I don’t.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, you got the memo. Did you find a one cool thing to bring in?

**Jack Thorne:**
I’ve got two.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank god.

**Jack Thorne:**
One of which is slightly embarrassing.

**Craig Mazin:**
Good. I’ll take that one. That one’s mine.

**Jack Thorne:**
Craig chose me for One Cool Thing six, seven years ago. I don’t know how long ago it was.

**Craig Mazin:**
I would call that early Thorne period. America still didn’t know.

**Jack Thorne:**
It was a highlight of my life and a really beautiful thing and it made me spill my water. Sounds like I wet myself. I almost said made me spill my tea, and then I was like, I don’t drink tea. I don’t drink any caffeine. One of my one cool things is Craig Mazin, who appears like he is a misanthrope and seems to present like a misanthrope, and yet is incredibly kind. I once went to lunch with him wearing Ray Bans and he laughed at me for about an hour, but it was still … His ability to give time to things that he shouldn’t give time to is a very, very kind thing, and so he is one of my one cool things.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack Thorne.

**Jack Thorne:**
If that’s all right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Jack, I think you had another less Craig-oriented one cool thing.

**Jack Thorne:**
Which is authentic and celebratory portrayals of Father Christmas, because I find it very annoying that Father Christmas, I have a five-year-old, is frequently portrayed in our modern world as a dark, despairing figure or someone with a take on it. We’ve watched Santa Claus the movie, the Dudley Moore film from 1985 twice this week, and we’re probably going to watch it a third time, purely because Elliott, my son, finds the Father Christmas in it so authentic to his impression of what Father Christmas should be. I don’t know whether Father Christmas should be white or any of those things, but a jolly person who is having a good time is a good thing, and we need more of him I think.

**Craig Mazin:**
Can I ask, this might seem like an odd question, but who’s Father Christmas? We don’t have him here. Who’s that?

**John August:**
That’s Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
Santa Claus.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh, Santa Claus. Oh, Santa Claus.

**Jack Thorne:**
You don’t call him Father Christmas?

**John August:**
No, we call him Santa Claus. There is more of this in the bonus segments. Trust me.

**Craig Mazin:**
Megana, have you ever heard of Father Christmas?

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**John August:**
I’ve heard of it.

**Megana Rao:**
I have.

**Craig Mazin:**
Wait, hold on. Now I know. It’s from the Kinks song, (singing).

**John August:**
It’s not from the Kinks song. It’s a thing that exists and the Kinks mentioned it.

**Craig Mazin:**
I thought the Kinks invented it. All right. So much for that.

**John August:**
My one cool thing is also Christmas-related. This last week I fell down a rabbit hole of the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions, which if you have not read it, you should just spend an hour of your life looking through the Wikipedia list of common misconceptions. Mine is that the Bible does not explicitly say that three magi came to visit baby Jesus, does not mention a Father Christmas or Santa Claus either, nor does it mention that there were kings or rode on camels, that their names were Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar. The three magi are inferred because there were three gifts. Basically the three kings who come to visit baby Jesus in the Christmas story, that was just made up sometime in the third century. We don’t really know where came from, but not part of the original Christmas story. My one cool thing. That is our show for this week. Jack Thorne, thank you so much for joining us.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you for having me. I’m very sorry for talking quite a lot.

**Craig Mazin:**
No, that’s why you’re here.

**John August:**
Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao, is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Nico Mansy, if you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is sometimes there at @clmazin. I’m always @johnaugust. Jack Thorne, are you on Twitter?

**Jack Thorne:**
Not really, no. No. It sent my brain mad.

**John August:**
That’s fine.

**Craig Mazin:**
Me too.

**John August:**
You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find the transcripts and sign up for our weeklyish newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and sweatshirts, and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. The sweatshirts just came and they are actually genuinely the softest things I have experienced in a sweatshirt. Craig, your sweatshirt should be there, if you ordered that first batch. Mine came yesterday. Check your mail. You can sign up to become a premium member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. We’ll learn from Jack Thorne what a British person would call a bonus segment and other words that don’t make sense on either side of the pond. Thank you all very much.

New Speaker:
BONUS SEGMENT

**John August:**
We’re back. Jack Thorne, as you were talking, I was writing out some of the things you said that were-

**Craig Mazin:**
Ridiculous.

**John August:**
… distinctly British. You said Graeae are this wonderful company. You used are because the company is plural, but we would say Graeae is this wonderful company. Pluralism is a thing that is different between American English and British English is you would say are and we would say is.

**Jack Thorne:**
I wouldn’t assume that I speak good English. I’m not a very educated person, so I wouldn’t assume that [crosstalk 01:04:06].

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
This humility.

**Craig Mazin:**
This is outrageous.

**John August:**
You said, “I remember ringing my parents.” We never ring our parents at all here.

**Craig Mazin:**
We call them.

**John August:**
We call them. We don’t ring them.

**Craig Mazin:**
Then oddly, when people are describing names in England, they will typically say, “Oh, I met a guy, he’s called Jack,” and here we would say, “He’s named Jack.”

**John August:**
British English still does that thing like [inaudible 01:04:29] you’re calling somebody. You call somebody the same way you phone them, which is strange. Are you ringing your parents if you’re ringing them on their mobile phones?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, yes, still ringing my parents. I would still say that, yes.

**John August:**
Now you’ve written for both the UK and for American audiences. Do you change anything in your actual writing if you know it’s going to Warner Brothers rather than to the BBC?

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, and will use U.S. spellings. Now I say I do that. I have an assistant called Mariella who is rather brilliant and does that and makes sure that I make sense in another country.

**Craig Mazin:**
I had the opposite experience. Jane Featherstone, who is a very small person, and yet a giant person in-

**Jack Thorne:**
She is.

**Craig Mazin:**
… British person, she was rather insistent, and I think reasonably so, that as we were a European production on Chernobyl that I ought to use English things like torch instead of flashlight. You wouldn’t go into the hospital. You would be in hospital. I was trying to think. Color and even spelling, which doesn’t show up on screen, but color and favor with a U.

**Jack Thorne:**
Honor.

**Craig Mazin:**
Honor, which is actually fun to do. Then there were certain things too like firemen. We have firemen, and you guys have fire brigade.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:05:55].

**Jack Thorne:**
We have firemen, but if they’re a collective then they’re a fire brigade.

**Craig Mazin:**
You call the fire brigade. There’s a line in Chernobyl where he’s like, “There’s a fire,” and he goes, “Call the fire brigade,” but originally he said, “Call the fire department,” because that’s what we call it, the fire department. She’s like, “No one calls that here.” That was it. When Jane tells you to do something, you do it.

**Jack Thorne:**
Jane is always right.

**Craig Mazin:**
Yep.

**John August:**
Growing up, sometime in about fourth grade or something I recognized that British people put the U’s in the words, and I was just obsessed with putting the U’s in the words. I’d put U’s in words that they couldn’t possibly exist. I would try to do it. All my school essays I would do it. Sometimes I’d get flagged for it, sometimes I wouldn’t. I’m wondering if it was just an early case of cultural appropriation. I just desperately wanted to not be this Colorado kid. I wanted to be this international student. Craig, did you ever do the U’s in your words?

**Craig Mazin:**
No, but I think that the cultural appropriation was taking the language and bringing it here. That’s cultural reappropriation. I never did that. That would probably get you beaten up on Staten Island, John. I got to be honest with you. That, by the way, the other thing that sometimes, we mentioned fanny pack earlier, so in America fanny is your butt, and a fanny pack is that silly pouch that travelers wear with the belt that goes around their butt and they put their money in it. In England fanny is cruel slang for vulva, I think would be fair to say. There are certain differences like that.

**John August:**
There’s a word for cigarette that we don’t use here.

**Jack Thorne:**
Do you know what we call a fanny pack?

**Craig Mazin:**
You call it a bum bag.

**Jack Thorne:**
A bum bag, yeah.

**Craig Mazin:**
Now if you say bum bag in the U.S., people will assume that that’s something that involves a hobo. It is entirely different. Also I’ve noticed in England the C word, which is quite a verboten term here, is tossed around like it’s nothing over there.

**John August:**
It becomes really challenging, because you’re not sure whether that person, a British person’s using it in a sexually offensive way, in a way that it’s going to cause a lawsuit, or if they’re just speaking their language.

**Craig Mazin:**
I think they’re speaking their language.

**Jack Thorne:**
Try being in a rehearsal full of 50 people and just using it as part of your sentences, because that’s who you are, and then just looking at their faces as they stare back at you in literal sheer horror.

**Craig Mazin:**
I actually had the reverse experience where spending so much time in Europe with Brits and then coming back to the U.S. and people like, “I’m sorry, what?” I’m like, “Oh, right, sorry. I’m not [crosstalk 01:08:33]-”

**John August:**
“You can’t say that.”

**Craig Mazin:**
“… anymore. It doesn’t work that way anymore.” We do speak a common language, but there are these fascinating. Really it’s the structural differences that get me, the things like called and named and in hospital. He’s in hospital.

**John August:**
I would say as a screenwriter, when I’m working on a production that’s going to be shooting in the UK, I’m not sticking U’s in my words where they don’t need to be there, but I am mindful if there’s a thing that’s going to translate wrong or feel different in the other place or if I can just get away from that problem. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is an example of we wanted the movie to feel like it didn’t exist either in the U.S. or the UK. The cars drive down the middle of the road. The bill he picks up out of the street is not a British pound or American dollar. We’re deliberately in no place. That’s great, but then everyone speaks with a British accent, so I guess we are still in the UK.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s how that works.

**Jack Thorne:**
I love that film, and it felt very British to me. Even if it wasn’t intended to be, it felt like that to me.

**Craig Mazin:**
One of the other challenges that screenwriters face, and I think we maybe talked about this on the show before, is in the U.S. we use eight and a half by 11 paper. In the UK we use A4. They’re so close to being the same, but they’re not the same.

**Craig Mazin:**
It’s outrageous.

**John August:**
A4 paper always looks wrong to me. Mathematically it makes so much more sense.

**Craig Mazin:**
Of course.

**John August:**
It’s such a smarter design for paper.

**Craig Mazin:**
As is the metric system.

**John August:**
100%.

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s the nice thing about England is you guys straddle the metric system and the imperial system, which I like. You haven’t quite let it go, which is good.

**Jack Thorne:**
I think we firmly believe in the imperial system.

**Craig Mazin:**
You believe in the imperial system unless it comes down to things like liters of petrol, litres of petrol.

**Jack Thorne:**
Yes, we do, but you can also see gallons. There’s a separate measure for gallons.

**Craig Mazin:**
Very good. Wow. This plus the blue passports, England is back.

**John August:**
Now on a practical matter, if you were working on something like you’re working on His Dark Materials, which was a complicated production. There were American companies involved. There were probably British companies involved as well. Were your scripts done on A4? Were they done on eight and a half by eleven? Did you just make a choice early on and just live with it?

**Jack Thorne:**
I didn’t even think about it. I just opened final draft and just used whatever format. I guess other people might’ve changed it, but I don’t think so. Those sorts of questions, I think our industry’s a lot more haphazard than yours. We don’t really ever deal with them. No one complains. I guess I just kept doing it the same way that I was doing it.

**John August:**
I ran into it on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We were using A4 paper, and the Warner Brothers script department, which is a whole notorious thing, we could talk about a whole rant about the Warner Brothers script department, would send it back to us in not A4 paper, and so the scripts would be longer and we’d get all these concerns about budget. It’s because you put it on different paper. It’s the exact same script.

**Craig Mazin:**
Oh wow.

**John August:**
Drives me crazy.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
A4.

**Craig Mazin:**
A4.

**John August:**
[crosstalk 01:11:24].

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m so sorry.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne-

**Craig Mazin:**
That’s Britain.

**John August:**
Again, don’t apologize for everything. Far too much.

**Jack Thorne:**
I’m afraid my country, the imperial system and everything else that comes out of my country, gets away with the fact that we are probably responsible for more evil than any other country in the world.

**Craig Mazin:**
Certainly A4 is just maybe the worst thing that Britain ever did, A4, top of the heap, followed by the slavery and colonization.

**John August:**
Jack Thorne, thanks so much.

**Jack Thorne:**
Thank you so much.

**Craig Mazin:**
Thank you, Jack.

Links:

* [Jack Thorne’s MacTaggart Lecture](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxUZPMBRIPU)
* [Jack Thorne Launches Underlying Health Conditions Pressure Group, Publishes Major Report Into Disabled Representation in TV Industry](https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/jack-thorne-underlying-health-conditions-1235125435/)
* [1 in 4 Coalition](https://www.1in4coalition.org/)
* [Ashley Nicole Black and Francesca Ramsey Twitter Thread](https://twitter.com/ashleyn1cole/status/1460703224285908993?s=20)
* [Santa Claus: The Movie](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089961/) a celebratory portrayal of Father Christmas
* [Wikipedia List of Misconceptions](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions?wprov=wppw1)
* [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/)
* [Jack Thorne](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2113666/) on IMDb
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Nico Mansy ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by [Megana Rao](https://twitter.com/MeganaRao) and edited by [Matthew Chilelli](https://twitter.com/machelli).

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/530standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 528: M is for Minimum, Transcript

January 5, 2022 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/m-is-for-minimum).

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

**Craig:**
My name Craig Mazin.

**John:**
And this is episode 528 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show with animation writers fighting to get paid what live action writers get, we’ll look at what minimums and backend really mean, but it’s also a craft episode. We’ll talk about the kind of movie, where the hero is actively trying to find themselves and is the waste paper basket the writer’s most important tool? Plus, in our bonus segment for premium members, is movie dialogue actually harder to understand these days? Craig has opinions.

**Craig:**
Amazing. Absolutely [inaudible 00:00:36].

**John:**
A taste of what’s to come for our premium members. Craig, it’s nice to be back recording with you. It’s been a minute here.

**Craig:**
Yeah. A little bit up and down over here, as we make our way through this insanely large production, still here in Canada, although we’re catching a little bit of a break now, as we head into the holidays. I get to come home for a little bit, looking outside at beautiful Calgary, it is a lovely dusting of snow. Apparently La Nina and El Nino have joined hands to make Il Nino and something enormous is coming apparently. Apparently it’s going to be snowpocalypse up here, which is okay for us. We’ve got an episode, where we need a little bit of snow.

**John:**
Oh, it’ll be great.

**Craig:**
Yeah.

**John:**
Yeah, little bit of snow’s also good for skiing. I would love some more snow for that.

**Craig:**
Yeah. I’m not going to do that.

**John:**
Yeah. I’m going to do that, but while you were gone, we replayed the Die Hard episode. This was a special episode we’d done for premium members. We put it in the main feed and I added in a bonus segment for our premium members, where we talked with Steven E. de Souza about the writing of Die Hard, which is so exciting. We did some follow up on that. Megana, can you help us out with a follow up?

**Megana:**
Great. Jeb writes, “You did a great job in the Die Hard episode, highlighting the various Reagan era elements of the film, bumbling experts, idiotic feds, awful Europeans, et cetera, but one of the key elements in the story, is the fact that Holly works for a Japanese firm. As you of course remember, the 80s featured a fascination with Japanese culture, highlighted perhaps best in Karate Kid, but also fear related to the perceived decline of the US, in relation to Japan. Japanese companies excelling in the auto industry, electronics, and even US real estate. Movies like Gung Ho, highlighted those tensions for comedic gain, but that anxiety was real. Anti-Asian hate crimes were rampant in the era and the fact that Holly is working for a Japanese company, building its own towering foothold on American soil, is just one more thorn in all American John McClane’s side. The fact that he prevails and saves the American employees, is a not too subtle message.”

**John:**
That’s a good point. Let’s talk about that [crosstalk 00:02:45].

**Craig:**
[crosstalk 00:02:45] Jeb.

**John:**
Okay. I would say that a person looking at the movie now, who didn’t grow up in the 80s might not realize the degree to which there was this sense that, “Oh, Japan’s going to take over the world,” because they didn’t. Spoiler and it is interesting, because I do sense that at the start of the movie, the fact that this Japanese company is made a little bit more of a thing, but I like that the movie doesn’t feel racist towards the Japanese owners and the Japanese owners are good people and solid.

**Craig:**
Yeah. That’s where I’ll push back a little bit on Jeb. I do agree that of course his pretext is correct. There was a very famous memo written by the head of Sony, that was circulated around American businesses in the 80s, as a warning that they were going to beat us, but also why aren’t we like this? It wasn’t simply a Japan-a-phobia, it was also Japan-a-phelia. There was an admiration and a desire to raise our standards to theirs. They were doing it better than we were. The Nakatomi building is in a not-80s-way, It’s not played for racism jokes. Nobody makes fun of the Japanese culture. The boss is portrayed as an honorable, decent man, whereas the American employee is the cokehead snake. The fact that John McClane saves the day, that’s not I don’t think, a particularly trenchant point about America versus Japan as just, he’s the movie star, he’s the action hero that came to save the day. If anything to me, the fact that it was a Japanese company, which by the way, disappears in terms of importance almost immediately. It’s just not really a thing, I would say reflects nothing more than what was in vogue at the time, which was, yeah and we should make it a Japanese company, because that feels like an 80s thing right now.

**John:**
I would say that the Japanese company helps set up McClane’s initial fear of losing his wife, because not only has his wife moved to the other side of the country, but she’s really working for a Japanese company and will probably end up moving to Japan at some point. I think I remember that. It said that she may actually need to move to Tokyo at some point and the sense of losing all of the stuff that he’s had, to this company is real and yet that’s not the meat of the film at all. It’s misdirected.

**Craig:**
No. There is a really interesting episode, that I think we could do and we’d want to bring in some friends to discuss I would imagine, about the movie Gung Ho, which Jeb cites here, which is a fascinating 80s attempt, I would call it, an 80s attempt by white people, to make an anti-racism movie and spoiler alert, it doesn’t go great, but it also weirdly wears its goofy heart on its sleeve.

**John:**
I’m trying to remember the premise. Is this Michael Keaton or is this Tom Hanks?

**Craig:**
It’s Michael Keaton, although it could have been Tom Hanks and more importantly, it’s Ron Howard. It’s this kind of very… Ron Howard to me, always represents the sweetest, most innocent American point of view, which doesn’t always mean it’s enlightened, it just means it’s not coming at something out of anger or disgust or contempt, but yeah, Ron Howard directed this movie. Starred Michael Keaton and it was about a Japanese company purchasing an American company and it was a car company, changing the way the auto factory worked and how it suddenly became a culture clash and it was Gedde Watanabe and George Wendt and Michael Keaton and very much white savior stuff, but also weirdly at times, beautifully human. You could see, it was actually a little bit ahead of its time. The problem was the time was really behind where we are now. It was ahead of its time and yet behind where we are now, it’s a fascinating thing to look at and I think maybe one day we can dive in. It won’t necessarily be the most comfortable, deep dive we do, but worth examining.

**John:**
Yeah. Now if we were to make Die Hard today, that Die Hard never existed, but it was just being made today. It would not be a Japanese company. It’d be a Korean company, who inevitably was building that building, which brings us to squid game, not squid games, but we have some follow up on that. Megana can talk to us about what Eliza sent.

**Megana:**
Eliza says, “As an avid Korean-American listener, I want to clarify why the show’s English title is Squid Game singular and not Squid Games, as in the Olympic Games or Hunger Games. The last game in the series of childhood games, is The Squid Game. If the last game had been hopscotch, then perhaps the title would’ve been Hopscotch. If one is unfamiliar with the Squid Game as are most English speakers, there’s a desire to encapsulate the entire experience with an umbrella term. However, you can see it wouldn’t make sense to title it Hopscotches, had the last game been different. Squid Game sounds awkward to a Korean speaker and only sounds right to an English speaker. Furthermore, Korean doesn’t have a plural indicator like the S in English. A single rock is Dol, just as a fist of rocks is Dol. The rest of the sentence communicates the nature of the rock, as it relates to its surroundings and condition.”

**Craig:**
Well, Eliza, thank you for that. We love language here, obviously. I think the thing that I was perhaps primarily ignorant of, wasn’t the fact that plurals work differently in Korean, as much as that, apparently there are more than one game that occurs in Squid Game and Squid Game was the last of those games. I just thought the whole thing was just all Squid Game, because I still haven’t seen it. That said, this interested me. What really grabbed me on this single rock is Dol, a fist full of rocks is Dol and I checked with our intrepid Bo Shim over here, because what I was curious about was the Olympic Games, because Eliza mentions the Olympic Games and Korea has hosted the Olympic Games and I asked her in Korean, what do people call the Olympic Games? And she said, that in Korean people simply call them Olympic like, “We’re hosting the Olympic,” and of course this confirms what Eliza’s saying, but now what I want to do, is not say Squid Games or a Squid Game. I just want to call the show, Squid.

**John:**
Reduce everything down to it’s single elemental route, that the fundamental thing that everything ventures out from. Yes.

**Craig:**
I have not yet seen Squid.

**John:**
Not a bit of it. More follow up on our Thanksgiving movies. Lars from Cologne writes, “I finally got around listening to episode 522 and would like to suggest that another reason Thanksgiving movies are not as common as Christmas movies, could be, that Thanksgiving is an American tradition, which would make it tough overseas. That’s also why they’re often sold as road movies, as John pointed out. The event is really just an excuse to get some people who don’t see each other often, but have a lot of history and unresolved issues, to sit down at a table and fight them out. Yes, I think the universality of Thanksgiving is not in it’s favor for a movie.”

**Craig:**
A little bit of editorializing there from Lars, from Cologne. Sometimes Lars, I know this is hard to believe, people just sit down and have a good time. Typically that’s what we do on Thanksgiving, but yes, it’s true, Thanksgiving is solely American, although Christmas is not particularly universal. I think more people than not, in fact, I know that more people do not celebrate Christmas than do, but also a Thanksgiving movie could be very cheap proposition to make. Yeah. I think honestly we figured it out last time, but thank you Lars for the help. Just there’s no narrative built into it. It’s a meal, that’s it. It’s a meal.

**John:**
Yeah. Now back to Christmas though, two years ago, I celebrated Christmas in Korea. This is going to be the Korean episode. It’s really what I’m getting back to you. It’s all going to be about Korea, this whole entire episode and it was delightful to celebrate Christmas in Korea and they really did a number there. They really celebrated it big.

**Craig:**
Yes. Christianity is very big in Korea. Although, I would imagine it is not at this point, quite as big as Squid.

**John:**
Nothing is as big as Squid.

**Craig:**
I do love there’s a… It’s not Squid, it’s Cuttlefish, but there’s this dried Cuttlefish, Korean snack called Ojingeochae. It’s like-

**John:**
It’s [crosstalk 00:11:04] get that for you and then you actually mark in the bag, how much of the Cuttlefish each of you has eaten?

**Craig:**
No, that would be insane.

**John:**
Yeah. No, nothing like the ketchup doritos?

**Craig:**
No, no, no, no. Here’s the deal. The ketchup Doritos and I’m going to say it again. Something happened and I don’t even want to get into it, but something went wrong there and it’s-

**John:**
And now you don’t like them?

**Craig:**
No, I love them, but it’s driven a wedge between me and Bo. No, I started eating that all the way back in 1992, because I was living with my friend, who’s a Korean American named Chin and he introduced it to me. It’s almost squid jerky, is what it is, but it’s actually, you would think, “Oh squid jerky, this right off the bat didn’t sound great.” It’s delicious. Delicious.

**John:**
Yeah. All right. Another piece. This could be umberage inducing, but let’s see how this goes here. Our podcast that you’re listening to right now, is called Scriptnotes. There’s a feature in final draft called Scriptnotes, which is how you leave little notes for things and several people pointed out this week that they’ve started putting a TM after Scriptnotes. A trademark symbol. I did what a person does and I looked at the trademark registry. They used to have a trademark on it, but they let the trademark lapse in 2018.

**Craig:**
Well, why don’t we trademark it?

**John:**
We could try to trademark it.

**Craig:**
I think we should. Let’s trademark it and then let’s sue them.

**John:**
Here’s what I know about trademarks, because I actually had to get a trademark on this other game that we were doing at one point and trademarks exist in certain spaces. It’s entirely possible they could get their trademark for this feature in a software program, called Scriptnotes and we could get our trademark in the podcast called Scriptnotes, but honestly let’s just stop fighting over a trademark and just not-

**Craig:**
Well, the good news is we haven’t started fighting over the trademark. I think we can just stay right here where we are. Obviously they could have said something about it, prior to the abandonment in 2018, but they didn’t, probably because the thing that you’re worried about when you get a trademark, I have a trademark for instance, for my production company Word Games, is that what I don’t want, is another company that does what I do, calling themselves Word Games and then the question is, “Oh, well who made this?” And without question Final Draft the company, could have said there is a marketplace confusion, if we have Scriptnotes as part of our script running software and these other guys are doing a podcast about screenwriting, people might be confused and think that they represent us, but I have a suspicion that they were happy about that.

**John:**
Yeah. One of the challenges when you have a trademark, is you have to protect and defend your trademarks. You have to look for people who are infringing on it and you have to send them letters saying, “Hey, don’t infringe on our trademark.” I sent actually, a very nice email to Final Draft, reminding them that they don’t actually have the trademark on Scriptnotes. We’ll see if they take the little TMs off their videos and such.

**Craig:**
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Look Final Draft, we keep it on a simmer with you guys. Don’t wake the dragon.

**John:**
All right. Back to Korea news. When the agency campaigned, the WGA agency brujaja was settled, one of the points in that, was that the companies who own production entities had to sell down to a 20% stake, basically were limited to a 20% stake. This past week it was announced that Endeavor is selling its content side to CJ Entertainment, which is a Korean firm. I think I may have even predicted that on the show, that that’d be who would buy out this entity, because it makes a lot of sense, because this is a Korean company who wants to do more American production, who has a lot of experience, has a lot of money. It seems like the right outcome for both sides.

**Craig:**
Yeah and yeah, the company’s worth quite a bit of money there. You never know with these things. It’s a little bit like when they make sports deals and then you find out later, “Oh, well it’s not really that much money and the other team paid for half of the money, that they said that they got,” in any case who knows, but it’s impressive regardless either way and yeah, CJ Entertainment’s a real deal.

**John:**
They did Parasite, they did Big Fish in Korea. They’ve done lots of… There’s just two examples of high quality things they’ve done. They are the equivalent of Sony Entertainment for Korea. They are a big production house.

**Craig:**
This is an interesting development. I’m watching it and yeah listen, every time a new company comes into Hollywood, I think there is a reasonable, people get a little bit excited, because they think new buyer-ish person or somebody that will perhaps get and sometimes that’s true. More often than not, the new companies are worse than the old companies and I don’t know exactly what the relationship is with CJ Entertainment and say unions and you always have to wonder, how this is going to go, but as far as I’m concerned, it can’t be worse than Silicon Valley and their attitude towards unions. Let’s see how it goes.

**John:**
All right. Megana, do you want to talk to us more about some bullshitting?

**Craig:**
Ooh.

**Megana:**
Great. Brandon wrote in and said, “The discussion on bullshitting for writers was quite illuminating for me. I feel like there’s this proverbial wisdom out there, that you should fake it till you make it, but the saying has always felt a little toxic to me. Is it really okay to say I’m a writer, if I’m not making a living as a writer or should I be honest and tell people my day job, when they ask me what I do? When meeting someone new in the industry, the question of what do you do, is almost inevitable. Any guidance on how to navigate or bullshit a response to this question, would be greatly appreciated.

**John:**
Craig. I think it is fine to identify yourself as a writer, who is not making a living as a writer. What do you do? “I’m a writer, in the meantime I’m working a day job at someplace,” is absolutely fine and valid to say. I think, especially when you’re newly moved here, speaking aspirationally is good and normal and appropriate, but how are you feeling about that?

**Craig:**
How will I put it? I understand Brandon’s squirminess about this. I would say Brandon, that the saying fake it till you make it, isn’t really, at least for me, it’s never about just straight up lying about stuff that you wish were true, because that’s delusional and that’s dishonest and misleading. I think fake it till you make it is more about, “Hey, I believe I have the capability of doing something intellectually. Right now, I’m terrified. Let me just behave like I’m not terrified and then I won’t be scared, once I get into it.” In terms of describing yourself, if you’re not making a living as a writer, it’s a little weird to stick the word aspiring on, because that sounds weird. What I would say, is I’m working on a screenplay. I think this is perfectly fine. Say, I’m working on a screenplay. I have a day job, but I’m working on a screenplay. It’s going really well. I’ve got some interest from X, Y, or Z. If you have no interest from X, Y, or Z and it’s just, you’re writing a screenplay at night while you’re working during the day, then no, I wouldn’t say I’m a writer, because that’s not really true. I am a writer, does implies certain things and the reason I’m saying don’t say that, is not because I’m feeling like there should be forced humility, it’s more that I’m just concerned about the follow up questions you’re going to get. What are you working on? Who do you work with? And then you’re stuck. I’ll tell you the question I always get. If somebody doesn’t know who I am and they say, what do you do? And I say, I’m a writer. I work in television and movies and the next immediate question, is: what have I seen? Every single god damned time. Have I seen anything of yours? Since all those questions are going to be forthcoming, you might want to just make it more about the process itself. I’m working on a blank.

**John:**
Yeah. I think the “ing” forms are really helpful here. To say that you’re writing is great. When you say that you are a writer, then you’re going to get the follow up question, “Oh, what have you gotten made?” Or if you say, I’m a novelist, it’s like, “Okay, well, where’s your book?” But if you say, I’m writing a book for this or I’m working on stuff. That is true and honest and also basically where you’re at in the process.

**Craig:**
Correct. Totally.

**John:**
Yeah. A bit of news and follow up here. Last year, as we came through the contract negotiations, we added paid parental leave to the deal for writers. For the first time, writers who have new kids have, I think it’s eight weeks of paid parental leave. Effective January 1st, 2022, the health fund will offer coverage for infertility treatment, for those who have a medical diagnosis of infertility, available to all participants with active coverage for them and their spousal dependence, with a lifetime cap of $30,000 with no deductibles or copays.

**Craig:**
No deductibles or copays. Lifetime cap of $30,000. Oftentimes it does cost more than $30,000 and of course, if you want to have more than one child, then you’re going to need that infertility treatment coverage later, you then will have to probably dip into your pocket, but let’s not underplay the fact that, that’s a big amount of money that you used to have to pay for entirely by yourself and while my wife and I, very luckily did not have any infertility issues. I think we’re the exception of so many.

**John:**
My husband and I had infertility issues.

**Craig:**
Well yes. Right there is a big one. John, you guys aren’t having another kid, I would imagine?

**John:**
You know what, with this $30,000 bonus, maybe so. I’m just saying-

**Craig:**
Maybe you and I should have a kid, because if you think about it, who’s going to inherit this podcast one day?

**John:**
Yeah. We’re experienced parents at this point. We really know what we’re doing. Yeah. I have a kid who’s going to be heading off to college in 16 months. The thought of having a brand new child, while I love babies, I think we’ve established on this podcast, I absolutely love babies.

**Craig:**
Love them.

**John:**
Love them.

**Craig:**
Love babies.

**John:**
But I don’t want to have another four year old, for example, or another 10 year old.

**Craig:**
No, no, no. At all. This is great news and I think I always, in these moments, want to tip my hat obviously, to the Writers Guild for, we represent half of the trustees on the health fund and they’re the ones who make these decisions. We don’t actually negotiate these in contracts. This is something that has to be worked out between our trustees and their trustees, but I also tip my hat to the companies, because they have half the trustees too and this doesn’t happen unless the companies agree and there are certain areas where I think everybody starts to find their collective humanity and their shared experiences and there are people on both sides, management and labor, who know the pain of wanting to have a child and struggling and this is a fantastic thing and I tip my hat both to the Writer’s Guild and the companies.

**John:**
Yeah and it’s also important to note the distinction between, there was no more money added to the pot for this. Basically, it’s reprioritizing how you’re spending the money that’s in the pot and that you’re going to start covering fertility treatment, as opposed to paid parental leave, which was part of the contract, because it’s additional money being put in there, to actually pay for that fund. That’s the difference there. That’s why that was a contract thing and this was just a decision made by the folks who run the fund.

**Craig:**
What they cover and what they don’t cover medically, is always going to be part of their decision and they do run the numbers and they generally do have to balance the budget. I hope that they did that by removing nonsense alternative treatments, that don’t do a goddamned thing.

**John:**
Yeah, I imagine so. That’d be great. All right. I was going to lead us into this Netflix topic by talking about Netflix numbers, but I feel like I’ve talked about Netflix numbers so, so much, that I’m just tired of talking about Netflix numbers.

**Craig:**
John, your discussion of Netflix numbers is the most listened to discussion, ever in Scriptnotes history.

**John:**
I would like to congratulate my friends, Rawson Thurber and Ryan Reynolds for the number one movie of all time on Netflix. It’s fantastic. It’s great. Wonderful. I’m so happy that it’s happened. I hope that you guys get the equivalent of backend off that. I hope for every time they send out a press release about how much money or how many viewers it’s had, you get a ca-ching. That would be fantastic. They won’t, but let’s get into how money works and how backends work, because this past week, a bunch of things showed up on my feed and a lot of questions showed up in my feed, about writers getting paid and backends and residuals. I think it’s because animation writers right now are going through negotiations about increasing their pay, because animation writers are generally not covered by the WGA, covered by the Animation Guild and people had natural questions about backends and profits and scales and minimums. I wanted to have a little segment here to talk about the difference between minimums, which is something that’s being handled by the Guild contract and what writers actually bring in, which is handled by their own contracts. We have a lot of terms to define here, but hopefully we can make sense of where money comes from and how it gets to writers.

**Craig:**
Yeah, totally normal thing to happen when you’re looking at one group of writers, like animation writers, who aren’t doing as well as Writers Guild writers and what will happen is, people will point towards Writers Guild writers and say, “Here’s what their experience is. Here’s how they’re treated. Here’s what they get,” and some of the things that they’re pointing to, are things that the Writers Guild has not gotten them at all and more interestingly then by implication, they don’t need the Animation Guild to get them either because we are, the term is an overscale employment base, at least certainly in features and in television, where the overscale occurs most notably, is in the double job description, writer/producer. A lot of things happen under the heading of producer and the Writer’s Guild doesn’t touch or affect any of those.

**John:**
Yeah and it’s especially complicated in TV, because the number of weeks that count against gets wild, but let’s start with some really basic things we can talk through. I want to discuss the difference between the contract, which is the big contract that’s being negotiated every three years, versus individual writer contracts. I want to talk about when writers get scale and when they don’t, profit participation and residuals and the idea of CPI and increases. Basically, how much things ramp up over the years, because that also gets confusing. Craig, can you talk to me about the difference between the contract and what’s in the contract, versus what’s in an individual writer’s contract?

**Craig:**
Sure. For the Writer’s Guild and this holds true as well for Animation Guild, the collective bargaining agreement is also known as a Minimum Basic Agreement. Minimum Basic Agreement, simply means nobody that is in our union can do worse than this. That’s what it is. They could also call it the worst case scenario document.

**John:**
It’s the floor.

**Craig:**
It’s the floor. Now our individual contracts by design, already incorporate everything that’s in that contract. There’s a clause in our individual contracts that say, under no circumstances can anything in this contract be construed as doing something worse than, the terms of the Minimum Basic Agreement. However, obviously in our individual contracts then, there are lots of things that our lawyers, managers, or agents, well, not managers legally, but our lawyers or agents can get us, that are better. A lot of those things are almost boiler plate at this point, because everybody gets them. Some of them have to do with you and your individual status and work history and perceived value to the company, but most contracts I would argue, have at least some aspects that are better than the Minimum Basic Agreement that the Writer’s Guild or the Animation Guild provides.

**John:**
Back in episode 407, we talked through understanding your writing contract and it was you and me at the Guild, along with some Guild lawyers and we literally walked through what an individual writer’s contract looks like and some of the things that are in there, are essential about this is how much you’re getting paid for your first draft, for your rewrite. These are the optional steps, the guaranteed steps, but also carried in there is, this is your net profit definition and this is what your backend looks like and you laugh now, but we laugh every time, because movies are designed to never actually achieve net profits. Only a handful of movies each year, each decade, could be considered net profits. Something like a Blair Witch Project is so successful, that there’s just no way to hide the money that’s coming in there, but they achieve this process for never actually becoming profitable, by continually siphening out for the money that’s coming in and charging fees against things. You could never actually hit those profits. Those things are still in your contract, but they’re not actually meaningful. The confusion I saw from people on Twitter is, “Oh, that means they writers don’t get anything for the movies, they make,” and it’s, “No, we get residuals and residuals don’t have anything to do with profitability,” and I think that’s an important thing to distinguish. Craig, can you talk to us about residuals and how residuals get calculated in a broad sense?

**Craig:**
Residuals are calculated on a gross basis and a number of people in this discussion on Twitter, were saying that residuals needed to happen for the Animation Guild, so that they could participate in the profit of things and then some people said, “Well, the problem with the Writer’s Guild, is the residuals are only there for profits and nothing ever shows profits and they should really be based on the gross,” and the answer is, they are. That’s exactly what they are. Residuals have nothing to do with the profitability of a movie. They have everything to do with how much the movie grosses and by grosses, we mean the amount of money that comes into the studio, regardless of expenses. Now, the residuals are defined in such a way, that the only part of the money coming in that matters, is for movies, not the ticket sales and not exhibition on airplanes, but all the other stuff afterwards. The now dead videotape and DVD market, but online rentals, online sales, the sale of the movie to streamers and cable outlets and networks overseas, all that gross comes in and then there is a formula that is applied to it. Is it a great formula? No, but it’s formula and it generates money.

**John:**
And it’s important to stress that, that formula and the recalculation of that formula, happens every three years in the contract, the MBA and that, that is where the residuals are calculated. Your individual contract might have something like hand waving towards residuals, but that’s not where your residuals are coming from. Your residuals are coming from this Minimum Basic Agreement, that applies to all film and all television that’s done underneath a WGA contract, which is good, which is how you want it and it also means that there can be consistent accounting for it and the WGA can actually collect that money on your behalf.

**Craig:**
Which is why your agents, managers, or lawyers, should never commission that money and if they are, ask them to please stop, because they didn’t negotiate that term, the Writer’s Guild did and while it is true that, I guess I would characterize it as every three years, we have the opportunity to adjust those formulae, when in reality they’re adjusted almost never. Once they’re there, they’re there for a long time.

**John:**
They largely get baked in and the things that, when you get news about what changed in the contract, it could be the thresholds for certain things may have changed a bit, but the actual percentages rarely change or what counts rarely changes. Only when there’s a brand new thing that you have to figure out, how are we going to treat this new thing that’s existing, do you sign a brand new residual and as we said many times on the show, figuring out how we’re going to handle residuals for movies that are made for a streamer and only show on a streamer, a movie like Red Notice is complicated, because if that movie was made by a studio and then sold to a Netflix, the residual will be based on what that sale price was to Netflix, but because there’s no sale price, it’s tougher to figure out what the residual is and it’s going to be a big focus in negotiations.

**Craig:**
It will always be lower. Until something changes, the way that Netflix does things in general, works very much in their favor, surprise, because there isn’t much of an independent and this does tie back to Netflix. You have an article here that you linked to, we’ll throw it into the show notes, from Variety about Netflix’s data expansion being a flex, which is a very nice way of saying the thing that you and I have been saying for a long time.

**Craig:**
Which is, that Netflix just continually manipulates data to make it sound like everyone is watching Netflix every minute of the day and every new thing that comes out, is the biggest thing that Netflix has ever done, because just the data is a big, huge hailing storm of hot air and what’s bizarre is, a lot of people do watch Netflix. It’s incredibly popular. I don’t know why they need to do that, other than to say that they have a total black box control over who watches what and when they report it, meaning how many people have seen this and similarly therefore, how they deal with residuals, which usually is some large buyout, works in their favor, almost always.

**John:**
Yeah. Now, here we’re talking about the back end of what’s happened and everything. The movies come out, but let’s talk about initial compensation, which is also crucial here and one of the things I’ve noticed with the animation writers talking about, is their initial compensation is just dramatically lower than equivalent conversation would be for a live action writer, a WGA writer. They’re trying to raise that initial compensation. This is something that we’re really talking about scale. We’re talking about, this is the minimum that you could be paid to do this job, to write this script, to be working on this show and that’s where we’re trying to increase here. Now again, we’ve got to stress, that is the minimum they can pay you, but certainly for future writers, you want to be working above scale and your goal is to get above scale as quickly and as thoroughly as you can, so you’re not being stuck at the absolute minimum they can pay you for things.

**Craig:**
There are two limits that impact how people are paid in general. One is the floor, which is obviously as you mentioned, something the union sets and the other is whatever the perceived ceiling is. That may be the biggest difference, because there is a difference between the floor, but it is not a massive difference. The massive Delta is in the ceiling, where the most highly paid writers in live action are paid vastly more than the most highly paid writers in animation and I’m talking about with the exception of maybe some Pixar features and things like that, but when we talk about television, when we talk about animation writers for television animation, not WGA television animation, the ceiling is just nowhere near what the ceiling is on the live action side. That is where you can start pulling people up a bit.

**John:**
Also, we should make sure the ceiling is not defined. You’re not going to find some contract that says, this is the most we’ll ever pay. They just have this internal thing. The company will say, “We never pay more than this,” and I’ve been through this in my own experiences. You probably have been too. It’s, this is the most we’ve ever paid for this. This is the most we’re willing to pay. We don’t go above this line.” [crosstalk 00:34:24]

**Craig:**
It’s the market price and that line, they will go over that line. It’s just not today, but that line is a market line and every now and then something seismic occurs and that line changes, because somebody gets paid a whole crazy amount, because somebody really, really wanted that person. That part can change. The issue with more than anything in animation writing, non WGA animation writing, is that they haven’t yet zeroed in on those people, that are worth an enormous amount. That starts to change, because at that point, instead of a factory floor, you have a factory ladder. For animation writers, they have a double problem. The Animation Guild does have low minimums. They don’t have residuals, they don’t have credit protections and in the marketplace, that group of animation writers doesn’t have a cadre of extremely high paid people, that are setting a progression for everybody else.

**John:**
Now, there have been notable animation showrunners who have made fantastic deals at places and that’s awesome for them and they can hopefully use some of that power to get writers paid more, but that’s the exception rather than rule. There are very few big animation showrunners, who could pull that off and it’s not like live action TV showrunners, who do get those 10 figure deals.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Pretty much everyone that’s running a show on television, is getting paid pretty darn well, when I talk about live action. Some people are being paid numbers that require extra digits. You have deals that are approaching a billion dollars at this point. It’s insane, but certainly a number of people being paid in the hundreds of millions of dollars and I don’t think that is happening at all in non WGA televised animation and in the cases sometimes where it is, I think you are dealing largely with the production entity. It’s just a different culture and what it comes down to is and this is where I feel for the people who run the Animation Guild, because they are trying. I have talked to a couple of them over the years and I know, they know and they’re not delusional. They’re not sitting there going, “No, our numbers are great.” They know and what they’re dealing with is a cultural problem that the industry does not value the animation writers, the way that the industry values the Writers Guild writers and that is a cultural problem that also needs to be attacked and in that circumstance, the partners they need unfortunately at the Animation Guild, are the agencies because agencies do this too. They look and see, “Well okay, those people are being paid that, so let’s not really concentrate on that, because 10% of that isn’t that much,” but they can drive that up too. They’re the ones who push the market around.

**John:**
Now, you hit on this early in the discussion, but it’s important to note that in television, someone who’s staffed on a TV show, they’re going to get paid a certain amount for their writing services, but also as a producer. As a staff writer, as a story editor, as a consulting producer, they’re getting a separate paycheck, that’s covering their producing services for a show and their writing services will tend to be listed at scale, but everything else about their producing services, is a part of their individual contract negotiation. It’s important to notice that if you’re a newly staffed writer, you might see in your contract that, “Oh, it looks like I’m being paid scale,” but you also are being paid separately as a producer and that’s just the weird way that we decided to do television, which is frustrating for folks who come from the feature world.

**Craig:**
Yeah. In one aspect, when you do come from the feature world as I did, you look at it and go, “Well, man, I’ve been paying a lot in dues, that these producers and television haven’t been paying at all.” In features, I paid a 1.5% of every dollar I ever made and television, I pay 1.5% of basically minimum, because the companies have used the producer valve, as a way to essentially pay out more, that doesn’t get applied against, for instance, healthcare and pension and the writers who take this money including myself, recognize that there’s less in dues to pay as well and you get more perceived power, because you’re a producer. For the animation writers, I’m not sure that this relief valve is there. I think basically they’re saying, this is scale. That’s what you get and there is nothing else, but there is and part of it is just figuring out how to push that marketplace forward. For me, if I were running the Animation Guild, I’ve got to be honest, I wouldn’t start right today since it’s… Look, they’ve lost over and over and over, okay? It’s quite a losing streak. How do you turn around a losing streak? Maybe you start with something that doesn’t cost money at all, but is about dignity and that would be credits and if you begin to open that door with credits and dignity, then you start to push ahead on how to make something out of those credits, because right now everything seems to be decided by the companies with a reactive position from the Animation Guild, because they don’t have the strength or backing really to get something done. It’s possible that now with the new leadership in IA, which did threaten a strike for the… We almost had an IA strike for the first time in Hollywood history. Maybe they could throw a little muscle behind the Animation Guild, which is part of IATSE. It’s complicated.

**John:**
One of the other challenges with the Animation Guild, is that Writers Guild represents just writers, Animation Guild represents not just animation writers, but also everyone else who works in animation and their interests are similar, because they’re all trying to make great animated projects, but it’s not quite analogous to the WGA, where everyone’s doing the same job.

**Craig:**
Correct and there is a conflict that can occur, because you have story artists who, if you’ve worked in animation you know, they are writing with pictures and they often throw a lot of dialogue in as they’re pitching and there is a blending of how writing functions in animation, that our terms in the Writers Guild don’t really artfully cover and those people have to be taken care of too. I think sometimes part of the problem is, that people who’d have a title and function that is very similar to what we do in the Writers Guild will say, “Wait, they got that and I’m getting this and it’s not fair and also I should be covered by the Writers Guild.” Can we just, once again John, point out that that cannot happen.

**John:**
It cannot happen. Here’s the challenge, is the folks who are represented currently by the Animation Guild, they are represented by a union and the WGA cannot come in and say, “No, no. We are taking these writers out of your unit and putting them into the WGA.” That just cannot happen. That’s just not federal law. That’s just not going to happen. What can happen is on new projects that are not covered by the Animation Guild, they can be covered by the Writers Guild and there’s a push to get more new projects covered by the Writers Guild and I have a show that’s going to be an animated Writer’s Guild project. It is doable. It’s hard to do, but that is the way you are going to get animation writers covered by WGA contract, is by setting up new projects and new places, that do not have already coverage by the Animation Guild. That’s just how it’s going to have to happen.

**Craig:**
New employers is a huge part of it. The problem, is that new employers generally aren’t stupid. They can look and see which one’s going to cost them more and it’s the Writers Guild. That’s definitely going to cost them more.

**John:**
And that’s why there’s a push to get a bunch of animation showrunners to say, “Hey, we will only do new projects at places that can offer WGA contracts,” because there are some folks who are worth it, they’re willing to do a WGA deal at certain places. That’s how I was able to get the one I just did.

**Craig:**
Yeah, years and years and years ago I was hired by Bob Weinstein, to write an animated movie and I said, “I won’t do it if it’s not WGA,” and what they did was, they just made a company.

**John:**
Yeah. They [crosstalk 00:42:39].

**Craig:**
They made a new company and that new company became signatory to the Writers Guild and that new company existed solely to employ me to write this movie and that’s fine, it’s a bunch of paperwork and as you say, it can be done, but if it’s done on an ad hoc basis, because they really want you to write something and they really want me to write something, that is not going to ever really move the needle, because the vast bulk of stuff that’s done, is done at places that are fully married into doing things through the Animation Guild.

**John:**
Yeah, but you get the point of the wedge in there and you can start to make some changes and that’s-

**Craig:**
Tip of the spear.

**John:**
Tip of the Spear. We’ll do it. Around the office this week, we started talking about the kinds of movies where you have the hero, who is undergoing transformation, which is true to all movies hopefully, but where the point of the story, is that the hero is changing and transforming. They’re not going on a quest for something else, but they’re actually struggling to find themselves from the start of the movie and the two things that were making me think about this, this past week, the Kendall Roy character on Succession, especially this season, you see that he’s desperately trying to figure out who he is and he’s trying to organize this publicity and to promote this image of himself. But really, he’s trying to figure out who he actually is. He wants the world to tell him who he is. He wants the press to reflect back what he wants to see and the answer is, you’re an asshole and that’s not a great answer for him to get, but I was also thinking about this article, it’s a letter sent to Blair Braverman, who writes the column for Outside Magazine and it’s about a writer who moved to a cabin off the grid and she figured like, “Oh, here I’ll be able to write every day and it’s going to be great. I have this fantasy version of what my life is like and it was just miserable,” and I wanted to talk about this as a movie construct and also maybe a TV construct as well, but this idea of characters who enter into the story, looking to transform rather than going on a quest, where the transformation happens along the way.

**Craig:**
Yeah. It’s really… Partly what this wonderful essay is talking about, is the over romanticization of writing, which will have another little thing we want to mention about that, but what’s fascinating to me about these movies, is that they aren’t necessarily doing something that any other movie isn’t. In fact, they are necessarily doing something every other movie also necessarily does. Somebody changes, but what I like about movies like this or stories like this on television, is that the character is aware of it. Whereas when they’re not aware, which is probably the majority of the time, we might be aware, but we understand at the end, she is different than she was when she started and in these kinds of stories, the character says, I don’t know who I am or I don’t like who I am. I want to figure out who I’m supposed to be and then they are somebody different at the end and that is simply about a self-awareness. There’s a meta aspect to this character who understands that they need to figure out the nature of themselves, as a protagonist in their own story.

**John:**
Yeah and as we looked at examples of things, The Graduate comes up, where we have a kid at the end of college, who starts trying to figure out who he is and what he wants in life. In Good Company feels like the same kind of movie. There’s a heavily gendered component to this, where you have a lot of women who are going through this transformation. Under the Tuscan Sun, How Stella Got Her Groove Back. Eat Pray love, but even recent examples, like Tick Tick Boom, is that you have a guy who’s trying to stage his show, but really he’s trying to figure out his existential angst, is over turning 30 and this sense of doom. I don’t know who I am. I don’t know what I want.

**Craig:**
Am I successful? Am I not successful?

**John:**
Yeah. Exactly. Should I take this advertising job? And it’s really about figuring out who he is and being a musical, he can sing through his frustrations there and I think its so important to stress, that every movie’s going to have some hero transformation ideally, but it does feel so different when the character starts wanting to transform.

**Craig:**
Yeah and there’s something that is amusing about the whole thing. When they do this and this is the part of these stories I generally don’t like, what they’re doing is looking at you in the audience and saying, “You know this feeling right? You’re scared too. You don’t know who you are or you’re unhappy with who you are or you think you’re not yet where you’re supposed to be. You’re freaking out, let me show you a fairy tale where I figure it out. It’s going to make you feel good. It’s figure-outable and the fact is, that it’s generally a simplification of how that process goes, because the real process of figuring out who you are in life, is a process that ever ends and then you die. And of course in these stories, there’s a conclusion and I think I find that the conclusion is always amusing, because the last scene is, I did it. I’m happy. I’m self-actualized, I’m pleased and then we never see the next scene, where they have to wake up and then they have diarrhea or something and the next day begins again and they’re like, “Wait, actually, I’m still just… Ah, man. I’m still me.”

**John:**
Yeah. Taking off our movie lenses, because obviously we’re looking for closure in a movie, I think two series that do a very good job of characters trying to find what they actually want, Search Party, which I love, which is ostensibly about trying to figure out what happened to this missing girl, but it’s really the central character trying to figure out who she is and what she wants and her arc in transformation, but of course, Crazy Ex-Girlfriend starts with this woman on an existential quest, I don’t know what I actually want in my life and transforming everything and transforming everyone around her as she does it and because it’s a series and doesn’t have to resolve in movie time logic, it can go through all the ups and downs and the moments of realization and moments of self doubt, that you wouldn’t necessarily be able to fit into a classic two hour movie structure.

**Craig:**
Yeah and those journeys are fascinating, because they are actually dictated or at least they used to be more like this, not necessarily by what the character’s experience was and how they were following a path and arriving in a destination, but rather more how well is the show doing, because when it’s doing really well, they can’t figure their shit out yet. They’re going to have to wait until the show is ready to conclude, at which point they will figure their shit out and that’s why one of my favorite endings for a who am I, what am I supposed to be journey, is the Sopranos, because it begins with a man going to therapy as a villain, but he’s going to therapy to try and figure out who he is and what his problems are and he never gets it. He never figures it out and then he’s murdered and that’s pretty much the way life works, except minus the villain and the murder part, occasionally there’s murder.

**John:**
Occasionally there’s murder. You put a great article in the show notes here about a writer’s advice to other writers and let’s tie this in because I think it harkens back to the article I listed, which was the woman moving to the cabin. Talk to us about what you put into-

**Craig:**
Yeah, it is a wonderful little story here. Somebody has written a… I’ll just talk about the woman that it centers on, is a Polish author name and I apologize, I’m murdering this name, Wislawa Szymborska. If you are Polish please right in and help me. I’m sorry. I’ll just call her Ms. Szymborska. She was a poet. She died in 2012, at which point it was discovered she had destroyed about 90% of her writing, which is amazing. Despite that or perhaps because of it, she won the Nobel prize in 1996 for poetry. Now here’s what I love about this and this ties into this romantic search for self and particularly as writers figuring out, am I a writer, as one of our questioners asked or how do I describe myself as a writer? Or should I go to a cabin and try and write there?

**Craig:**
She wrote an anonymous column for a Polish literary journal, called Zycie Literackie. Again, I screwed that up. I’m sorry. It means literary life. She did this from the 1960s to the 1980s and the column in literary life was called Literary Mailbox and I’m quoting now from this article, “The idea was that aspiring writers would send in their work and receive helpful advice. Mainly, the article says Szymborska advised them to stop writing at once and destroy all their work.” This is like the dark iron curtain version of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:**
“The aspiring writers,” I continue to quote, “imagine that being an author will bring them happiness, fame, and fortunes. Szymborska tells them to get a grip. Writing is a ridiculous profession, she argues persuasively. Failure is inevitable. Success is highly conditional and mostly feels like failure as well,” which I’ve got to tell you is absolutely true. What is her positive advice for poor wretches out there attempting to be writers. I quote from the article, “Her advice is monumentally sensible. Don’t be a narcissist. Work much harder. The best writing utensil is a waste paper basket. Life is short, yet each detail takes time. Don’t be a utopian, but keep away from the void for as long as you can.”

**Craig:**
I’ve got to tell you, I feel like even though Ms. Szymborska and I lived at the same time, somehow I think the two of us may have been scrambled together in the simulation, because man, she’s just putting beautiful Nobel worthy, poetic words to how I feel all the time.

**John:**
Yeah. What she’s saying, also reminds me of the Kendall Roy thing I mentioned at the start of the last segment, which was basically people write into her or they want to be writers, because they have this perception of, “Oh, if I have these things, then I will be happy,” and she’s there to tell you, no, you will not be happy, just as Kendall Roy could get the company and he will not be happy.

**John:**
He just wants someone to tell him what he wants and no one can do that except for himself and in many ways, her saying, “No, you don’t want this. You’re not good at this. Stop doing this. It’ll only going to lead to misery,” is a gift in some ways. We’ve talked on the show, different times, there have been some people who’ve come up to us at live shows over the years like, “Thank you so much for your show. You convinced me that I did not want to be a screenwriter,” and I think that it’s a huge success, because if we’ve driven some people away from it who recognize like, “Oh my time is better spent doing something else.” That’s great.

**Craig:**
Completely and I think I really just want to underscore again, success is highly conditional and mostly feels like failure as well and it must be hard to believe, but-

**John:**
You and I are pretty successful and yet we often feel like failures.

**Craig:**
Well and the success in specific, because when it happens you think, “Okay, the thing is, it’s still just me and my meat suit, moving around and thinking and worrying and all the rest of it and it’s hard to describe.” Success never feels like success. The word itself is promising a mirage that you never get. You have to be just okay with all the stuff in between, because there is no cake.

**John:**
Listen, you’re not going to enjoy every moment of sitting down and actually writing, but if you actually hate writing, if you actually hate the process of doing this, but you’re just doing it because you think it’s going to feel great when you’re successful, you should stop right now, because that’s not likely to happen. You’re not going to feel good being a famous published author, if you don’t feel reasonably good, being an unpublished author.

**Craig:**
No and the cabin won’t help you and being alone won’t help you and the herbal tea won’t help you and for God’s sake, if you ever see a movie where an author suddenly gets a burst of inspiration and then there’s a typing montage and then a novel erupts, just understand that’s the writing equivalent of watching porn. It’s not how it works. It’s fake. Never, ever, never think that, that’s what happens. It has never happened. It will never happen.

**John:**
The worst part of Misery for James Caan, was he had to write a book.

**Craig:**
Exactly.

**John:**
Ah, all right. It’s time for one cool thing. My one cool thing is, one that I know Craig is very excited about, because I tipped him off about it. This is The Game Master’s Book of Non-Player Characters and the resource for really D and D, but there’s this whole weird thing where you can’t say D and D, but you can say fifth edition and it’s designed for Fifth Edition Dungeons and Dragons. It’s not made by the official Dungeons and Dragons people. It’s written by Jeff Ashworth and what I love so much about this, is that the writing is just so good and it’s all these characters you can use for different adventures or different encounters in underground locations or big cities or small towns. Their characters are so specific and let me see if I can get just an example of one character’s description here, because I just love the little box descriptions on people. This is Boo Boo Crawford, a foppish man of middle age, with an overwhelmingly large explorers pack, strapped to his back a few pots and pans hanging from the straps of his chest, holding a guidebook like a mask. That’s your first initial taste of Boo Boo Crawford and they talk through what he’s actually trying to do, what his goals are, what his wants and needs are. It’s so useful and I kept imagining Craig finding voices for all these characters. Craig, does very good voices when we play D and D.

**Craig:**
I try my best. I’m excited to look through this, because I really do believe that fun and interesting NPCs are half of what makes the experience fun. If you don’t have them at least here and there, the conversations become incredibly utilitarian. They’re not really conversations. There’s also not conflict. Part of it’s figuring out how this other person works. In this other game I DM, there’s a council of three people that make decisions for the town and the way that the module presents it, it’s talk to the three people, see if you can convince them and I’m like, “Okay, but who are they?”

**John:**
Yeah, I would say the official adventure books, don’t do a great job describing those characters and this is what I was [crosstalk 00:56:34].

**Craig:**
Yeah, this exactly. One of the things I did, was I decided that there would always be a vote and there’s three of them. The vote would always work one way or the other, except that one of them is just incredibly indecisive. It’s really just about, we’re no longer trying to convince this woman to why your point of view is the best. You really need to help her. You need to give her therapy, so that she can figure out why she can’t make a decision about things and the characters can engage in that way and it’s more fun and what I like about this resource is, sometimes when I’ve got 30 minutes before we’re playing, I’ve got to figure out who these three people are, being able to turn to a book and finding some great ideas would be lovely. This sounds like an amazing resource. I purchased it within seconds of you texting me about it. I’m very excited.

**John:**
I want to give one more character description here, because this is actually useful for all of us as writers. This is about Fresticia and Pillow, a barefoot girl around eight or nine years old with dark skin, a missing front tooth in her innocent smile and her hair tied up in fluffy pigtails atop her head, dressed in a black dress with a scrappy red scarf tied around her neck. She is trailed by a skeletal cat. Two sentences. I got a whole picture there.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Yeah, exactly and what’s the story with the cat and all that is great. Sometimes it’s all you need, is just a little bit of a starter and then off you go. Great recommendation, if you do play Dungeons and Dragons. I know they say game master. It is obviously the dungeon master, but of course there’s Pathfinder and all these other lovely games. John, my one cool thing and this is a 10 year odyssey of trying to find the best email client for Mac. I dumped the mail app a long time ago. Fooled around a few things, landed on Air Mail and I’ve been using Air Mail for many, many years. I think I might have convinced you at some point to use Air Mail, but there’s a new one now that I’m using, that I find much, much superior to that and it is called Canary. Canary works beautifully, far fewer errors or weird buggy techies. It’s also fast, fast, fast, fast, fast and it is for Mac OS and iOS and the two sync between each other flawlessly. I find it to be an excellent email client. I recommend it highly.

**John:**
That’s great. I think I’ve told you this before, but I switched over to Superhuman at Rachel Bloom’s recommendation and.

**Craig:**
Superhuman?

**John:**
Superhuman. I think Craig, you may want to check it out. Superhuman only works with Gmail, sits on top of a Gmail.

**Craig:**
Oh, I got a problem with that.

**John:**
All right. I’m entirely in the Gmail ecosystem, but it is ridiculously fast and it does such a great job of sorting stuff out, so I can get to inbox zero super quickly. I’ve been loving Superhuman, but it’s not to everyone’s taste. Interesting with superhuman. The onboarding process, you basically apply for it and then they make an appointment and then you have a half hour Zoom with the superhuman tech who walks you through everything.

**Craig:**
I’m never going to do that. Ever, ever. I don’t want to talk to somebody.

**John:**
It’s better. It’s better.

**Craig:**
I obviously have some Gmail addresses as everybody does, but I don’t have only Gmail.

**John:**
Yeah and you and I never actually email each other. We’re only texting.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Emails… Megana just email’s for old people, right?

**Megana:**
What? I email a lot.

**Craig:**
Well, you’re old.

**John:**
It’s a sensitive subject there, Craig.

**Craig:**
Yeah. Oh, you thought I was asking you from the young person’s point of view?

**Megana:**
Oh God.

**John:**
You can reach Megana Rao. She’s our producer of Scriptnotes. you can find her at ask@johnaugust.com. Our show is edited by Matthew Chilelli after this week is by Timothy Fajda. If you need 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 sometimes @Clmazin. I’m always @JohnAugust. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing.

**John:**
We have t-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. It’s dicey, whether you can get one of those t-shirts or hoodies by Christmas, but try. They’re really nice. They’re really soft. You can sign up to become a premium member @scriptnotes.net. You get all the back episodes and bonus segments. Like the one we’re about to record on why movie dialogue is so hard to understand. Craig and Megana, thank you so much for a fun show.

**Craig:**
Thanks guys.

**Megana:**
Thank you.

**John:**
Craig, we are talking about this article that Ben Pearson wrote for Slashfilm. I saw it passed around all over Twitter this past week, looking at whether and why movie dialogue has become harder to understand over the years. We’ll start with the first question. Is the thesis correct? Has movie dialogue become harder to understand over your lifetime?

**Craig:**
I think so. I think so. I am a sound obsessed producer and I struggle all the time, all the time, when I’m watching things. Sometimes I play things back. I struggle with the way they mix things and I wasn’t even aware of how grumpy I was about a lot of it, until I read this article and thought, ah, okay, I’m not nuts. I’m not nuts.

**John:**
Yeah. I approach it from a couple different ways. They talk about Christopher Nolan in here who seems singularly uninterested sometimes in actually, us being able to understand what his characters are saying, but also having worked on enough sets and worked with enough sound people, I know that we have tremendous technology to record sound and mix it properly and I don’t think the problem is technological on any level or that our sound professionals are not extraordinarily good. I think they all are and I want to make sure we are not throwing any of them under the bus, because it’s not their fault.

**Craig:**
No, not at all. In fact, we have more technology now than we ever have, to present excellent sound to people and I don’t mean excellent sound like everything is crisp and clear and quality, but even just beautiful. This is a problem that everybody who works on a mixing sounds stage, is well aware of. They’re fighting against this all the time. Similarly, on stage the sound recording team, which is the sound mixer there and the sound assistant, who’s wiring everybody up and the boom operator, they’re always worried about sound and they always want to make sure that we’re not picking up stuff, we shouldn’t be picking up and that the lines aren’t being muffled or squished by the movement of clothing or anything and I support that tremendously. It’s one of the first things I say early on, on a production is how important sound is to me and I let the first AD know that to me sound, it’s more important the sound is good during a take, than if I don’t know, a light gets a little wonky, but that’s me.

**John:**
Yeah and I think you’re probably also willing to say, for this shot, I don’t really care about sound. I’m not anticipating using the sound for this. You can tell people when it’s the priority. We have to understand everything here clearly or that should be the default, but if there’s some wide shot, where you’re just not going to care about the sound, you know you’re not going to use the sound, you can also tell them that, so that the sound person’s not trying to kill themselves to get sound, that you’re not going to be able to use.

**Craig:**
Which they know.

**John:**
They know.

**Craig:**
They know and the reason why we say in wide shots, the sound and dialogue isn’t particularly as important, is because we’re far enough away, that we can probably put another take in their mouth if we need to.

**John:**
Let’s talk about that, Craig, because I think most listeners probably don’t have a sense, the dialogue they see characters speaking, it may not be the actual take that they are… Editors do magic all the time.

**Craig:**
All the time. Keep in mind that obviously when we’re watching people talk, there are a few shots where we see them both at the same time, like wide shots and then once we get into coverage, meaning, okay, but now I’m over a shoulder to you and I’m over a shoulder to you or I’m clean on you and I’m close up on you, some of the dialogue is off screen. It’s off camera and we can put any take in there. We can also take a word that you might pronounce a little funny and find another take where you said the word correctly and just drop it in there with an audio edit and you’ll never know. Dialogue editors can do incredible things, but only if the dialogue has been recorded cleanly and there wasn’t the sound of a truck going under it and if the producer in the room in television, me the show runner or in features, typically the director, cares to make it sound good.

**John:**
It’s the producer or director saying, “No, no. This has to be good and we are going to either do another take, so we can get this right. We’re going to not do that noisy thing, so we can get one clean thing. We are going to get coverage. We’re going to get wild lines. We were going to spend the time to do this,” because time is probably the biggest reason why some dialogue is not recorded as cleanly as it could be.

**Craig:**
And for me, I just have an ear on it. If I’m watching a take and it’s really good, but there’s one word where, because somebody shifted in their jacket, the lab is all screwed up, then I ask the sound people, do we pick it up on the boom and also, is there another take where I could just stick that line in or is it the kind of thing where I could edit around, but the biggest impact I think the director or show runner can have on dialogue and the clarity of dialogue, is talking to the actors, because there is and this article sites something that I absolutely believe is true, a contagious mumble-core-ism, that has infected everyone and it’s bad.

**John:**
Let’s get into this, because you’re also an actor. You are on sets, where you’re having to make choices about how you were going to-

**Craig:**
I’m a great actor.

**John:**
You’re… I’m sorry, Craig, you’re a great actor., Who’s honest at making choices about how you’re going to play a line.

**Craig:**
Yes.

**John:**
And one of the choices you could make, is to bury the line or mumble the line or just not bring a lot of attention to the line, basically set it internally and you’re choosing not to do this. Talk to us about the decision about realism in delivery of things, versus the heightened thing that you might do, so people can actually understand what you’re saying.

**Craig:**
Well then once again, comedy gets it. Clarity and understanding is essential to appreciation of something, generally speaking. In drama, what can happen sometimes with actors, is in their reasonable desire to avoid indicating, emoting, overdoing, pushing, they get small, they can get really quiet. Sometimes in rehearsals, things that are just a normal conversation, like the one you and I are having, get slow and whispery. Part of it is a little bit of a fear, part of is a little bit of an insecurity. The one thing that I really don’t like doing is table reads, because I find that really good actors recognize that this is unnatural. They don’t want to be judged for their performance in that room, sitting around a table and they get mumbly. They just don’t want to be on the hook for it. Sometimes it’s about comfort. It’s about getting the actors comfortable through a few takes, so that you can start to get volume and clarity and things aren’t too whispery or mumbly.

**Craig:**
Some of the whispery/mumbly stuff is just pretense and some of it is a lack of caring. I’ve got to tell you, the thing that they cite here is Bane and I love doing my Bane impression, but I missed a bunch of Bane stuff, because I just didn’t understand why I would miss it, because it seemed like they were actually taking the audio from him, from the mask and not just re-recording it and then filtering it through the… Because, if you’re going to wear a mask, other people have to at least understand you. By the way, if in Bane, he had been, [inaudible 01:08:47] and then Batman was like, yeah and [inaudible 01:08:51] and then he’s like, “No, seriously, I do not… Say that again slowly.” [inaudible 01:08:56] and it would’ve been awesome, but they didn’t do that. Everybody understood them except for us where we were like, “What?” I do think that it’s important for the show runners and directors, to carefully and respectfully get the actors to place where you know people are going to be able to appreciate the words they’re saying.

**John:**
Yeah. I also wonder whether sometimes actors don’t have appreciation of how much editors and directors and posts and everyone else, can help them get to that quiet place. I think they may think that they have to be super, super quiet to hear, because they would be whispering in real life and don’t understand that, no, no, no, we can actually see the effect you’re trying to achieve. Let us achieve the effect, rather than you thinking you have to do it all yourself. They don’t want to feel stagey and theatrical in that way, but no, we can get you to that volume place appropriately, just give us a little bit more here, so we can record it.

**Craig:**
Yeah and a lot of times what I will do, is make a note that a word or two has been garbled a little bit. The other thing is that enunciation is a big deal for people, who’ve been trained in theater on stage. Enunciation is not necessarily something that has been strictly drilled into people, whose primary experience has been in television or film and some people struggle with enunciation and for me, rather than becoming a speech therapist, I just make notes and I think to myself, “Okay, if I really need that one clear, I’m going to go in there and say, this word got a little bit garbled,” but not, in my mind I think I’ll loop it.

**Craig:**
I can get that later and I can blend it in and it’ll be really good and looping, which is our all encompassing term for recording the line again later in a sound studio and then dropping it into the film, has become better and better and better to the point now where I’m way more comfortable believing that it will blend and that we will not notice a discontinuity in sound between naturally recorded voice and looped voice later.

**John:**
Working on a serious television show now, you’ll also get a sense of, these are actors who I know are just fantastic at ADR and looping and they are people who can say, okay, no, this is going to be fine, we’ll get that in the room, versus there might be other people like, you know what, it’s actually not their greatest skillset, is being able to hear what they did and match it and you might want to get that wild line or get another take, there on the set.

**Craig:**
Yes and one of the nice things about doing episodic television, is while we’re shooting, we’re also editing. I can go and sit down with Bella Ramsey and say, “Oh, we’ve got 20 minutes. Let’s bring our sound team over here. I just need you to say this line, because it’s off camera and it was a little funky on the mic, so let’s get it nice and clean now and then we can drop it in,” because we know it’s easy to do. We can start actually looping before we ever get even to proper post, which is advantageous.

**John:**
But, underlying all of this is you have to care and the fact that you do care, is why you’re going to get some good sound. Basically, the answer to this question about movie dialogue and how to get it better, is just it’s caring and it’s making sure that the caring comes from the very start.

**Craig:**
It’s caring and as much as I love when people have complimented a show I’ve made, about how it looks, when I get a compliment about how it sounds, that’s the thing that just warms my heart the most and I think I’ve seen this interesting look on the face of people in post, when I talk about this and it’s sad, because the look is, finally. Do you know what I mean? They’ve been neglected and it’s not right and look, maybe it’s just me, but sound to me is like smell. It’s a weird one, except that’s where all the memories come from. It’s just a faster root to my weird under brain and that’s what I find sound can do.

**John:**
Love it. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:**
Thank you John.

Links:

* [Endeavor sells its content side CJ Entertainment](https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2021/nov/29/endeavor-sells-content-studio-south-korean-media-c/)
* [WGA Health Fund](https://www.wgaplans.org/health/healthfaqs.html) now eligible for infertility treatments.
* [For tips on understanding your contract, check out episode 407](https://johnaugust.com/2019/scriptnotes-ep-407-understanding-your-feature-contract-transcript)
* [A writer who moved off the grid and hates it](https://www.outsideonline.com/culture/love-humor/remote-cabin-write/) advice by Blair Braverman
* [Have You Considered Accountancy? How to Start Writing (and When to Stop): Advice for Writers By Wisława Szymborska (Edited and translated from Polish by Clare Cavanagh)](https://literaryreview.co.uk/have-you-considered-accountancy) review by Joanna Kavenna
* [The Game Master’s Book of Non-Player Characters](https://www.amazon.com/Game-Masters-Book-Non-Player-Characters/dp/1948174804) by Jeff Ashworth
* [Canary Mail](https://canarymail.io/) email service for MacOS and iOS
* [Why Movie Dialogue is so Hard to Understand](https://www.slashfilm.com/673162/heres-why-movie-dialogue-has-gotten-more-difficult-to-understand-and-three-ways-to-fix-it/?fbclid=IwAR3ClhGA3-F33lfL1MXxML90-rrSH8Tt2vARyijsSFKEsZL-3D5vrJO6i-g#) by Ben Pearson for Slashfilm
* [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 Timothy Vajda ([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/528standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes Episode 527 – Diehard, Transcript

December 15, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/die-hard-extended-edition).

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

**Craig Mazin:** My name is Craig Mazin, ho-ho-ho.

**John:** And this is a special episode of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

On this very special episode we are going to be looking at the 1988 film Die Hard, how it works on a story level. We’re going to focus on what screenwriters can learn from it and some of the mistaken lessons people have tried to learn from it. This is not going to be a detailed look at the history of the film or its place in cinematic canons, because we’re not that interested in that kind of stuff, are we?

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t really care. I just want to know what about this works so well. You and I both started in the early ‘90s. And in the early ‘90s there were a few movies that you were lectured about over and over. And Die Hard was definitely one of them.

**John:** So, Craig, what is your first exposure to Die Hard? Do you remember seeing it the first time? What was it for you?

**Craig:** Yes I do. I was a perfect age for it. I was 17 years old. I saw it in the movie theaters. I don’t remember when it came out.

**John:** Summer of 1988.

**Craig:** Yeah, so it was a Christmas movie in Summer. Summer of 1988 I was 17. What a great time. And I remember thinking it was a blast. I mean, it was fun, and you got the sense that you had shown up for a dumb movie and gotten something that wasn’t dumb at all.

**John:** Yeah. So weirdly I don’t remember seeing Die Hard the first time, but I do remember the first exposure I ever had to Die Hard as a concept which was summer of 1988. I was over at my friend Ethan Diamond’s house. His older brother, Andrew, came back from seeing Die Hard in the theaters. And we were standing in Ethan’s kitchen and Andrew said like, “I saw the future of movies and it is Die Hard.”

**Craig:** That’s kind of crazy. I mean, I remember thinking that when I saw The Matrix. I don’t know if I thought that when I saw Die Hard. In fact, I remember thinking this is just a really good version of for instance I think around that time I remember going to see Commando in the theaters with Arnold Schwarzenegger who gets weirdly name-checked in Die Hard. And I thought like, oh my god, this is like the best version of Commando ever. Yeah.

**John:** So we just did a special live show and Kevin Feige actually mentioned Die Hard as being the first time he saw a “normal” movie that he really liked, so a thing that didn’t involve super heroes, or fantasy, or elves, or gnomes, or dwarves. It was just a really great action movie. And so I think it has had an influence on even things beyond the normal action movies. And I think you can’t look at a lot of modern action movies without having some sense of what Die Hard did.

**Craig:** I agree. Die Hard gave us a sense of action pacing that I don’t think we were used to. And it also had a very odd modernity. Now, when we look at it we’re going to look at it also through the lens of its time. It is one of the most Reagan era movies possible.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But the fact that it said we’re not going to be in space. We’re not going to be out in the open field. We’re not going to be doing car chases, running around. We’re going to dump all the things we normally do in a big cops and robbers movie and we’re just going to stick it inside a building and let the confined space and the weird specifics of that building work to our benefit. That was pretty revolutionary.

**John:** I would also say the comedy that’s consistent throughout the movie, and characters who show up very late but are given very specific character comedy bits, has had an influence on sort of how we think about all these kind of movies. There’s that sense that you kind of don’t make an action movie without some sense of what the comedy is going to be owes a debt to Die Hard.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you could say that all Ryan Reynolds movies should pay a little bit of money to Die Hard every time they happen, because Ryan Reynolds’ character is kind of the best evolution of the wise-cracking tough guy. So he’s in great shape, he can run, he can shoot, he can kill if he needs to. When it is time to punch and get serious he can. When he needs to be heartfelt and care about a person and a relationship he can. But a lot of the times while he’s doing it he’s just tossing out these sardonic one liners. And Bruce Willis kind of invented that.

**John:** I think so.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So today on the episode I want to talk through a couple different areas. We should talk about characters. How we set up characters. How we know who is who. The characters have arcs. They’re shallow but they’re there. And I want to talk through arcs. How you find the beats in those arcs, the motivation behind characters. And how we signal to the audience what the characters want, both in the very near term and long term. Sort of what their overall goals are. This is a great movie in talking about hero weakness and villain strength, because the relationship between hero and villain is very different in this movie than we might expect.

And it’s also a great example of something we want to show to other action stars about like this is how you can be an action star and not be perfect in every moment. And it’s his weakness that I think makes the John McClane character so endearing to the audience.

**Craig:** Absolutely. He repeatedly shows fear, which I think we generally like. Maybe some actors don’t understand that. But we in the audience really, really appreciate it.

**John:** Now, rewatching this movie for this segment I was really impressed by sort of how well-structured and plotted it is. It is a jeopardy machine. And we have come to expect that out of movies, but I was surprised that there were very few scenes where you say like, oh, you could cut that scene and it wouldn’t have any impact. Everything that is there is there and very necessary. And it is setting up and paying off stuff constantly. So as we go through the movie from top to bottom we’ll try to point out situations where they are setting this up really well and they are going to pay it off and they have a whole plan. I feel like if you were to put this movie up on the whiteboard you would see like, OK, this is a really tight film just on an outline level.

**Craig:** No question. It does a brilliant job of setting things up and paying them off. And I’d actually forgotten how some of these little tiny things – I mean, the movie begins with one of the strangest conversations ever. And that conversation actually becomes incredibly important.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It has repercussions throughout the film. You just don’t realize it then. But it kind of works. It’s pretty remarkable in that regard. They’re really good at that.

**John:** We won’t get a chance to single out every joke, but what we were saying about the comedy of the movie and the specificity of the characters is really important. These aren’t just types of characters going through roles. They are very specifically drawn, which is nice.

But, Craig, you did in your How to Write a Movie podcast, you talked about theme and central dramatic question. And my rewatching of this I didn’t feel like that was a primary unifying element behind how Die Hard holds itself together. Did you in rewatching it do you feel like there’s a central dramatic question it’s trying to ask and answer?

**Craig:** Barely.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Barely. And it turns on the relationship and it’s very simply encapsulated by the beginning and end of John McClane’s interaction with his wife, or maybe ex-wife, separated wife Holly. He comes to visit her, but they’ve been separated. And he essentially says in so many words, “I’m more important than you are.” And by the end he understands, no, actually we together are more important than just me. My needs don’t matter. I want to be a good husband to you. Very simple. Very, very, very simple.

But, essential. If you don’t have it, it really just is a guy running around a building and you don’t care.

**John:** Yep. And I think that’s a lesson that was mislearned by a bunch of people who tried to be Die Hard in a blank is that they didn’t do that work of what is the emotional journey he’s trying to go through.

**Craig:** Yeah. I remember at the time somebody made the joke that they were going in and pitching Die Hard in a building. It was really funny. So we had a spade of Die Hard – Die Hard did Die Hard on a plane, and Die Hard in an airport. There was a Die Hard in an everything. And Die Hard in a spaceship. And it got really, really frustrating.

Well, I mean, look, the gender politics are incredibly regressive. I mean, we have to talk about for a second how brilliantly this movie encapsulates the Reagan era. So very briefly you have a story about a woman who dares to have her own career. And her husband doesn’t want to follow her to Los Angeles because he’s a New York cop. And bizarrely has a backlog of cases? That’s not how policing works. He can just go ahead and be a cop in LA if he wants to. He can join that police department, I’m sure.

So this is the root of their marriage problems. She has dropped his name and is using her own. At the end, the way he saves her ultimately is by getting rid of this token of her success, which is the Rolex watch.

**John:** The Rolex watch.

**Craig:** She earned because she’s really good at her job. That has to go. And also she takes his name again because she must resume being his property, fully more. And this is really where I love Die Hard for being so Reagan era and honestly Trumpian in this regard, too. The ethos of the movie is that the people in charge of stuff like the bureaucrats in charge of law enforcement and the FBI, they don’t know anything. They’re stupid and incompetent. The media elites are terrible, unethical liars who don’t care about anything. The only people that can save you in the end – oh, and Europeans are trash.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** The only people who can save you in the end are just good old American men.

**John:** Working class men.

**Craig:** Working class men who are constantly rolling their eyes at the stupidity of those pencil neck “experts.” The insanity of the way that these police go about their job, not the police man we’re rooting for, but the police in charge. So like we’re procedure junkies now. We were not in 1988. So we watch this movie and we’re like, huh, I guess that’s how the police might. So there’s a cop car that’s been riddled with bullets, and a body also riddled with bullets has fallen out of a building onto the cop car. But the deputy chief of police is like, meh, I’m sure it’s nothing. OK, I buy it. No.

**John:** No. All right, but let’s talk about the gender politics for one second before we get into this, because looking at Bruce Willis’s character arc which is shallow but it is there, McClane does say, “Tell my wife I’ve been a jerk. I should have been more supportive.” He does have that epiphany as it comes through it. So I would say that they’ve drawn that relationship in a way that is meaningful within the course of the movie as presented. And I did like that it didn’t go out of its way to punish Holly’s character for being successful and being ambitious. They try to acknowledge that she should be able to do these things. The movie as a whole, everything gets destroyed, but I didn’t feel like they were trying to single her out.

And even though she is the woman who is being rescued, it didn’t have the very classic rescue princess tropes. She didn’t feel helpless through a lot of it. She was never screaming or panicked.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** She was incredibly competent.

**Craig:** But in the end they damseled her.

**John:** They did damsel her.

**Craig:** And it’s definitely a movie about a man rescuing a woman. She’s perfect. She has no flaws.

**John:** True.

**Craig:** Except for her weird insistence on being successful. [laughs] And a good mom. The Rolex thing is sort of startling. And the fact that at the end she’s like, “I am – no, my name is Holly McClane.” Look, it was 1988. I mean, she actually was a terrific character up until the kind of inevitable damseling. But I love the scene, and we’ll get to it, where she confronts Hans Gruber just in terms of you put me in charge. It was very well done. And Bonnie Bedelia.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** A spectacular job. And this is a great place for us to stop and mention the writers that we’re talking about.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about the background of all of this. This is a 1988 movie released by Fox. Directed by John McTiernan. Screenplay by Jeb Stuart and Steven de Souza. We’ll put a link in the show notes to the PDFs we have of it. Also we’ll have it up in Weekend Read. The script that we’re going to be talking about is a pretty close approximation of what the final movie is. So as we’re talking through this today we’re going to be talking in terms of like minutes in the movie, but the screenplay actually matches up pretty closely. The script I looked at was 127 pages and that feels about right to what the movie is.

**Craig:** It’s about a two-hour, ten-minute movie or so.

**John:** It’s based on a book by Roderick Thorp called Nothing Lasts Forever. I have not read the book, but I have read up some background on the book and I was surprised to see that the book actually has a lot more of the movie Die Hard in it than I would have guessed. Some of the stuff that’s in the 1979 book, so a retired NYC police detective, Joe Leland, is visiting the 40-story office tower headquarters of the Klaxon Oil Corporation, that changed, on Christmas Eve, where his daughter, Stephani Gennaro works. While he’s waiting for his daughter’s Christmas party to end a group of German Autumn terrorists take over the skyscraper, led by the brutal Anton Gruber.

**Craig:** Their gang name is Autumn-Era? So cool.

**John:** Joe had known about Gruber through a counterterrorism he attended years before. Barefoot, Leland slips away and manages to remain undetected in the giant office complex. Aided only by Los Angeles police sergeant Al Powell and armed only with his police issue pistol Leland fights off the terrorists one-by-one in an attempt to save 74 hostages and grandchildren. So that’s a Wikipedia summary, but there’s a lot of Die Hard in that summary. And so some of the things that are apparently in the book is McClane going through the air ducts, which is also a big pet peeve of mine.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** The C-4 bomb down the elevator shaft. Jumping off the exploding roof with a fire hose attached to his waist and then shooting through a window to gain reentry, which still feels like such a movie moment, but apparently was in the book. Taping his gun to his back in the climax. The book was apparently inspired by The Towering Inferno, which is obviously a clear prior to all of this.

Interesting piece of trivia. So Frank Sinatra starred in the first book in this series called The Detective and so he was offered the role of John McClane, but he would have been 70 when this–

**Craig:** I would love to see that.

**John:** It would be amazing.

**Craig:** Hey Hans–

**John:** You can really see him going through all the physical activity.

**Craig:** Absolutely. Well, I mean, the fact that the character of John McClane is running around. He’s a smoker. Looks like he’s, you know, getting close to 40. He’s a smoker. And he has incredible cardiovascular fitness.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** By the way, this is back when you could smoke in a car, smoke in an airport, and you could bring a gun on a plane.

**John:** A gun on a plane.

**Craig:** Gun on a plane. Yeah, no big deal.

**John:** All right. Let’s talk about the movie. Let’s start at the top and we’ll be going through it. From the very start we need to setup John McClane. We need to know that he’s a cop. That he’s from NYC. That his wife works here now. We need to establish that he’s still interested in women, so we see him making eyes at another woman on a plane.

**Craig:** Classic. Yeah, so his character is family man, trying to get his wife back, but still, you know, he’s hot-blooded American. And he makes eyes with the, well, they were stewardesses then. It was 1988. But before all of that he has the weirdest exchange with this guy.

**John:** Tell me about it.

**Craig:** So like normally speaking you don’t want to start a movie with a long conversation about nonsense with a day player. But that’s exactly what Die Hard does. It begins with John McClane having a conversation on the plane with his seatmate. John McClane is clearly scared to fly. It’s a great opening shot. He’s white-knuckling, literally. And the guy next to him is like, uh, you’re not a good flyer. And he says something that literally makes no sense. It’s a non-sequitur. He goes from “You’re not a good flyer” to “I’ve figured out how to – what you do when you land.” Which doesn’t make any sense. “To get accustomed after you travel you take your shoes and your socks off and you walk around on the carpet in your bare feet and you make little fists with your feet.”

And I’m thinking what cocaine-fueled nonsense is this? But it makes sense later.

**John:** It is incredibly useful later on. And I feel like as the movie starts you’re kind of free to do anything. So you can put in that nonsense business at the very top of the movie because no one has any expectation about what’s supposed to happen.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** So you can just do it. Yes, it is sort of nonsense-y, but it totally works. And of course it’s setting up that he’s going to be barefoot through a lot of the movie. And so his barefoot-ness becomes a huge crucial plot point.

**Craig:** A huge crucial plot point.

**John:** All right. So we’ve established that John McClane is arriving in Los Angeles. Now we need to setup his not quite ex-wife, Holly. We need to see her at her office. We need to establish that they have kids. The kids are with the nanny.

**Craig:** All right. Let’s talk about race in this movie for a second. Let’s get the tough stuff out of the way. This movie has some very strange racial stuff going on, not surprising for 1988. Holly has a housekeeper/nanny. She is meant to be Latin-American of some kind. She is Latina. Her accent is bizarre. I get the feeling that that actor may not actually have had that accent. Also, they did a thing that movies used to do with people like that. Characters who were from another country would insist on speaking back – they can understand English clearly. So Holly speaks to her in English. And the nanny answers back in half-English/half-Spanish pointlessly. Like for instance she’ll use the word Si instead of Yes. Just pointlessly as if to say, see, I’m from another country, but I’m nice.

It’s bizarre.

**John:** But let’s talk about why that character exists. It’s because they want to establish that they have kids, but the kids are not going to be in the movie. Until they kind of very late in the story are in the movie. But that they’re not going to be a crucial factor in this. They’re not in jeopardy.

**Craig:** Correct. And if that character and those kids never came back again it would feel a bit cheap, like fake stakes. But they do interestingly enough in kind of a key scene later. So, again, the screenwriters here are doing an excellent job of making sure that they’re setting up pins. And I like it when movies setup pins and I don’t understand that they’re pins. I just think that they’re things. And then later I go, ooh, OK. I get it. I get it now.

**John:** So once we’ve established that Holly and John McClane have kids, that they’re with the nanny, we meet Argyle, who is to me a very problematic character in this story.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** He was a good idea who has like three or four beats. None of the beats where Argyle is by himself work especially well. This initial scene where he’s sort of welcoming John McClane to Los Angeles is probably the best of his beats.

**Craig:** I mean, it’s the only one really where he gets to be kind of vaguely human. I mean, look, Argyle is a regressive racial stereotype. And that’s not any offense to the actor playing him. That guy did his job, right. He was paid to do a job. He was an actor. And this is reality. This is why Robert Townsend made Hollywood Shuffle. I mean, this was the deal back then.

But it is kind of this kind of over smiley stereotype. And in fact when John McClane realizes that Argyle, even the name alone feels regressive, when Argyle is going to be his chauffeur he looks at him like, uh, really. They sent me a black guy as a driver? You feel like he’s a racist in that moment. Like all right I’ll give you a chance, kid. I mean, it’s weird. It’s weird. Argyle’s insistence on being super friendly to John McClane is weird. It doesn’t…ugh.

**John:** Yeah. So I think of all the subplots this is a subplot you could entirely take out and the movie would survive well. Because Argyle does nothing especially important throughout the rest of it.

So John McClane could take a taxi to the building and the same conversation could have been happening with the taxi driver.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, honestly Argyle weirdly seems like he’s there to close one of the strangest plot loops ever, which is the two black guys in the movie have to like – one black guy has to knock the other one out. You can only defeat a black man with another black man. It’s the weirdest – it’s 1988. It’s, oof. Yeah. Not great in that regard.

**John:** So here’s a moment that I really enjoyed as I watched it again was that once John McClane gets to the iconic–

**Craig:** Nakatomi Building.

**John:** Nakatomi Plaza Tower. So if you are coming to Los Angeles you will see the Nakatomi Plaza Tower because it is still kind of by itself. It is at the edge of the Fox Studio lot. If you’re parking there you will often park in this parking structure where Argyle parks.

**Craig:** It is not actually the Nakatomi Building. It is the Fox Building.

**John:** It is the Fox Building. And it is nearly as empty now as it was during the time of this because everyone has moved out of Fox.

**Craig:** I have never been in that building.

**John:** Oh I’ve been there.

**Craig:** Who is in that building?

**John:** Well, different stuff is in there at different times. And it’s not entirely Fox stuff that’s in there. I think it was business affairs-y kinds of things would be in the Fox Building.

**Craig:** Business affairs-y kind of things.

**John:** Yeah. So he arrives at this building and in singing in he has to use a computer screen which felt like very impressive for sort of the time.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it’s just there to establish that his wife is not using his last name. And that is both a character moment but it becomes a very crucial plot moment because it’s why Gruber does not recognize that Holly is McClane’s wife.

**Craig:** And this is something this movie does really well over and over and over. It’s not content with a very simple linear I’m going to show you a thing because it means one thing. They’re really good at multi-purpose use of things. And we love that as an audience. When we think we know why something is in a movie and then the audience says, oh no, no, no, no, there’s another reason why. It gets us very excited.

**John:** And so that front desk will also become a recurring set because they will be putting in their own fake person at that front desk who Al will be interfacing with. So that becomes useful later on.

**Craig:** At this point in the movie I think we’ve met Hart Bochner playing Harry Ellis.

**John:** We have met Hart Bochner. So this is another like only in the ‘80s kind of character we could find.

**Craig:** Wow.

**John:** So Hart Bochner as an actor, great, whatever, loving it. But like as a character I would say a smart choice to make somebody that you actually hate more than the terrorists, who you really want to see die.

**Craig:** Yeah, he was an incredibly broad comic character. I mean, someone said we want you to play – so again, 1988 politics. America was obsessed with Yuppies. So children, gather around. A Yuppie was a young, urban professional. Back in those days people were angry that there were people who were young, urban professionals. They hated them. They hated them for things like eating quiche. Quiche is delicious.

**John:** Delicious.

**Craig:** It’s eggs and cheese. If you have scrambled eggs and cheese, then you’re a perfectly fine He-Man trucker. If you eat cheese, then you’re no good. You’re Yuppie scum. And so they said to Hart Bochner we want you to play the scummiest, skeeviest Yuppie ever. And he probably showed them a version of it and they said, no, bigger. And then he’s like, OK. And then they were like, no, bigger. Snort coke. Say bubby. Be a total jerk. Bigger. Bigger!

And he did it. He hit the mark.

**John:** That’s what an actor does.

**Craig:** Listen, he followed his direction. Hat’s off. It’s not his fault.

**John:** So when he ultimately meets his fate we’re not that sad.

**Craig:** No. But I don’t remember necessarily feeling like thrilled either, because he just didn’t seem like a human being.

**John:** That is true.

**Craig:** He seemed so ridiculous. Whereas Bill Atherton, who made a wonderful career in the ‘80s of playing dickheads – “Yes, it’s true, this man has no dick” – from Ghostbusters. He’s playing the exact same character from Ghostbusters. A vicious prick. And he manages to seem real.

**John:** Yeah. A fine line. All right, so John McClane reaches the party. So to me it feels a little bit weird that you go to the party and not go to see your kids, but anyway he goes to the party.

**Craig:** I know.

**John:** But I buy it. At the start of this movie where I’m just learning the rules I bought that he’s going there first. And I do like that he’s seeing his wife. And it also feels like they might be getting – things might be going OK. And then they fall into their old patterns. And I thought those scenes were well handled.

**Craig:** I mean, there really is a scene. I mean, they have a scene. So he’s in her office which is more like a hotel room than an office. It just makes no sense.

**John:** Well, an executive bathroom.

**Craig:** Right. But then she says she’s really envious of Hart Bochner’s executive bathroom, which makes no sense because she’s technically his boss. I don’t understand any of it. And also she has a bathroom. It looks really nice. By the way, this is one of those movies that is simply impossible in the age of cell phones. But let’s put that aside.

They have one scene. And in that once scene you get the sense that she still loves him, which is important for us in the audience to know. That there’s hope. And then he has to be a dick about it because of the name thing. And when she marches out of there angry – oh, and I should say he’s washing up and in doing so he has removed his shirt to have his wife beater tee underneath. Did that cause any feelings for you as a young man?

**John:** Oh yeah. I think there’s a whole conversation to be had about sort of the wardrobe, but really Bruce Willis’s body which is sort of a central thing that changes so much over the course of the movie. He keeps stripping down to less, and less, and less.

**Craig:** But I didn’t remember that – in my mind I think he just flew out to Los Angeles in his wife beater tee-shirt. I forgot that he was wearing clothes and he just happened to have taken them off when things go down. So that’s such a – as a kid watching it I must have just thought, OK, he’s running around. Now I watch it and go, oh my god, there must have been so many meetings. And Bruce Willis was like, no, this is the one.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** This one makes me look great.

**John:** And also if you look at sort of the wardrobe department and also makeup, having to figure out like how dirty he is at every moment.

**Craig:** Continuity. Good lord.

**John:** The continuity of that would be so tough. Because his tee-shirt goes through at least 17 shades of brown and gray.

**Craig:** I mean, I’ll say this much at least. For a movie that costs, I think it was like $25 million which was quite a bit back then, it couldn’t have been all blown on his wardrobe. You can get 1,000 of those tee-shirts to have 1,000 different stages of distress and you’ll be fine.

**John:** Yep. He arrives at the party. A guy kisses him. He freaks out about that.

**Craig:** He goes, “California.” But what he’s really is like, “Gay.” I mean, the whole thing, it’s so clear he’s just like, “New York is straight and California is gay. Argh.” Yeah.

**John:** And then suddenly we are in plot. We’re in a heist plot. And so this is 20 minutes in. We have the first hero shot of Rickman. We’ve taken out the security guard. And we’re starting to establish this misdirect that they are some kind of idealistic terrorists and quickly we’ll learn that they are just actually thieves.

**Craig:** No in today’s era because of our – in a weird way Die Hard is one of the movies that starts to accelerate first acts. Because the first act is rather short here. If you want to call it acts. I mean, one of the nice things about watching Die Hard is you never feel an act ever. It just sort of proceeds. Today people might say to you, “We need to start with these terrorists doing something terrible so we know who they are before we meet our guy.” No. This is a much better way. And in so many ways this movie is special and works because of an actor that we were introduced to, the late, great Alan Rickman, who seems like he has parachuted in from an entirely other genre.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** He’s like a Bond villain almost. He’s brilliant. He’s so well spoken. And fascinating. And small in his behaviors. And we’d never had villains like that. Traditionally in these movies we have psychos or we have steroid freaks.

**John:** Yeah. And so if he were the Bond villain then we would have a James Bond opposite him. So to have like an ordinary guy opposite him is fascinating. The other thing I think works so well about Alan Rickman’s character is from his perspective he’s Danny Ocean and this is Ocean’s 11.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so, yes, he’s willing to kill some people to do it, but like killing people and doing evil is not his goal at all. His goal is the $640 million of bearers bonds. He has a plan for how he’s going to do that. And he is methodical. He has assembled a team. You could have a whole other movie which is just about him putting the script together and planning this heist.

**Craig:** Yeah. And what’s really interesting about his whole the villain is the hero of his own movie essence is that while we have a very simple motivation which we need, we’re certainly clear about what he wants. He makes it clear to Takagi, “Who said we were terrorists?” So that’s the first big twist. Like, oh, they’re not terrorists, they’re thieves, which was great. But later you also learn that he was a terrorist. He was part of a terrorist movement. And they kicked him out theoretically because he actually was just more interested in being a thief. That’s a fascinating guy.

I’m not as interested in zealots as I am in calculating people who are just one millimeter away from the reality of what our hero is like. A man of purpose, as it were.

**John:** So thinking about him as the Danny Ocean of this movie, he has a plan and a timeline and they lay out the timeline very clearly. So, it’s going to take two hours to break this code, then 2.5 hours to break through these different locks. So, you know, we very explicitly put out the exposition of this is what’s going to need to happen. You’re giving the audience a road map for these are the things that are going to have to happen for this to progress so we know that, OK, the movie cannot be over until all these things have happened.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s perfect. Of all the mechanisms to provide an audience with a sense of structure. When we talk about structure we’re saying something is holding all of this up. There’s a spine. And to say here’s this big ass vault and it has seven locks. And it’s going to take me a few hours to get through one through six. But I’ve already told you I don’t know how to get through seven. And Alan Rickman says, “Don’t worry, I’ll handle number seven.” We know that there is a countdown of locks. Literally a number. And we can watch them as they go. It’s not a ticking clock at the end. The whole thing has a clock to it and that’s gorgeous.

**John:** Yeah. Once they start shooting up the party and once things start going down, John McClane has escaped from there. He’s running through the hallways. He’s going up the stairs. And he starts to do what I think is appropriate. What is the best thing for me to do right now? And he doesn’t just charge in to try to save everybody. He’s like I need to get help and he works on trying to get help, which is a good, natural response, and not a movie hero response, but is actually what a real person would try to do. How do I get somebody to show up here?

**Craig:** Right. And there’s a line that Jeb Stuart and Steven de Souza have in here. He is present but hiding when he sees Mr. Takagi murdered by Alan Rickman. And he runs away. They hear him. They chase after him. But they don’t see him. He escapes. And when we see him next he is by himself and he is saying, “Why didn’t you do something, you idiot?” And then he goes, “Because you would have been as dead as he is.” So in his mind he’s talking it through so that we know – and this is important – you can feel the note on this. So is he a coward? No, he’s not a coward. He literally says out loud, “I’m not a coward. I’m smart.”

**John:** His plan is to contact the police and get police out there and get this handled. He tries to do it and this is the first of many classic examples of just like he has a plan and it falls apart because of this obstacle, things he couldn’t anticipate.

The police just don’t take him seriously.

**Craig:** Right. This is the beginning of incompetent police work. But before we get to the police we have another relationship that we learn about, for a very fleeting moment, but it is perfectly efficient. It is the relationship between Karl and his brother. These are two German brothers, although one of them is a Russian in real life. A ballet dancer at that. And they are both criminals, obviously as part of this gang. Karl seems to be a bit of a hot head. His brother is a bit more methodical and careful. And that’s all we know. That’s all we need to know. Because what’s going to happen is Karl’s brother will be the first terrorist that dies, not because McClane murders him, importantly because they fight. He doesn’t murder him. They fight and they fall down the stairs and Karl’s brother breaks his neck.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Smart choice. And now we know that Karl, hot head that he is, has become essentially the nemesis here, which is really smart. Hans Gruber is the brain. He’s the real villain. But Karl is like nature. And you can’t stop Karl. Wonderful. We do have gratuitous nudity as well, very classic 1980s. Classic.

**John:** Yes. Hard to fit into a modern movie than before.

**Craig:** Wouldn’t do it.

**John:** We’re fast forwarding through the movie as we look at this. One of the things I will say is that I was impressed by the photography overall in Die Hard. A thing you definitely notice about 1980 that was hard to do is big wide night shots. We just didn’t have the technology to make those look great. And so there are moments where the helicopter gunships are coming and it’s OK as long as they’re in the city space. But there’s just not enough light to sort of light the city of Los Angeles. And some of the big nighttime shots are really dark.

**Craig:** Yeah. They do a great job here. They also use so many different environments in this building. You feel like they devoured this building and used every possible piece. You have cinderblock environments. You have construction areas. And they even set up the fact that the building is not complete. Takagi says, “It’s still a work in progress.” And you can see that. So that’s explained.

You’re in elevator shafts. You’re in ducts. You’re in these beautiful offices. You’re in an atrium. They really do use everything, every part of this building. And then that great roof. I never – and I still don’t – understand exactly how a building like this is put together. It seems like it has been put together for the purposes of a movie. There’s all these cool railings and grills and fans and things. But it never crosses the line into what I would call Michael Bay-ville where everything seems art directed. It doesn’t. It actually seems real even though it’s not.

**John:** In terms of talking about the physical spaces, watching this again I noticed that there’s a pinup poster on one wall. And we come back to it a second time. He notices it the first time and he comes back to it again. And it’s a very useful way of reestablishing, OK, we’re back on that same floor. Because things would otherwise be very confusing.

**Craig:** Again, using gratuitous nudity.

**John:** But it helps you remember that you’ve seen that thing before and we’re back in that same place.

**Craig:** I remembered it.

**John:** Otherwise rooms could look the same.

**Craig:** No, exactly. And this was another way that they could answer these questions. And these are the kinds of questions that you and I get all the time. I remember when I turned the first script in for the first Chernobyl. One of the questions was, “How are we going to tell all these people apart? We don’t know the actors. We don’t know their names. And they’re all wearing the exact same thing.” And we were like I guess we’re going to have to cast carefully. But the truth is these are the things you’ve got to worry about.

**John:** You do.

**Craig:** I could see in Die Hard like how are we going to know what floor we’re on. Well, most of the times you don’t. But some of the times – there was a computer room. That was its own thing.

**John:** I had no sense of where that computer room was in the building. It does not matter at all.

**Craig:** Doesn’t matter.

**John:** I know the lobby is on the ground floor. I know the party is up high. The reason why we needed that pinup is because the fact that we’ve been there before means he has a knowledge of how to get out of that floor, which is very important.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** All right. So finally he gets up to the roof. He uses the radio. He calls the police. They don’t believe him. But ultimately they say, “OK, we’ll send a car to do a drive by.”

**Craig:** It’s insane. So in this world the Los Angeles police department their special thing that they monitor, they’re all in some kind of weird Death Star environment. It’s this dark room with blinking lights. And they don’t believe anybody who calls them about anything.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** There’s even gunshots in the radio. They don’t care. And John McClane bizarrely – oh, well, he doesn’t identify himself as a police officer in part because he knows that they’re listening. And then you get this other relationship in the movie which frankly for me as a kid was the relationship I felt, more than his relationship with Holly.

**John:** Well let’s talk about Al Powell. So Al Powell is the guy who shows up. When we first meet Al Powell he is buying Twinkies at a convenient store. It’s not an amazing scene. It establishes him as an ordinary Joe. Again, a working class man.

**Craig:** You know–

**John:** He’s not eating the fancy pastries. He’s eating Twinkies.

**Craig:** If you watch this movie one thing you will notice is that everything that happens that’s funny happens when Alan Rickman is doing it, or when Bruce Willis is doing it. If those guys aren’t in the scene and funny things are happening they are not funny.

**John:** They’re meant to be funny, but they don’t really work.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t think John McTiernan was necessarily the funniest director. So, your choice there is he’s an overweight cop and he’s buying Twinkies, but he has him buying like 12? Who can eat 12 Twinkie boxes?

**John:** They’re talking about his wife being pregnant. It didn’t make sense.

**Craig:** None of it works. None of it works. Similarly when Hart Bochner is giving his whole, “Hey, bubby, I’m going to…” Doesn’t work. It’s just not funny. Rickman is funny and Willis is funny. But, Al Powell is instantly likeable.

**John:** That’s what you needed.

**Craig:** He is a sweetheart. He lets the 7-11 guy kind of push him around even, you know. And he’s smart, clearly. And we’re immediately on his side. We feel good about this. We’re just a little worried that maybe he doesn’t fit the action hero vibe. So if this is the only friend that our action hero has, what does that mean for our story?

**John:** The other crucial thing about the Al Powell/John McClane relationship is that McClane can’t be honest with him about certain things because other people are listening in.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So it’s that challenge of how you establish a relationship with somebody you don’t know and who cannot be fully honest with you. And so that starts the whole cowboy discussion. And call me Roy. All the stuff that they’re doing, they can talk about some things, but there’s a limit to it. And that’s a great obstacle to put in front of your characters.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, Al Powell literally says to his awful boss, who was the awful teacher from Breakfast Club, “I think he’s a cop, because I basically have a hunch.” Meaning we’re talking guy talk to each other. Like we’re men. We’re having a man conversation. Again, you pencil neck twerps would never understand. But that is the bond they have. They’re two regular guys.

And that eventually will blossom into something really meaningful when they have this kind of – one of the more famous “my brother fell into a lake” stories in any movie ever. Which is the story of what happened to Al Powell.

**John:** Yeah. So when we get to one hour, one minute into the film we introduce a brand new obstacle, brand new character, which is the news reporter who wants the scoop. And so this conversation that has been happening on the radio, they get word of it. They get word that there’s an incident happening at this tower. The news reporter is obsessed with getting the scoop and getting there. It’s late to establish new characters, but one of the things I love about this movie is that this movie is not afraid to introduce new characters late and just create new problems and new obstacles. So this is a character who has a three or four beat arc and it mostly works.

**Craig:** It mostly works. Look, one of the beautiful things about casting is sometimes that solves your screenwriting problem. If you cast William Atherton in 1988 and you put him in that suit and that tie you know he’s a problem. He’s a jerk who cares only about himself. He’s going to be arrogant. And he’s going to screw things up in a way that makes the audience go, “No, you idiot!” That’s what he does. You don’t need a lot of explanation.

But all these pins have been lined up. We know that this marriage is in trouble. We know that Holly knows that John’s running around the building because only John can make people that upset.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** We know that Karl is a hot head who now has a reason to hate John McClane irrationally. We know that Hans Gruber is a cold, calculating man. We know that there’s a guy out there who understands what’s going on but he himself is limited. He seems scared and timid. All these things are all set up and the pins will fall.

**John:** Yes. And consider the studio note saying like, “Oh, can we set up the news reporter earlier?” The answer is no. Because if we set up the news reporter earlier we would expect to have an arc or more important stuff and you would need to be checking in with that character again. And we’d really have the same problem that we have with Argyle in the limo which is like there’s not enough for him to do, and so we have to sort of keep checking in and giving him BS stuff to sort of remind you that he exists.

**Craig:** Yeah. It would be cut. You don’t need – I’m sure that they looked at Ghostbusters and said, yeah, they didn’t need to set up the EPA guy either. Just being him in. Announce that he’s EPA and have him start being a dick.

**John:** That’s all you need.

**Craig:** That’s all you need.

**John:** All right. So then we get to another big action sequence. Send in the tank. Which is the first idea – send in the car which is really this tank which is going to charge up. It’s the first time we see that – this is also very 1980s. Very sort of like bring in the military, like bring in the big power stuff. And we also see that the bad guys have [unintelligible] grenades and they were prepared for this.

**Craig:** Just like John McClane warned them. But because they are elitists, probably globalists, they don’t care. They are too self-assured. And through one of the strangest exercises of chain and command ever they make one of the dumbest possible decisions that no police department – I mean, police must have been so frustrated watching these things back then. But regardless, it goes poorly for them.

And this is important because what the movie continually reinforces for us is that the only way this is going to be fixed is by one guy in that building. Not only is the cavalry not going to help. They’re going to make things worse over and over and over. And they’re going to make things worse in a beautiful way.

When the cops finally do arrive Hans Gruber says to his men, “OK, calm down, it’s a little earlier than we thought. But it was inevitable. It was going to happen no matter what. And in some ways it needed to happen.” Well that’s an interesting bit. And I definitely didn’t pick up on that as a kid as being somehow foreshadowing in any way, shape, or form. But you got the sense that that wasn’t normal. Like this guy really is in remarkable control.

One more screenwriting note that I love. John McClane makes his presence known to the terrorists by after he kills Karl’s brother he duct tapes him to a chair. He writes, “Now I have a machine gun, Ho-Ho-Ho,” on his shirt, which is the greatest thing of all time.

**John:** Writes it on a [crosstalk].

**Craig:** And he sends him down the elevator. Alan Rickman is explaining to the hostages that there’s nothing they can do. They have thought of everything. Nothing has been left to chance. And then the elevator door opens and there’s one of their guys murdered. It’s really funny. And it makes us appreciate the whole thing. That little bit of kind of counterpoint was I thought really well done. And again Alan Rickman makes it funny.

**John:** Yes. All right. So the tank did not go well. Basically we see the police fail again and again, because they are not doing what John McClane would have them do. John McClane has limited ability to influence what they can do and he doesn’t want to reveal who he actually is.

**Craig:** Obstacles.

**John:** Yes. These are obstacles. These are all good things. Now, Ellis, who is another person we know is going to be a problem, because we set him up from the start that–

**Craig:** He loves cocaine and he wants to sleep with Holly.

**John:** And he wants to intervene. He wants to prove that he’s the person who can solve the situation. He goes in to negotiate.

**Craig:** More great Alan Rickman stuff. Because Hart Bochner is like, “You know, the way I see it you guys are…” And Alan Rickman just goes, “Amazing. You figured it all out.” He’s just so great. He’s so funny. And as that’s happening you’re like, oh man, Hart Bochner. You’re going to die. I can’t even get excited about you dying. You’re so definitely going to die.

**John:** But what surprised me watching this again is I assumed that the Ellis character was going to give up Holly. And instead he tries to play this thing that they’re old friends. And for a moment you’re like, oh, you’re not as dumb as I thought you were. This could work out. And you have little moments of hope. And then it doesn’t go well and McClane says like don’t believe this guy.

**Craig:** He’s trying to save him. And this is a classic hero moment. Great thing for screenwriters to do. When your hero attempts – is such a good person, despite the many killings that they are doing, that they’re even trying to help somebody that’s trying to betray and hurt them.

**John:** Yes. Ellis does not survive this discussion.

**Craig:** Nope.

**John:** Nope. And a good escalation. After Ellis has been killed, Rickman takes the radio, holds it out to the crowd so that McClane can hear everyone screaming. Making it clear to McClane and to the police outside this has ratchet up a notch.

**Craig:** And now you get the sense that Hans Gruber is punching back. Also incredibly important. So one of the things that I talked about in How to Make a Movie is when your character is kind of doing well, you have to punish them for it. Because you need to feel that what they eventually have to do has to be really hard. You just don’t want to give them too many wins. You want to make it hurt as much as you can. So in the theory that you’re an angry god punishing your hero, Die Hard does a great job.

**John:** Absolutely. Rickman asks for some prisoner releases. He wants these terrorists released from prison. Again, it’s a misdirection. And at this point we fully know that it’s not real. But it starts things scrambling. And it’s also going to be a way to involve the FBI because it goes beyond what the local police could do. And we realize that Gruber actually wanted a certain plan to be put into place.

**Craig:** It’s a great plot twist. The FBI is even stupider than the Los Angeles Police Department, which again – note, again, when Rickman or Willis are not on screen the jokes are not great jokes. The whole like we’re two FBI agents with the same names, it just–

**John:** Actually I kind of liked that.

**Craig:** It’s fine, but it’s not ha-ha funny.

**John:** Here’s what it was. I liked that they showed up and they were given some line and some bit of business to let me know – some sense that they did exist before they walked onto that screen.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** There’s also a moment in the helicopter where they say, you know, “It reminds me of Saigon.” I was in Junior High. There is a tension there before this all happens.

**Craig:** Sure. Yeah. It’s just broad.

**John:** It’s broad.

**Craig:** It’s broad. I mean, that’s the thing. When you look at what – I mean, Alan Rickman, who I didn’t know Alan Rickman before Die Hard. He walks over and he looks at that shirt and he says in his accent, which is barely German-tinged, but mostly just Alan Rickman, “Now I have a machine gun.” And they were so smart to smush up the shirt so he has to push it down. “Ho-Ho-Ho.” It’s so great. He’s so funny. Ah, the best. I miss him.

**John:** So an hour and 28 in. We go back to the newsroom and this is a scene that no one remembers, but they have an expert on terrorism there who has written a book about terrorism. And they’re interviewing him and they say like Helsinki, and then he goes Sweden, no Finland, just to show that they’re buffoons.

**Craig:** Experts are stupid and bad. And only the average Joe on the street can solve a problem.

**John:** Looking at this I was trying to decide why it stayed in the movie and I think it’s actually just to provide a little space between some other beats. I feel like this scene could be dropped, but you look at what’s before and after they needed just a tiny breath and this little scene with this terrorism guy gives you a tiny breath. And reminds you that the news people are going to be in this movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. It does. It may also be the result of personal ax-grinding. I mean, sometimes when things stay in movies it’s because somebody goes, “Yeah.” Like maybe Joel Silver was like, “Yeah, screw you experts. I love it. It’s staying in.” You never know with these things.

**John:** Now, one hour, 31 minutes into the film a surprising moment happens which is a face-to-face meeting between Gruber and McClane, which is completely unexpected and it’s not set up. It’s suddenly just happening. Gruber is for some reason looking at the detonators that are on the ceiling. We don’t know what they’re there for. Is it a bit of a stretch that he’s doing this himself? Sure. But most of his men are dead, so OK. But it’s one of the sort of signature moments that happens in this film which is that you have the two characters together. They don’t know who each other is. And we see that Gruber is really smart in the moment and is playing himself as a hostage who escaped.

**Craig:** It is one of the best things I’ve ever seen in a movie because until it happens you don’t even realize it was possible. You’re so surprised by it. It’s not like you’re sitting around going, you know, they haven’t seen each other’s faces. He doesn’t know what Hans Gruber looks like. What if he runs into Hans Gruber? Will he know? Because they’re in a building. I mean, Nakatomi Corporation apparently is a business corporation that does business. We don’t know what they do.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** But they’re all in suits and ties. And so is Hans Gruber.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** In fact, he makes a point of saying that he’s dressed like them. That he has suits just like Mr. Takagi. Ah, it’s gorgeous. When that happens it is so shocking, it is so delightful, and it’s also terrifying. Because your hero that you root for has never been more vulnerable. The movie actually becomes a horror film at that point. And it is awesome.

**John:** So let’s talk about who has access to what information, because that becomes a crucial thing throughout all of Die Hard is that as the audience we tend to have more information than any of the characters do. We’re largely omniscient. We get to see everyone’s point of view. So, we know a lot of things that McClane doesn’t know. We know things that Gruber doesn’t know. That’s all really helpful.

In this one small tiny moment the delicious agony is that we know that McClane is in great danger and McClane does not know that he’s in great danger. And we are terrified that something bad is going to happen to him. And the movie has to make the decision about are we going to show to the audience that McClane has caught on or not. And I bet they went back and forth 100 times over that.

**Craig:** It also does this incredible service to the ending, because what you don’t want is for them to come face-to-face at the end and go, oh, that’s what you look like. And now let us have our final. This creates an additional level of relationship between the two of them. There is a formidability to this back and forth. And if you are looking at Die Hard as a celebration of the common man against the snobby thinkers of the world, the so-called smart people, this is what you would do. This is where the common man may take a step back because that smart guy is plotting and scheming the way that smart people do. They can manipulate. They can fool you. But in the end you’ll beat them with your heart and muscle.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But it’s a great moment. And I think that there’s a moment where he realizes that Hans Gruber is not–

**John:** Watching it again, it doesn’t telegraph itself too big or too loud that he really is ahead of him. It’s not until you actually hear the click-click that the gun is empty that you realize that McClane was onto him or at least was suspicious.

**Craig:** Right. There’s apparently a scene that was cut, or a moment that was cut where, a bunch of moments, where every time McClane would kill one of these guys, when he first kills Karl’s brother he–

**John:** Takes off the watch.

**Craig:** Yeah. He checks his shirt and goes, OK, they’re dressed in fancy Euro clothes. But, yes, he looks at the watch and apparently he was supposed to look, and there’s footage of him, looking at all their watches. Because they all sync their watches in a scene that was also cut. So when he notices Hans Gruber’s watch that’s when he apparently in the cut version, the cut scene, that’s when he actually put it all together on screen.

**John:** Following this moment is another iconic Shoot the Glass.

**Craig:** Shoot the Glass.

**John:** Basically there’s a lot of automatic weapon fire happening. Somehow desks are able to withstand a tremendous amount of bullets.

**Craig:** Yep. [Unintelligible] armor.

**John:** But by shooting at the glass he sees that McClane is barefoot. We’ve established that Gruber knows that McClane is barefoot and he tells them shoot at that glass because it will hurt him.

**Craig:** One of the best and strangest moments in film history. A German man says to another German man, “Shoot the glass,” in German. And the other German man just looks at him like, what?

**John:** [Speaks in German].

**Craig:** And he repeats it in English and that’s what the German guy understands. Shoot the glass. It is so odd. I have been laughing about this since 1988. But I love it. What can I say?

**John:** So if this wasn’t bad enough, at one hour and 38 minutes the news reporters have discovered John McClane’s home address. And so we know that’s a thing that’s going to happen.

**Craig:** Oh, William Atherton. So this accelerates the ending. So this is what’s pouring fuel on the ending. And now we know that there’s a real ticking clock. So we have the ticking clock of the vault being opened. But the ticking clock for John McClane isn’t enough like we’ll kill you. The real ticking clock is we know who you are, so we know who Holly is, so now she’s in jeopardy.

**John:** Yep. She’s in individual jeopardy.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** As he’s picking glass out of his feet we have this scene which I think you referred to earlier on which is the Al scene of “I shot a kid.” Talk to me about that.

**Craig:** Correct. So we sometimes talk about this about “my brother drowned” scene. A character will tell a sob story about their past. It usually involves somebody dying that they couldn’t save but wanted to. And in this case it’s a variation of that. Al Powell shot a kid and it was a mistake. It was justified. They craft the story very carefully so that you understand he wasn’t like some hot head jerk cop. He really did think his life was in danger. He just was wrong. And he’s been beating himself up over it ever since. And therefore can’t get back on the horse. He’s not suitable really to be a real cop because as we know from these movies real cops shoot people.

**John:** They do.

**Craig:** That’s what they do. They’re constantly plugging people and they don’t hesitate. So that’s his damage is that he actually feels bad about murdering someone, which is amazing. But, it is the kind of hetero male bonding that was allowable in 1988.

**John:** Absolutely. I think it’s an important moment. It gives Bruce Willis something to do other than just pick the glass out of his feet. Bruce Willis is doing a great job of acting the pain of that. And it’s a gruesome moment. But if he hadn’t had a conversation during that time you would never have been able to stay in that scene as long as you did.

**Craig:** This is the last break you get. And it’s important to give people a break. Actually it prepares them. Because what’s going to happen from this point forward is a relentless race to an explosive end, and then another explosive end. It’s going to be exciting. They need a breather. And they need some context. And they need to feel something, especially because this is going to set up the ending for Al Powell.

**John:** So once the news report happens Gruber realizes that Holly is McClane’s wife. A great line I loved here, she says that, “He’s a common thief.” “I’m an exceptional thief. And since I’m moving up to kidnapping you should be more polite.”

**Craig:** Right. And the way he says these things is just so great.

**John:** And the FBI of course is going to accelerate things in stupid, dumb ways. So first off they want to cut the power. That was always part of the plan because the electromagnetic locks–

**Craig:** He says in the beginning, their hacker safe cracker says, “The problem with the seven is it’s an electromagnetic lock. And the power cannot be turned off locally. It has to be the whole grid.”

**John:** Does that make any sense? No. But it doesn’t have to.

**Craig:** Doesn’t have to. Makes no sense. But Hans Gruber, he knows that the FBI as a matter of protocol will shut the power off on the grid. Which again, OK, fine, not sure about that either. And he says something that has been rattling around in my brain for all these many 32 years. And that is, “You ask for a miracle, I give you the F. B. I.” And now musically, there’s been little hints of Ode to Joy throughout this whole thing, and weirdly usually presented with Hans Gruber in a kind of weird creepy style. And now the full Ode to Joy begins. And, again, this is a smart again.

**John:** Yeah. Again, this is the Ocean’s 11 part of it. He’s Danny Ocean. He had a secret special plan. This is also around the time where a van backs out of this truck, or an ambulance backs out of the truck which is meant to be their getaway thing.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It doesn’t really pay off right. And in reading about that it looks like there was a different thing that sort of got cut and moved about that. But we’re seeing their whole plan and it does look like their plan is going to work out properly.

**Craig:** Precisely. And you want that. You want to believe that they have many more tricks up their sleeves. You want to feel like your hero is behind the eight ball here because the only way they’re going to succeed, the only way that John McClane is going to save his wife and defeat Hans Gruber and these kidnappers and save all these hostages is by doing something we can’t foresee. Something that is going to require him to do things he didn’t even know he could do.

**John:** Yep. Including defeat the giant Russian guy in a fist fight.

**Craig:** Correct. And that is something that we’ve been waiting for the whole movie. We’ve been waiting for this beast, this uncontrollable irrational beast that even Hans Gruber can’t control to face off with John McClane because, well, he feels like death is coming for you. He’s huge and he’s angry. But, you know, the good guy always wins.

**John:** The good guy is going to win.

**Craig:** Yeah, yeah. He chokes him with a chain.

**John:** With a chain. So by being smarter and more wily he’s going to beat him. Because he’s not going to beat him through–

**Craig:** You can’t punch that guy out.

**John:** So the plan was to blow up the roof when the helicopters land because it will create such chaos. It won’t be clear who lived and who died. The roof does blow up. John McClane does jump off the building with the hose. It really is an amazing–

**Craig:** It’s awesome.

**John:** Amazing idea. Amazing moment. Really well shot. It works great.

**Craig:** It’s great.

**John:** And I loved that the second beat of like shooting through the window, getting in, and getting dragged back out by the weight of things. Just remembering that gravity exists. Terrific.

**Craig:** The physics of it are great. It was beautifully directed. I mean, John McTiernan did an incredible job there. Yeah, no, love it.

**John:** Cool. Finally, we get the final showdown. So Holly is now a full damsel hostage. We have Gruber and one guy who is still left alive.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And we get to the moment of John McClane only has two bullets. There’s no way he’s going to be able to make this thing happen. We don’t know exactly what he’s going to do, but we see him looking at some wrapping people and such.

**Craig:** Because it’s a Christmas movie.

**John:** Because it’s a Christmas movie. It’s fundamentally a Christmas movie. He ends up when told to drop his weapon he drops his weapon. Of course he has the gun taped to his back.

**Craig:** His police gun.

**John:** His police gun. His real gun.

**Craig:** The only gun you really need as a cop.

**John:** Absolutely. Because only terrorists use–

**Craig:** Only terrorists. That stuff, it’s like poison. No, a man uses a gun that fits in his hand.

**John:** And then with two amazing perfect shots, because he’s apparently an amazing shot.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Even though no one tends to get hit by actual bullets in this movie, he is able to hit two people in precisely a single shot.

**Craig:** Storm Trooper rules at work.

**John:** Absolutely. Gruber goes through the window, still holding on to Holly.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** The watch has to be removed.

**Craig:** The watch needs to be removed because honestly, you know, she needs to come back home. It’s regressive. But regardless at least it was set up. And Hans Gruber falls to his death with this great look on his face of like how did this happen. Like this is not how this is supposed to end. He seemed so confused.

I also like the fact that honestly, so 1988 green screen was still kind of, you know, it had been used for about a decade or more, but it was still a little funky. And I kind of like that it’s funky. It made things special back then. Now I just feel like, oh yeah, it looks so real that it’s fake.

**John:** So the legend is that they actually dropped Rickman before they said they were going to drop him and that’s why he has that expression that he has. They said we’ll drop you on three and they dropped him on two.

**Craig:** Oh, I like that. That’s cool. I mean, he definitely looks scared.

**John:** He does look scared. Let’s do the Lindsay Doran, making sure that we’re talking about what the real victory is in the movie versus the fake victory. Because Alan Rickman’s death is not the victory of the movie. The victory of the movie is getting back with Holly. And it is walking out of the building with the wife. You’re both wearing your first responder jackets over your ruined clothes.

**Craig:** As you should in these movies. You always have to wear a blanket or a jacket because saving the world makes you cold. We know this for a fact. But in the end there are two relationships we care about. John McClane and Holly. And John McClane and Al Powell. And both of those relationships are how this movie ends. That’s how a movie should end. Karl rises from the near dead–

**John:** Classic Fatal Attraction. You have to.

**Craig:** Classic Fatal Attraction. But who kills him? Al Powell, who has regained the courage to murder people. [laughs] I assume he gets a promotion because of that.

**John:** Absolutely. It’s like a Christmas Carol in a very messed up way.

**Craig:** I can kill people. [laughs]

**John:** The miracle of Christmas.

**Craig:** Yes, Merry Christmas everyone.

**John:** Oh, and then Argyle drives them home.

**Craig:** And then Argyle.

**John:** And gets the last line of the movie.

**Craig:** What is the last line of the movie?

**John:** Last line of the movie is, “If this is their idea of Christmas, I got to be there for New Year’s.”

**Craig:** Well there you go. There’s your sequel setup. That also feels like Joel Silver.

**John:** It does. And so watching the movie I was like, oh my god, like the last line of Go is almost the same line.

**Craig:** What is it?

**John:** I had no idea. “So, what are we doing for New Year’s?”

**Craig:** It’s also the last line of Chernobyl. [laughs]

**John:** It’s a great last line. It makes sense. To me the going home with Argyle in the limo, fine, whatever.

**Craig:** It’s full circle.

**John:** It’s full circle. It is full circle.

**Craig:** They’re together. They’ve solved all their problems. And they’ll never have another problem again. Now, of course, Bruce Willis does have many more problems. There’s been a Die Hard 2, 3, 4, possibly 5?

**John:** I think there’s only four.

**Craig:** Four. One of the problems, sequels are really, really, really hard. And one of the problems is that the movie that happens in 1988 is of its time. As the years go on this guy isn’t really of his time. So, you know, it was harder and harder. I mean, I didn’t mind the sequels. Just, you know, this was special.

**John:** Well, also coincidences can happen once. And so–

**Craig:** It’s a little Murder She Wrote. Like maybe you’re the terrorist.

**John:** Yeah, maybe you’re the problem.

**Craig:** Maybe just stay home.

**John:** So let’s wrap this up by talking about what lessons we should be taking from Die Hard and which lessons we should not be taking from Die Hard. My lessons are that it is important to really be thinking about who is the central character in this story and not it’s this genre in a blank. And sort of like don’t just create the environment. You actually have to create who is the fascinating character in this environment who you want to follow through it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I would say that the big screenwriting lesson that I draw from Die Hard is if you want something to happen that solves a problem in a cool way in your script, that’s great, now go back and set it up. And don’t set it up in a way that’s obvious. Set it up in a way that will make the eventual emergence of this thing surprising and fun. Gives the audience a sense that there was an intelligence working behind the scenes that they weren’t aware of.

**John:** Yeah. The bad versions of this movie that I’ve seen since then, they do things in the setup that feel like, oh god, that’s so clearly a setup that’s going to payoff later on. And so when you can hide the setup that is so smart. So like the computer system with Holly’s name. That is a hide the setup kind of thing. And that’s what works.

**Craig:** Correct. One of the great terrible setups of all time is in a movie I love. Real Genius. I love Real Genius. William Atherton is in Real Genius.

**John:** Again.

**Craig:** Playing a dick. And early on in the movie he says to Val Kilmer, “I hate the smell of popcorn.” [laughs] Val Kilmer is eating popcorn. He goes, “What is that? I hate that smell. I hate the smell of popcorn. It’s disgusting.” Which is weird. And then at the end of the movie the big comeuppance is that they fill his house with popcorn. It’s just – when you see it you’re like there’s literally no reason for this to be here except to set something up later. So, yeah, don’t be obvious with the setups. They’re really good about this. And I also think there’s no wasted energy in this movie. Everything feels like it’s needed and necessary. And every scene propels to the next one.

**John:** Which is very crucial. Craig, thank you for this deep dive Die Hard. Merry Christmas.

**Craig:** Merry Christmas, John. And you know what?

**John:** What?

**Craig:** If this is your idea of Christmas, I can’t wait to see what you do on New Year’s.

**John:** Thanks.

**John August:** So in the episode you just listened to Craig and I deliberately only talked about the movie we see on screen and not the process to get there or the legacy of the film. But now let’s do that with our very special guest, Steven E. de Souza. He’s a writer whose credits range from The Six Million Dollar Man to 48 Hours to The Flintstones, but we of course want to talk to him about his script for Die Hard which he shares credit on with Jeb Stuart. Welcome Steven.

**Steven E. de Souza:** Thank you. I’m glad to be here.

**John:** It’s absolutely a delight to have you here. So we loved this movie and it was actually one at the top of our list of movies we wanted to do a deep dive on because it was just so influential to both me and to Craig. And I think it sort of changed the way we think about big popcorn movies and how we get into characters. It’s such a character-focused action movie. So, when you first were approached with Die Hard what was the status of the script, of the project? It already had a director on? McTiernan was already attached?

**Steven:** McTiernan was already attached. My connection to Joel and Larry was actually on a TV pilot. I did two other pilots prior to meeting them for Paramount. And then I did a pilot called The Renegades, which again was a page one rewrite which was done in a mad race against the cameras. They had a script that was in disarray but they were so hot at that time and Aaron Spelling was involved in that that ABC had bought/committed to going on the air without even reading the pilot script. They’d only seen a three page synopsis. So they said we don’t dare sent them this pilot script which makes no sense. So I started writing it literally ahead of the cameras. And the actors would say why do I hate this guy. And I’d say you’ll find out maybe next week. I don’t know yet.

So now we were in a similar situation where they had had a mad scramble to cast the movie which was very famous. I think some of your audience may know that they had offered to Sinatra first.

**John:** Yes.

**Steven:** And then every big star in Hollywood turned it down. All for the same reason. You’ve got to remember at this time the heroes were all these steroid ripped muscular giants and people read the script and there’s no action for the first 20 pages. And then the entire first act if we’re going to break it down in acts, you know, Bruce is trying to get help. And I knew we were in trouble at the premiere. This was the first movie, I had already done a couple pictures prior to this, but this was the first film that I took my kids to see because I thought they were old enough to handle an R-rated movie, right.

So when Bruce Willis looks out the door and sees them all coming in and then he looks at his sad little pistol and runs upstairs my son grabs my arm and says, “Dad, the hero is chicken shit.” And I said where’d you learn that language? Not from my movies because you haven’t seen them.

**John:** Let’s talk about John McLane’s character here because we’ll put a link in the show notes to this sort of feminist look at Die Hard which is arguing that one of the great things about Die Hard is that the character is more like Ellen Ripley in Aliens in that like he actually is just being smart and clever and he actually knows his limitations which is kind of new for this type of movie.

**Steven:** Exactly. And that is why some of the more obvious choices, Stallone and Schwarzenegger, they all turned it down because in the climate of the time it just didn’t – he seemed kind of a pussy, you know, basically. So, I read the piece, by the way, the link about the feminist approach and I don’t think that was in my mind, but the idea was that he was overmatched and he was an underdog and that the only tool he had was the weapon which we used in clever ways, you know, using it to climb and to fall and so forth.

We were very conscious at the time what was going on politically in the country which was there was this tremendous fear of foreign ownership. The Japanese were buying things up. Meanwhile the joke is of course the largest ownership of America at that time and to this day is Dutch. But, you know, people don’t get worked up about those slippery Dutch. I can hear those wooden shoes sneaking up on me right now. And there’s a reason they call it Dutch treat. For that reason we pushed the heroes’ character into a complete blue collar direction and made them all snotty Eurotrash.

In the original book the character is a sophisticated college graduate, and expert on terrorism who had in fact been an officer in WWII who had met Gruber’s father when his father was a prisoner at Spandau Prison when he was a child. So he was a much more sophisticated character than we ended up doing with Bruce.

When I came on there already was a script and Jeb had done some very important things in breaking the back of the book. Number one in the book, spoiler alert, the character is 65 years old. He’s a retired cop which means Sinatra could have played him. And he’s visiting his daughter who, spoiler alert, does fall out the window and die and is complicit in the company’s crimes. And it was completely political. They were doing some crooked thing in the third world and were wiping out villages to build a bridge or something like that.

And he also did another very important thing. When the book was written CB radio was all the rage, which is now a completely forgotten thing. And the only person that he was able to communicate with outside was a gypsy cab driver who had the dominant role in communication. At a later point the cop came in, Sargent Al Powell, but he was a minor character. So Jeb combined the Al Powell and the gypsy cab driver. As he tells the story he had a fight with – he had the assignment, he was trying to figure out what to do besides making the lead younger, and he had an argument with his wife. And almost had an accident on the road. And, see, life is so short, I could have died and it would have left my wife – so that took him in that direction.

**John:** So some of the big changes you’re describing from the Roderick Thorp novel is taking the daughter character and making up the wife character. Making their relationship and their tension be a central thematic thread. The Al Powell and the radio communication with a person he’s never met as a crucial link there. And in Jeb’s script was Hans Gruber a genuine terrorist, or was it a heist?

**Steven:** He was genuinely a terrorist. It was McTiernan who said like that’s boring. What could we do that’s different? And Jeb is a terrific writer but I would say if you compare his work to mine he doesn’t have the sense of humor that I do. I have humor and a lot of comedy. I push it as far as I can go, because you can always take it out in post but you can’t put it in. So I would say if there’s funny moments in the film they are largely from me. And also another contribution I think that makes the movie work, what happened was Jeb had turned a script in and as Jeb tells it Joel Silver called him in and said you did a great job but we’re moving really fast now and I’m bringing in a guy that works ahead of the camera and we love your script and we don’t have time for meetings. He’s going to jump right into it.

And I’m friendly with Jeb. We’ve gotten along since then. So I immediately realized it was an adventure process movie, that it’s like [unintelligible] or The Asphalt Jungle is really what it is. And I gave all my thoughts to that version of a movie. And therefore I invented the idea of the safe with the safe with the seven seals. It was not in the movie, it was not in Jeb’s script.

Jeb’s script carried over the idea from the book that they were ripping the building apart trying to find the evidence of their crimes. So, by inventing the seven locks it created kind of a pace for the audience to follow. And more importantly as ridiculous as it seems as I’m starting to think about the adventure process film the obligatory scenes, the term that people use all the time in these weekend courses which is usually nonsense. Often the obligatory scene is not in the movie. The obligatory scene in this movie happened in Germany like three months earlier when they planned the heist. But for the movie to work even though it makes no sense in hindsight he didn’t tell everybody the plan. They keep coming in, what’s going on, the FBI is here. He says, “That’s what I’m counting on.” And what kind of criminal mastermind doesn’t fill in his troops, you know?

So this created a great situation which again I take inspiration from Hitchcock in that you start to root for the bad buy because you sort of don’t want any of the authorities’ attempts to stop him to work because you’re dying to know what is he up to.

**John:** Yup.

**Steven:** So by the fact that the villains keep saying, “Well what’s happening next?” And he says, “Trust me. It’s coming along.” You’re secretly rooting for him. And that’s one of the reasons, of course, his performance is great. It was Rickman’s first movie.

**John:** Now talk to me about the set pieces and the degree to which plot needed to accommodate the desire for certain set pieces. So I think about the anti-aircraft, anti-tank guns and the helicopter explosion and they’re blowing up the tank down there. Those feel like set piece choices. And then you had to layer in like, oh, that it’s believable that these characters traveled with these things or had anticipated this problem.

**Steven:** Yes, the idea that they were like overwhelmingly armed and anticipated anything and were ready for the typical even at that time police overkill fit into that. And also, again, we say that he had been formerly a terrorist who had been thrown out for not being terroristic enough. Another thing I would say that I bring to it, and again if you look at my body of work I guess one thing I always do is whenever it’s possible, even when it’s anachronistically like in The Flintstones, I use media to provide exposition. I always say, you know, if this was happening what would really go on? Somebody would notice.

So the newscast and the television are so prominent and the reporter who was a minor character in Jeb’s script, one of the reasons that he became more important and one of the reasons the movie is very rich, as you know the famous problem of casting the movie and went on so long that Willis was cast last minute and he was not free of his television show.

**John:** Wow.

**Steven:** He was filming his television show. And he had I think almost three weeks of filming left on the television show while we were filming. So after I think the fourth day of filming McTiernan called me in and said listen we’re killing this guy, he’s filming the TV show all day, we’re filming practical nights now. I can see the wear and tear. Can you invent more stuff for the rest of the cast?

And so this is one of the reasons that we cut away to so many other things and it made the movie richer. And John McTiernan was very kind to me. There’s a coffee table book of Die Hard. In the preface John says, “Steven de Souza gave me a Fellini movie,” which is very kind. But he said expand the universe of these characters.

One of the first scenes I wrote under this new direction was the scene where Holly confronts Hans.

**John:** That was another question I had for you. At what point did you know that your POV would be so wide? Because we think of it being John McClane’s movie and that he should be the central character, but really the movie is free to cut away to almost any character at any point. And the movie has a POV that’s not limited to his perspective. The journalist is a great example of that, too.

We’re halfway through the movie and suddenly the FBI agents were introduced very, very late and we see things that only they know. Would that have happened if you’d had all of the Bruce Willis time that you would have wanted?

**Steven:** It would have happened to a degree because I’ve done a number of adaptations over time, based on books and things. And in the book you are entirely in the hero’s head. You only know what he sees and he observes. It starts several days before Christmas, in fact. So that does not work. If you eliminated all the things he’s thinking, and there’s long pages where he reminisces about he could have been a better father to his daughter. There’s a sequence where he thinks about WWII and he was a pilot and then he was in Spandau. So I said, OK, this is coming out. Now I have a 15-minute movie. What is left?

So I was doing that anyway, but John gave me the informateur to like go – there was even more material with the housekeeper where she’s reading the children a bedtime story and then she hears the television from the other room. And what was that? Did they say something about Daddy? So there were other things that went on a little more. There was much more business about cutting the power off. That they had to go through bureaucratic hoops to get the power cut for the building.

Like I said, the idea of having this god’s eye view of everything and letting the audience know things that would build suspense on both sides was a deliberate choice to make up for the problem of the book.

**John:** Now, you said you were writing ahead of production. But talk to us about what writing was like in 1987 in terms of writing ahead of stuff. Because were you literally typing pages? What was the process to make changes because we’re so used to our current system of things?

**Steven:** Well, by this time I had a working relationship with Joel and Larry that was very trustworthy. You have to remember that having come up through television and when they met me and I already had producing credits in television, I had a greater level of trust than writers often got at that time, or to this day. Writers are sometimes not even welcome on the set. God forbid they talk to the actor. The actor says, “What do you think my childhood was like?” And I said, “Oh, I think you probably were claustrophobic.” And the director goes, “Why is he crying in the elevator scene?” Could he talk to the writer?

So I know set etiquette. So I was on the set quite a bit and I was often writing and then going to the set and going back and forth. One of the first things I had was the shooting schedule. And I was literally rewriting the movie according to the shooting schedule. I was given a blueprint of the building that was color-coded for what we really had sets up and what was really the building which I had capped on my wall to keep track of the geography.

I also walked the building with the stunt team, looking for things that we could incorporate and really use. So for example the dolly that they fight and they roll across the dolly, that dolly was there. Let’s fall on that dolly. The chains in the ceiling. The chains were really there. I always feel that you should use the location. Too often the fights in the movies, the fistfights in movies are the same fight you would have had in a republic western, like 60 years ago. It’s 70 years ago. You know, hitting with chairs, crashing into mirrors. Whereas the fight in an office building, you know, someone should get their fingers sliced off with the paper cutter.

I was on the set all day and I go home and it’s like two o’clock in the morning. I walk in and the phone rings. Joel Silver, “You got to get back here right away.” What is it? He says, “The morons used real ducts. It’s taken Bruce like a month to crawl through the duct. You’ve got to come down and give me some business.” So almost all those lines in the duct–

**John:** Oh…

**Steven:** I was on the set, on location, and Bruce had a walkie-talkie, and I was just making up dialogue and we recorded probably 15 different lines and some of them were in the movie. The two most famous examples of the advantage of being on the set and being involved in the process all the way through. One of the things that bothered us all through the movie was that Bruce and Alan never met until the end of the movie. And Joel Silver, as he likes to say, he says, “These movies we make, they’re hate movies. They’re like love stories. In a love story the boy has a cute-meet with the girl, they have a couple of dates, and then they get married. In our movie, Steve, they have a cute-meet, they have a couple of dates where they almost kill each other, and one kills the other. And we’re not dating. We’ve got to have the date.”

So, the problem is that he’s got a dozen guys with him and Bruce is outnumbered. So one day on the set in the afternoon there was a break and craft services were coming around with sandwiches. And someone said to Alan Rickman, apropos of nothing, “Alan, a lot of the UK actors do an American accent. Do you do an American accent?” And Alan said, “Well, I don’t do an American accent per se, but I do like a California one.”

So everybody laughed and I said oh my god, oh my god. That’s it. And I ran and I got Joel and I came back and I said Alan do that again. He says what. What you just did. He says, “I don’t do an American accent. I do like a California one.” And I said, Joel, and Joel said, “Oh, oh my god, I get it.” And he went and got Larry Gordon. Same thing. As soon as Alan opened his mouth Larry went, “Oh yeah.”

And then we got McTiernan. And McTiernan is kind of a very dour Scot and he plans meticulously. He began as a writer in the AFI program, not as a director. So he goes, “Uh, I don’t know. No, no, we saw him kill Takagi.” So I said have you filmed that scene yet? And he turns to I guess the second AD and he says, “When do you shoot?” He says we shoot that tomorrow. I said well then can’t we shoot that scene and he doesn’t see his face?”

So now we all went over to the other sound stage where that set was built and John goes around with his hands up, you know, and he goes, “OK, if I take that big table and we move it ten feet and turn it 45 degrees it has a giant let, a solid – instead of four legs on a long table there’s like a solid wall.” The crew starts to move it, he goes, “No, no, wait, wait. I’ve got to see the scene first.”

So then they went to whatever the nearest office building was to that sound stage, whether that was like accounting or whatever. The first office they walked in, get out of here, give your desk to this guy. And I sat down and there had been a scene earlier where Theo got killed there. Theo was not the safe-cracking expert in that previous draft because that idea of the seven things came in later. So Theo who was one of the only Americans on the crew, he was able to briefly fool Bruce because he was an American.

So I needed Theo to be alive anyway, and I was going to not kill him anyway and kill somebody else. But now I said, OK, that became the scene where he meets Alan Rickman who fools him by his demeanor and changing his voice and everything. And of course I think you know the reason that Bruce – I had all these people come up to me and go, “Oh, because the gun weighs less than the bullets,” you know, an explanation of how – or his instincts are so great. And personally I prefer like Sherlock Holmes to decide rather than lucky guess. But as you know with the wrist watches this is all related to another 11th hour thing.

In the original script when they did meet we had a longer monologue from Rickman. “Ah, Mr. McClane, to meet your acquaintance.” “Ah, so you’re Hans, hey? Why’d you blow up the building Hans?” And he went into a longer explanation, escaping the chaos and stuff like that. So as we’re getting to the end of the movie and now that they’ve met, like we didn’t need this long monologue that got mocked in The Incredibles, right, and the explanation seemed thin.

So I had done a TV movie of The Spirit, Will Eisner’s The Spirit, several years before at Paramount where it was kind of cartoony and the villainess was so evil she was going to blow up a children’s hospital and escape using chaos while pretending to be first responders. So I said nobody saw that. It was before it was on home video, so let’s do that. This was literally a week before the movie wrapped. And to show you how late this idea came in, if you watch the movie again “ambulance” is misspelled on the side of the ambulance. And there was no time to correct it.

**John:** That’s great. So it does sound like throughout this whole process if you, or the writer, had not been as integral to the whole shooting process, the production process, it would not have been Die Hard. It would not have been the Die Hard movie that we’re used to. Because it was like a fresco where you’re painting on wet cement.

**Steven:** Exactly. Yes.

**John:** You’re seeing what’s there. So, again, it’s a great argument for what we always say on the show is that writers have to be involved in every step of the process. It’s not just you made a set of plans once and the plans were followed exactly. You have to respond to what you’re actually seeing in front of you.

**Steven:** Also, although it was in the script that they were having conflict, one of the very important scenes where Bruce and Bonnie argue, I went off with them and we improvised for about an hour and an half. They improvised the scene and I recorded it and then I retrofitted the improv that they had worked up into the script. And that’s why that scene is kind of like I think very authentic and heart felt. And then again that would not have happened had I not been on the set.

**John:** Great.

**Steven:** Another thing I would say in regard to this is when it came together and Bruce was signed they said he wants to meet you, but listen, he has been very upset and his people have gotten back to us that they want this script locked. It’s driving him crazy on that TV show. Pink, yellow, green pages. So if he gives you a couple things, notes, but do not tell him that you are doing – just tell him you’re just rewriting the physical production and you’re not going to change his dialogue at all unless he has a problem with a couple of lines.

Bruce is like six years younger than me. Same age as my younger brother. We grew up about 30 miles apart. So as we were feeling each other out we start talking about our childhood and all the TV shows we watched. We watched the same children shows, including Roy Rogers and stuff like that. So after a little bit he said, “You know, I think that I’d love to get more humor in this stuff. I feel comfortable with humor.” I said so you don’t mind changes? He says, “Oh, no, hell, make this as funny as you can.”

Had I taken my marching orders, don’t even mention rewriting to the actor, again I’m not recommending to all your writers to ignore the producer, but in this case it was very fortuitous that people were flexible and could punt. And were willing to roll up their sleeves and jump in. And in a way it felt very much like – it was a modest for the era. It was not a big budget movie for the time. But I found that sometimes either the pressure of time or a smaller budget gives you much more creative freedom. Because in normal circumstances there’s always mid management people who want to give you notes.

So for example back in the day before the digital era you’re showing your first cut to like the producer, but not the main producer, and the producer says, “Listen, the hooker with the heart of god is the witness of the crime. Do you have a close up of her when she talks to the cop?” And the editor says, yeah, we do. And the guy says, and you know he’s thinking, I could ask you to put the close up but now this is work print. It’s going to delay the movie for 48 hours. He doesn’t say it.

But now they know it’s digital, they can do it right away. They give you the note. But when the movie is hurtling down the railroad tracks everybody is afraid to bring up anything that might slow it down. So as I said a panicked production or a more modestly budgeted movie. I did a movie that is one of my best reviewed movies, nobody has seen, but it’s on Amazon now called Possessed which is the true story behind The Exorcist with Timothy Dalton. And the budget of that movie was so modest and I was coming to it off these big hits, they let me do whatever I want. It was fantastic.

And again the same kind of experience where we were not under pressure opened up opportunities. Timothy Dalton came to me at one point as we were wrapping the movie and said, “Listen, I want to talk to you about the last scene of the movie.” And I’m going, OK, here it comes, because I worked with too many Hollywood actors.” And so I said what is it? He says, “I was thinking this would be better if my character said nothing.” So this is not something you normally hear from Hollywood actors. But again knowing that there was enough flexibility he could hit me with something like that at the last minute.

So I recommend to your writers that if you have a choice, work on a picture that is hurtling down the railroad tracks, or a picture that has a fairly modest budget, and you’ll have more creative freedom.

**John:** Let’s wrap up by talking about the legacy of Die Hard. Because I’m curious at what point, because you said your kid thought that the hero is chicken shit, but ultimately I’m sure loved the film because people love the film. And it got a huge reaction when it first came out. At what point did you realize that this was going to be its own mini genre. That there was going to be Die Hard in a dot-dot-dot as a sort of subgenre of action film?

**Steven:** Well our original intention, of course we all knew that Roderick Thorp had been inspired by seeing The Towering Inferno. So in our mind we were going to do the three disaster movies. We were going to do The Towering Inferno, the next was Airport, and the third was going to be Poseidon Adventure.

So we did Airport the second time, which was a totally unrelated script that got reinvented as a Die Hard script. And we were going to do and had a plan even for the cruise ship version, but then Under Siege and Speed 2.

**John:** Cruise Control, yeah.

**Steven:** So that was off the table. But very quickly we realized right away that Under Siege was Die Hard on a boat. And so on. But again they made the mistake, or they decided that instead of being an ordinary guy he was a super ordinary guy. Then we had Air Force One, Die Hard on a plane. And when it became really out of hand, now this is a true story that I told a number of times to journalists, and none of them in interviews like this they always thought I was making it up. But I told Bruce the story and then Bruce did an interview in Vanity Fair on Die Hard 4 where he told my story and now people believe the story.

**John:** Of course, yes.

**Steven:** Of course, because he told it.

But I got a call from a producer who saw the Timothy Dalton movie, which is now playing on Amazon, called Possessed, and he said, “I was watching this movie, I got caught up, and I saw the credits that you wrote and directed this. And you directed a couple of Academy Award-winning actors and that’s not your wheelhouse, a horror movie. I’ve got a picture that’s right up your alley and now that I know you can direct you have carte blanche to rewrite it and you can direct the movie.”

And I said what is it? He said, “It’s Die Hard in a building.”

**John:** Ha! Yes.

**Steven:** He sent the script over and it was terrible. It was a complete beat-for-beat copy of Die Hard except with a female protagonist, otherwise like a clone. So I passed.

**John:** No. So my question for you Steven is do you have a sense of why we’re not making “Die Hard in a” very much anymore? Because Skyscraper very much is a Die Hard kind of movie. But there haven’t been a lot of those recently. I don’t see that as a genre that’s happening in the 2020s. And I’m sort of curious if you had any sense of why because it feels like it kind of should still work. That we have a clear central protagonist who has to protagonate over the course of it against overwhelming odds in a confined space.

**Steven:** I think, and it sounds crazy, but I think now they just seem too small scale. I mean, in the conversation for this movie we kept escalating how much money was in the bearer bonds.

**John:** That’s right.

**Steven:** Well that’s chump change. $100 million, that’s chump change, you know.

**John:** Because you’re not saving the world, so what’s the point?

**Steven:** Exactly. Exactly. If you’re not saving the world. And too many movies now the climax is just, you know, 20 minutes of CGI. This movie almost everything is practical. There’s no CGI in that movie at all.

**John:** This was an absolute delight. Thank you so much for coming on to talk to us about Die Hard.

**Steven:** I’m delighted to do it. I’m delighted to finally meet you. I’m a big fan.

**John:** Steven, thank you so much. Have a great weekend.

**Steven:** All right, you too. Bye-bye.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* Read the DIE HARD script on [Weekend Read](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/weekendread/) or [online here](https://www.scriptslug.com/assets/scripts/die-hard-1988.pdf).
* [Feminist Analysis of Die Hard](https://anotherangrywoman.com/2016/12/18/making-fists-with-your-toes-towards-a-feminist-analysis-of-die-hard/)
* [Movies That Made Us](https://www.netflix.com/title/80990849) on Netflix, check out the Die Hard episode on S1!
* Sign up for [premium here](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/).
* [Steven E. de Souza](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0211823/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/stevenedesouza)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Andy Roninson ([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/527standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 525: The Story This Was Based On, Transcript

December 1, 2021 HWTBAM, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-story-this-was-based-on).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 525 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie where we take a look at stories in the news and figure out how to transform them into quality filmed entertainment. This week we’re joined by a journalist who wrote one of our previous contenders to learn what it’s like having your work optioned by Hollywood.

**Craig:** I’m sure it’s great.

**John:** It’s the best experience in the world. It’s the dream.

**Craig:** It’s Hollywood.

**John:** We’ll also look at how you shape and tell true stories and answer some related listener questions. And in our bonus segment for premium members with studios owning publishers and the Writers Guild representing both screenwriters and journalists, what are the remaining distinctions between writing for Hollywood and writing for news media. We’ll dig into that.

**Craig:** I have thoughts.

**John:** Craig, most importantly, what are your thoughts on the brand new Scriptnotes hoodies? For the first time in 10 years we have Scriptnotes hoodies. Click that link. Take a look and tell us what you think of these hoodies.

**Craig:** Click that link. Smash that like button. I think it’s great. And I want one. And I’m just sort of like torn. I feel like I think I’m a large. You know what?

**John:** I got the large.

**Craig:** Yeah. Large feels right. Extra-large feels too roomy.

**John:** Yeah, the tent.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. I don’t want to walk in tent. So, John, can I have a large?

**John:** You can have a large. We can actually order you a large. We’ll order that for you.

**Craig:** Give me a large. Now.

**John:** We’ll get you a large. But if you would like a large, if you’re a listener who would like a large or any size of these sweatshirts you have until November 18 at 5pm which is when they’re closing orders for this first – and you probably will not be able to get a hoodie by Christmas unless you order by November 18, 2021. So, get them now.

**Craig:** And this has passed the Stuart softness test?

**John:** It has. Absolutely. And so we’re looking for the right copy, and so Stuart’s sense of softness is how we always build the t-shirts. But Stuart Friedel has not been the producer of Scriptnotes for so long that newer listeners might not even know that Stuart had a prudential gift for figuring out the softest fabrics. And so instead we went to the Megana Rao test which is like could you wear this while cupping a giant mug of hot chocolate in your hands and would this be that comfy.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And we believe that these are that comfy.

**Craig:** So Baby Yoda would wear this while sipping soup?

**John:** It is a Baby Yoda-approved level of comfort.

**Craig:** Got it. Well, this is good, because Stuart I guess has just very sensitive skin. Because he was really into the softness thing. But he’s so right.

**John:** Our Scriptnotes t-shirts are remarkably soft. I don’t want to wear anything else.

**Craig:** They’re so good that I ordered a bunch of non-Scriptnotes, just blank t-shirts from – what is it called?

**John:** Cotton Bureau.

**Craig:** Cotton Bureau. Because it’s the tri-blend. Tri-blend. So this is the same thing, right? It’s made of Stuart’s shirt material?

**John:** This is the hoodie equivalent of the tri-blend. So I can’t promise that it’s the exact same thing because that would be too thin probably for this hoodie.

**Craig:** Of course. But that softness level I think is really important. Megana, your reputation is on the line. No pressure.

**John:** No pressure. All right. Let’s do some follow up. First off, last week we were talking about bringing in experts to be consultants on things. And we were talking specifically about military experts. Max wrote in to point out that there’s actually an organization called Veterans in Media and Entertainment which does exactly that. So, it’s a charitable organization that supports US military veterans. If you have a military subject they can find you an expert on it. So, we’ll put a link in the show notes to that. It’s vmeconnect.org.

**Craig:** Great. And they are a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. I love seeing it. Anytime we can promote one of these groups, please we will. And what do I mean by group. I mean any organization that is willing to share their expertise with writers gratis. We’re not looking for people who are accepting money. But if it’s a charitable organization of course like a 501(c)(3) then donations are always a possibility. But if there’s a group out there that is willing to just pick up the phone or answer an email to help screenwriters be accurate then we will spread the word.

**John:** We love it. Now some of the most anticipated follow up.

**Craig:** Drum roll.

**John:** Probably in the history of the show. We all remember who Oops was hopefully. So Oops was a writer who was working on a film and she had kind of fallen in love with, had a little crush on, a producer on the film and she wrote in asking for our advice on what do you do because you don’t want to mess up this situation. And you and I talked about it. Aline came on to talk about it. We now have follow up from Oops on what actually happened. Megana Rao, you are the voice of Oops on this podcast so if you can please give us the update from what Oops wrote in this week.

**Megana Rao:** All right. So Oops says, “I’m pleased to let you all know that I’m now Miss Oops Plus One. I have this weird millennial resistance to saying something like he’s my boyfriend, but yeah, it’s all kind of worked out. Yay for love. I’d love nothing more than to share expertly screen written blow by blows with the audience, but it’s funny how now I’m suddenly mentally concerned with his privacy. Anyway, I wanted to thank you guys and Aline and those who wrote in for such sage advice. I think back on those few weeks routinely and laugh. It was all rather silly and fun and I’m just so glad that I was cautious, thought about it a lot, and ultimately trusted my gut because she was right. Yours, Not Yet Planning the Scriptnotes Wedding but Never Ruling it Out, Oops.”

**Craig:** Oh, I am just beside myself with joy here. Because I don’t know if you remember I was definitely the guy pushing down pretty hard on the gas pedal. We are all aware that mixing romance and work these days is tricky. And I like the fact that Oops thought it through. She was really careful and it seems like her now boyfriend, because he is your boyfriend, I don’t care what you say Oops, her boyfriend was also careful. He was also thinking about it. And lo and behold we’re here to tell you that two responsible, rational, careful people can meet at work and fall in love. And become boyfriend/girlfriend. And I love it.

So, I’m happy. I think we needed a story like this. We needed to know that there was still room for healthy love in our business.

**John:** Congratulations to Oops. And congratulations to Oops’ boyfriend and her plus one.

**Craig:** Megana, are you happy?

**Megana:** I am very happy for Oops. I think they kept it a secret. I had to edit some of this out because of her concern for his privacy. But they kept it a secret for most of production and then right after production were official. But it seems like most of the crew knew the whole time.

**Craig:** Obviously. Everybody knows everything on a crew. Being with them now, I have been working with a crew now for months. And I think we all know like what we have for breakfast in the morning before we get to work. Everybody knows everything.

**John:** Yeah. To me the tell is always not that people are starting to talk to each other but they suddenly stop talking to each other. It’s like, ah, yeah, you’re trying not to let us all know what’s happened there.

**Megana:** That’s what she said, too. The night after they had that conversation they just stopped talking to each other completely at work.

**Craig:** Of course. And then everybody within 14 seconds was like, mmm, mm-hmm.

**John:** We all saw the chemistry. Now there’s not communication. Yeah.

**Craig:** OK, it happened. What else is going on out there, John? Anymore follow up?

**John:** Oh, Craig, the other big piece of follow up that you’re so looking forward to is MoviePass is back.

**Craig:** Yes!

**John:** So excited. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to this article about MoviePass co-founder Stacy Spikes was granted ownership of the company and basically he was able to buy it out of bankruptcy. Maybe it was $250,000. Maybe it was less than that that he was able to buy it.

**Craig:** You can’t get a tear-down two bedroom in Los Angeles County for that amount of money. And this is what MoviePass was apparently worth.

**John:** Yeah. So I’m excited for this new chapter. It’s really a thing I thought was dead and gone.

**Craig:** It is.

**John:** But of course it’s not.

**Craig:** It’s dead and gone.

**John:** Something will rise from the ashes of it. I just feel like with our Scriptnotes hoodie money we could have bought MoviePass. And I’ll never forgive myself for—

**Craig:** Sorry. You could have bought it because I don’t get that money, John. Megana, I need you – Megana, listen to me. I need information. You’re going to have to start showing me the books. Something is going on here.

**John:** Mm. Yeah.

**Craig:** Look how quiet Megana got.

**Megana:** I’m just funneling all of that money to myself.

**Craig:** Of course you are.

**Megana:** That’s the truth of it.

**Craig:** D’oh!

**John:** Now, the other exciting bit of news I saw in this article is that Mark Wahlberg’s production company, Unrealistic Ideas, is currently developing a documentary on the rise and fall of MoviePass based on this reporting. So in many ways it is a How Would This Be a Movie situation which is the perfect segue to our main topic today which is How Would This Be a Movie. So, people who are familiar with this podcast is every couple of weeks we take a look through stories in the news, stories from history, and figure out how we can transform them into quality filmed entertainment. We saw How Would This Be a Movie but more likely a limited series. And we discuss what’s in that story, who the characters could be, what kind of movie or TV show it could be, the tone.

We just try to do what writers do, which is take stuff that’s thrown our way and figure out how to transform it. But this week we have a very special guest because Zeke Faux is on the show. Zeke, can you tell us who you are?

**Zeke Faux:** My name is Zeke Faux. I’m an investigative reporter for Bloomberg Business Week. And a few years ago I wrote a story that I called The Phantom Debt Vigilante that you so nicely highlighted on a previous version of this segment.

**John:** So this was back in Episode 339 we talked about it. And we loved the story that you wrote and we also thought like, oh, there’s good potential here for a movie. But can you talk us through the short version of like who the central character was in the story that you wrote and what it was about?

**Zeke:** So, the story opens with this salesman, Andrew Therrien, normal guy. He’s just sitting around at home when he gets a call from a debt collector. This surprises him because he doesn’t owe any money. And he sort of gets into it with the debt collector. And the debt collector threatens his wife. And this just sets Andrew off and he goes out on a mission to figure out who this debt collector was, why they called him, and he actually uncovers this massive nationwide conspiracy, tracks down the bad guy at the center of it. And in the end brings him to justice.

So he’s one of the favorite people I’ve ever met through work. It was so exciting when I heard this story. And I couldn’t believe it myself. And each time I would check something out and find out that it was actually true I was like, whoa. So, yeah, that’s the guy.

**John:** So, you heard about this story, you pursued it, you wrote up the story. And at what point did it start attracting attention of Hollywood people? Because we talked about it on the show but I think, correct me if I’m wrong, before we even mentioned it people had sort of scoped it out. Correct?

**Zeke:** Yeah. I think that it had been optioned by the time you talked about it. I’ve been through this a few times and basically if you write a story that’s exciting and has a character and a plot it’s not so unusual that you’ll start getting emails from producers or these sort of scout type people asking if the rights to the story are available.

In this case I got a lot of emails right away, like probably the day that it came out. And then more on the following weeks.

**John:** So talk to us about these emails. Because these are coming from producers or scouts or other folks. What are they specifically asking for? Are they saying like would you consider selling the rights to this? Can you tell us what else there is here? Is there a movie? What are those emails actually asking for?

**Zeke:** Well, this is some good info for any magazine writer colleagues. I realized that a lot of these emails are from almost like interns who are just wanting to confirm that the rights might be available before they tell their boss about this cool story that they read. So the first time I got one of these emails is from a different story and I was ready to pick up my tux for the Oscars. But then I realized that this was just some intern who hadn’t even like told his boss about it yet and just wanted to make sure that this was a story that one could buy the rights for.

So, yeah, they’re usually pretty vague and just asking if I’m the person to talk to, or if I have an agent or something like that.

**John:** Great. Was this your first story that actually got optioned?

**Zeke:** No, I’ve had a few before this one. And generally I hand people off to my agent pretty quickly because it’s hard for me to know who is for real. And then they will help narrow down who might actually be worth considering and talking to. And I’ve never had one that was some crazy bidding war that everyone in town wanted to buy, so it’s often just comes down to a couple people and then we pick based on who seems most credible or honestly who has an interesting take on the story.

**Craig:** If I may be so bold, what kind of money are we talking about here? You don’t have to give me an exact dollar figure, but range wise? What’s a typical sort of option fee for these things?

**Zeke:** It’s a good question. I mean, a lot of people will try to option things for as little as nothing, which is obviously not that appealing.

**Craig:** Nothing sucks.

**Zeke:** I’ve done some research on this since I’ve started getting involved in it and talking to other writers and so I think that at the low end would be around $5,000 and then the high end for articles, I mean, I’ve heard of ones that go into six figures but I think that’s really unusual.

**Craig:** So talking roughly between $5,000 and maybe $75,000? Something in that zone?

**Zeke:** Yes. And that’s for the option, which they have to pay upfront. And then the purchase price is higher.

**John:** So let’s talk about what they’re actually buying, because in this case you had a relationship with Andrew Therrien and had done all this reporting, but some of that stuff is just public fact. Someone could take the idea of a guy who sort of goes after a debt collector. They don’t need your article to do that. So what are they actually buying when they option the rights to that story?

**Zeke:** It’s actually a question that I’ve thought about myself. And a producer explained it to me once. And he said that back in the day he used to go to these meetings with almost like a sandwich board and he’d be pitching people on some idea that he had for this amazing true story that should be a movie and flipping through the pages. And he said that if he was going to buy an article it was basically just so that they would have something to talk about and some sort of source material that could sort of get the project going.

**Craig:** Yeah. It seems to me a lot of times like producers will buy these things to create some air of exclusivity or, I don’t know what you would call it, legitimacy. But as we’ve discussed here legally speaking if you write an article, and I’m sure this has happened to you, some jerk like me can read it and just use it. Anything that’s in the article is usable. It’s out there in the world. It’s the stuff behind it – if we wanted to write a story about the gentleman that you’ve investigated what we are buying I suppose from you that is of value beyond the story you wrote is all of your notes, all of the additional stuff that didn’t get into the story. Because that’s still yours.

But my understanding is if you publish it in Bloomberg Business Week and I read it I can pretty much use whatever you wrote there because it’s public record.

**Zeke:** Right. I mean, my stories are true so you’re not—

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Zeke:** These things really happened.

**Craig:** I like that you have to say that. My stories are true, by the way.

**Zeke:** So, this is another way I think about it. I mean, I don’t know how much would you get paid to write a screenplay, like probably quite a lot of money.

**Craig:** Yes.

**Zeke:** So wouldn’t it be pretty cheap to not option the story?

**Craig:** Yes.

**Zeke:** It’s so cheap you might as well just do it if you’re going to hire a good screenwriter to write the screenplay.

**Craig:** Yes. If you are a producer you’re absolutely right. And it may be that – everything is a competition. So you write a great article. And there are going to be four producers, hopefully, competing to get the rights to that article. And then that producer is going to make that article an object of competition for a bunch of writers. Or, the other way around is there’s a writer and five people are trying – I’ve had this experience and John I’m sure you have, too – where I’ve had more than one producer call me to ask me to write the blah-blah story and it’s the same story.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** In one case, oh, you know what it was? It was Game Stop?

**John:** I got Game Stop.

**Craig:** I got Game Stop by two different producers who had each optioned or outright bought two different articles.

**Zeke:** I actually had someone ask me if I could write something about it so that they could option it.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, so I think what we’re getting at here is that you are doing real work out there and screenwriters are doing real work out here. And in between are producers that just–

**John:** Or studio execs who are just like Ah!

**Craig:** Making stuff up.

**John:** Now, Zeke, a question for you. In the case of the article we’re talking about it so focused on Andrew’s story. Were they also optioning his life rights or were they just taking your story?

**Zeke:** My policy on that is that if someone wants to do something with life rights that’s their business. I don’t want to be in business with the subject of my stories.

**Craig:** Right. You’re not brokering their life rights.

**Zeke:** Yes. So that’s something that everybody has to consider on their own.

**John:** Right.

**Craig:** Makes total sense.

**John:** Now let’s talk about your relationship with the screenwriter on this project, because you’re saying that the person you ended up going with was a producer and they had a screenwriter involved. Did you have any direct interactions with that screenwriter?

**Zeke:** This was pretty standard. Usually you have a call or two with the screenwriter at the beginning and it’s pretty fun. I like to tell them, you know, I always have a lot of outtakes to talk about. And we’ll give them any extra materials that they want. But then after that I usually don’t hear from them.

**Craig:** Right.

**Zeke:** But I understand that because you need time to develop your own take on the story and having somebody else who has a very specific take on it could be kind of distracting.

**Craig:** Well there’s probably not a lot of good news that could come out of subsequent conversations because when you’re adapting something of course you are altering it to some extent. And if you are calling the journalist who wrote the article odds are you’re not calling them to tell them how faithful you’ve been. And so this is normal and also I assume as a fully-fledged professional adult you’re aware that once you sign these things away all sorts of stuff might happen.

**Zeke:** Yeah. And I’ll just say I love writing magazine stories. I want the story to be perfect and so fun to read on the page. And I want it to inspire people who read it. And if it also inspires some screenwriter who wants to go do something that’s awesome. But I don’t really care what they do with it.

**Craig:** Because what you wrote still exists.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** And always shall.

**John:** Yeah. We always talk about when an author sells the rights to a book to make into a movie that book still sits on the shelf. And no matter what I do in the adaptation that book will always be there. And so that was your vision of a thing and this is someone else’s vision of a thing. What is the current status of this project now? Is that going to be moving forward? Is the option still happening? What’s going on with this movie right now?

**Zeke:** That’s a great question and the answer sort of illustrates my place on the totem pole in the moviemaking process. I actually do not know what’s going on.

**John:** All right. So Zeke while we have you hear we’d love your input on this segment that we do called How Would This Be a Movie where we talk through stories in the news and figure out how they can be movies. And you will have an insight because you’ve been the journalist reporting these stories.

**Zeke:** So I accidentally happened on what I feel like is a weird trick to get producers in your magazine story.

**John:** I’m so excited by this.

**Craig:** I want to hear this weird trick.

**Zeke:** In an earlier story the subject of the story said something to me that became the first quote in the story. And he said, “Remember the movie American Hustle. It’s kind of like that with way more dirt and twists.” I just put that in because it was funny. It’s a funny thing to say. But then I was having these meetings with producers and they would say to me totally straight-faced, “You know, it really reminded me of American Hustle.” So I thought to myself if it’s at all relevant maybe mention the name of a movie in your story.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**Zeke:** That will sort of set their movie alert. So for a couple of years if I found a good spot and it seemed relevant, I mean, I don’t want to compromise a story, but I would mention the name of a movie. So, I had another one about this sort of triple agent informant in the drug wars and I said that he was kind of Narcos Forrest Gump. And this guy called me up, for real, he’d won an Oscar. And he was like, “Narcos meets Forrest Gump. Narcos/Forrest Gump. I’m coming out to New York to take you out to lunch.” And I was like, great.

So we went out to lunch and he just kept saying Narcos Forrest Gump. And so much that I wasn’t even sure if he had read the whole article because that was near the top.

**Craig:** He hasn’t.

**Zeke:** The lunch sort of petered out because we were running out of ways to talk about Narcos Forrest Gump.

**Craig:** That’s amazing.

**John:** Amazing.

**Craig:** Amazing.

**Zeke:** Yeah. Just mention the name of a movie. That’s my tip for magazine writers.

**Craig:** I think what Zeke is really putting his finger on here is how stupid so many producers are. I mean, they don’t read. They have a staff of people that tell them things. They do hinge on something and they forget who told it to them so quickly that they think they thought it. And, Zeke, I will tell you that just because a producer has an Oscar doesn’t mean that they’re not stupid. Because if something wins Best Picture then the producer gets the Oscar, but a lot of producers really are just stupid.

I clearly don’t want to work in Hollywood anymore. By the way, that’s becoming super obvious.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve known that for a time.

**Craig:** But some producers are amazing. And if you produce something I did I’m sure I’m talking about you when I say amazing. But everybody else, stupid.

**John:** Stupid.

**Craig:** Stupid.

**John:** All right. Let’s get into these movies and figure out which producers will hang on one idea in this and forget what they actually read or saw.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** There’s five of them and two of them have interactive elements too which I think is really fun, or they are like cartoons/animations. I love this.

**Craig:** I love these. Yes. Fun.

**John:** It’s not all reading. You can actually sort of look at things.

**Craig:** Thank god.

**John:** So we’ll start with this story by Andy Hoffman and Benedikt Kammel. This was from Bloomberg and is Bloomberg the same as Bloomberg Business Week? Zeke, help me out.

**Zeke:** Bloomberg is the parent company and this story was actually in Bloomberg Business Week’s annual heist issue which all you screenwriters should keep an eye out for because it’s full of cool stories.

**John:** And what’s great about this one is it is a comic. And so it’s telling the story of this Swiss trader is trying to buy copper for a Chinese buyer. He finds some in Turkey. So they load this copper into a shipping container and then overnight people break into the shipping containers, swap out that copper with painted rocks, seal it back up and ship it off to wherever it’s going, to China someplace. They did this seven more times and for a total of $36 million worth of painted rocks. And it looks like it’s probably an inside job. There’s 16 people charged at the time of this writing.

Craig, start us off. Is there a movie here?

**Craig:** No. No there is not. What there is is a great scene. This feels like one of those things that would open a great ‘70s heist movie where you’re introducing characters and you’re showing how scammy they are and how either clever or not clever they are or how clever but unlucky they are. It’s such an audacious move and it’s got a great reveal which is a bunch of guys are loading copper in and on the other side the crate arrives and like a magic trick even though you’ve been watching it the whole time when the thing opens it’s a bunch of rocks.

By the way, this is a real question. If you’re going to take copper out and shove a bunch of rocks in and then reseal the container why are you painting the rocks copper? Who is that going to fool? It didn’t fool anybody for even one second. So why even bother painting the rocks?

**John:** My guess is that when they first open, because it’s sort of slag copper, it’s not good copper, when you first open it and just do a quick visual inspection you might not realize that it’s not copper. And so give you an extra day’s time before they actually load it.

Obviously they need the weight because they need it to feel full.

**Craig:** I get the rock part. But, yeah, it seems more like a scene and a character introducer. There’s no way to make a series or even movie about this because it’s just one thing and I don’t find it particularly interesting. There’s no comment or reflection of the human condition. It’s just theft.

**John:** So, Zeke, help us out. Because I feel like there is more to the story here, because this was deliberately a very small slice of it. But it didn’t get into the characters. It didn’t get into what the actual organization was behind this. Can you anticipate if you were to do the reporting what kinds of people and schemes behind the scenes might you figure out?

**Zeke:** I mean, ideally the people behind this might be in jail and pleaded guilty and be willing to tell you the whole thing that happened. I mean, personally I don’t get that excited this as an inside job because I want it to be some sort of really sneaky operation. Maybe if these were low level workers and they were somehow getting revenge on their terrible boss then it could be fun.

**John:** I hear you there. Because I also get frustrated because at least with the information we have right now they’re obviously going to get caught. There’s sort of no way you could not get caught. And so it’s a trick you can play once and if you try to play it seven times they’re going to figure out where the switch happened.

If the heist had happened at sea where they’re actually switching the containers there there’s a more interesting way to get to it. But I agree with both of you that I think it’s a scene, it’s a moment, in a completely different story and doesn’t really help us out here.

All right, let’s get to the one that Craig was excited about last night as we were talking about. The Secret History of Sushi.

**Craig:** Love this.

**John:** This is New York Times story by Daniel Fromson with illustrations by Igor Bastidas. Craig, can you talk us through what this is about?

**Craig:** This is magic. This is – every now and then you read a story that kind of blows your mind because it’s about something that was in front of your face for most of your life and you had no idea what was really behind it. So, apparently the history of sushi, and we can sort of skip the part where it’s how sushi developed in Japan and get to the part that’s sort of mind-blowing. So there was a cult that John anybody our age is familiar with or older, I don’t know if the millennials are quite as familiar with it. But the Reverend Sun Myung Moon was a kind of a Korean Christian Messianic culty figure who came to the United States I believe in the ‘70s. And was infamous for these mass marriages that he would oversee.

**John:** The mass weddings. Yeah.

**Craig:** But early on when he was still kind of small time in New York many of his adherents were Japanese which in and of itself is a bit odd. And he had this idea that in order to help fund the church that they should start bringing sushi to the United States. And in order to bring sushi to the United States he tapped this group of five or six or seven of his adherents and scattered them across the United States. And all of them were working in service of this corporation called True World Seafood. And True World is a reference to some nonsense that Reverend Moon believes in, I don’t know, some crap about whatever the world becoming something else. Doesn’t matter.

Point being they did it. These guys created the largest fresh seafood distributor in the United States and in Canada I believe and in some other places. And they did in fact create the sushi movement. I mean, it surfed along with a kind of Japan-ophilia thing that happened in the ‘80s, but they still to this day are the largest supplier of seafood to sushi restaurants. When you go and you eat sushi in the US or Canada you are eating fish that was very likely purchased initially and distributed and resold by a company that is intertwined with Reverend Moon’s Unification Church. And that is crazy. And how these guys did it and then the ensuing fallout when Moon died and the inevitable infighting happened within his family and then the lawsuits and the corporations.

It’s insane. And I loved it.

**John:** I loved it, too. And I think there is a movie here or a series. But to me it’s the question of like where do you put the boundaries of it. When do you start and when do you stop? And I don’t think you get into the later end stuff. I don’t think you get to the modern stuff. I think you just get to this crazy, impossible dream of like, OK, you’re going to go to Alaska and you’re going to go to Denver and start selling sushi in Denver and just really random people assigned to places and they just made it work. And there’s a comedy to that that I think is actually fun and exciting. But also problematic because this church was not without its own faults.

I think there’s a thing to be made here. Zeke, as you look at this article what jumps out to you? What are the threads that are interesting to you? And what’s the movie hook that you put in there so that some producer buys it and talks to you about it at lunch?

**Zeke:** I loved the presentation. Like as a magazine person it just looked amazing. And it’s pretty unusual to see one – I haven’t seen something like this before.

I think they did a really good job of connecting it to sushi. Like that made me more interested as a reader. If you just said, hey, this strange religious leader has a big fish company, I mean, that would be an OK story but presenting it as the secret history of sushi I think is what sells it as a story and to someone like you.

**John:** Agreed. Now, Craig, how do you make this? Do you make this – is it a movie? Is it a series? Where are your edges on the story?

**Craig:** Definitely a series. So, it’s not even a question of narrative application anymore. It used to be solely a question of narrative application. But now you have to also ask the question is anybody going to actually put it in a theater. Or even just show it streaming as a movie. In our minds now we have becomes really limited about what we see when we talk about movies. And this story does not have the explosive elements required to confine it to 90 minutes or two hours. So you need something really big and none of that is here.

This is absolutely some kind of limited series, but I would say a short one. I don’t think this needs five episodes or ten episodes. It needs maybe three. Personally, if I were putting my money into this I would actually be going down the documentary root. I think that’s the way to do this. The fictionalization of it is not as interesting to me as the facts in and of themselves. So I would probably go with a short documentary series on this.

**John:** Yeah. The reason why I think I want to see this as a fictional series is that I could just picture the moments where in the time period where you’re trying to introduce sushi into these places and just sort of like the confused stares you’re getting out of like, oh, we want to sell you some raw fish, and just trying to get people to eat this fish and just the absurdity of like, OK, I don’t know anything about what I’m doing but the church says I’m supposed to be doing this so I’m going to figure this out. I think those moments are so good.

I agree with you that it’s a series because it doesn’t want to fit nicely into 90 minutes. And there’s just going to be so many characters and so many situations. And you’re going to probably cover a number of years which just all works better as a series.

So, Zeke, I’m still going to press on if this were your story what would be the hook you’d want to put in there to make sure that a producer says oh yeah I get what this is?

**Zeke:** I was joking about that before, because I feel like – I’d like to think I’m above that now. But even as a writer I might have considered trying to develop some of the individual characters more. Like zooming in on, like you said, one of these particular people who is off in some weird place trying to introduce raw fish. I think that would be an interesting thread for the story. And probably would be interesting for somebody like you, too.

**John:** And actually one of the maybe challenges of this presentation, because people should click through the link because it’s really beautifully done.

**Craig:** Beautifully.

**John:** It’s all illustrated with animations that go through it. But because of that there aren’t the photos you might expect. And in addition to not really talking very much about the individual people without photos to sort of anchor like oh that is this guy, I could not tell you right now who most of the characters were in this piece. Because I was just focused on this is the sweep of the story. And it didn’t give me a lot of anchoring into who the people were who got sent off to these different places.

So a good counter example of this is our next story. This is a New Yorker story about migrant laborers who clean up after disasters. It’s Sarah Stillman writing this. And this is full of very detailed specific people whose faces we can see. These are folks who some of them are documented, some of them are undocumented. They’re mostly from Texas and Florida. But when there’s a disaster in the US there are these companies who subcontract with other companies who send workers in to sort of do the cleanup. So after huge storms, after natural disasters, these are the people who show up and do all that work. As Stillman’s story is documentary they obviously say like, oh, we’ll follow Covid-19 protocols. They’re not at all. Everyone is getting Covid. It’s terrible. Safety protocols aren’t there.

It also focuses on a man named Sacket Soni who is an organizer who is basically trying to protect these people and get them housed and fed and deal with wage theft. Craig, we’ll start with you. What did you see in terms of a potential story either for a movie or for a series out of this?

**Craig:** Doesn’t feel like one. There’s fascinating information here and there’s important here. It does feel like the kind of thing that if I were running a traditional news magazine format on television I would want to do this story for television in that format. A 60 Minutes kind of format. Because it’s important for people to know this and to see this.

However, there is not yet a kind of Cesar Chavez story that is completed. They are organizing and so we should see what happens with this. But overall what we’re seeing here is a pretty head on bit of journalism and I don’t think that this is the kind of story that adapts well to fictionalization in any format.

**John:** Zeke, as you’re looking at this do you agree? And if do agree are there things about this story that could be highlighter emphasized that would make it more of a Hollywood story?

**Zeke:** Interesting that you didn’t think it had potential for an adaptation, Craig, because I actually found it very cinematic when I was reading it. I just loved all of these amazing details like that she wore these gold hoop earrings that helped her feel elegant while she was doing this cleanup work. Or the sort of ironic signs she was always seeing.

That said, I agree that you don’t have the Erin Brockovich type plot yet. And then just to me it would seem odd to say based on a true story but then fictionalize some sort of more dramatic plot onto it. And then I was thinking if you don’t do that, if it doesn’t have a strong plot it might feel kind of similar to Nomadland.

**John:** I was thinking about Chloe Zhao the whole time through because I just felt like everything was happening sort of at sunsets and in beautiful disastrous places. And sort of the real life hardworking people who are actually doing the stuff and not getting paid properly for it felt like that sort of aesthetic.

**Zeke:** I’d be interested. It’s too bad we couldn’t ask the writer of this, because I am wondering how – I mean, obviously they’ve seen Nomadland and I’m sure they didn’t want it to seem too similar. It must have been actually challenging to try and write something that was really dramatic but then also in some ways similar to an Oscar-winning movie that came out recently.

**Craig:** Well, these stories sometimes give you – now I’ll speak like a purely exploitative fictionalist. When you read a story like this what you get is an interesting job for a character to have or characters to have in a movie that is about something else which is their life, their relationship with their children, or their spouse, or their significant other, or a romance. Some kind of life change.

So if in a movie we’re talking about a woman who has just gotten divorced and is restarting her life and this is the job she gets and this is where she meets somebody, that’s interesting. But the actual content of what’s happening here in terms of the way these people are being exploited and the economic ins and outs of this particular industry, that in and of itself is not a narrative that I think I would want to adapt the way for instance, you know, a narrative was created out of the whistleblower and the tobacco industry. It’s not quite that. It doesn’t have that circular narrative movement that we’re hoping for.

**John:** Now the other project I was thinking of was this Netflix series Maid which is Molly Smith Metzler writing about – taking a woman in a very specific situation and using that as the backdrop to tell a specific family story which I think Craig is what you were getting to. This is a huge canvas but you can decide to do the Erin Brockovich story about this issue or The Big Short. This is about this issue. Or you can have that be the arena in which you’re telling a much smaller story which might be the way to go through here.

And in that case I don’t know that you option this article because this article provides a big canvas but it doesn’t actually provide the distinct story points. Because you might choose to pick the woman who is featured here, Bellaliz Gonzalez, who is from Venezuela. As a central person you might choose to pick Sacket Soni who is this organizer. But you probably wouldn’t. You could just create your own character who is in that same situation and that’s your story.

**Craig:** Yup.

**Zeke:** It just reminds me of another article to film adaptation, American Honey.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Zeke:** Shia LaBeouf movie about the kids selling magazines. Which is actually based on this amazing New York Times article from 2007 that was more of like an expose about how young people are getting exploited on magazine crews. And then when the movie, which I do think they had optioned that story, when that came out it was just like sort of inspired by it but totally different.

**John:** I think for what we’re describing we’re not sure if we would ever want to option this article. But I guess you could option this article, as you said at the start of this, you might option this article as a producer just to clear the field and to declare this story space. But you’re not getting a specific story you can tell.

Here’s a very specific story. Next up we have an article by Sarah McDermott writing for BBC about Pauline Dakin’s childhood in Canada in the 1970s. It was full of secrets, disruption, and unpleasant surprising. She wasn’t allowed to talk about her family life with anyone. And it wasn’t until she was 23 that she was told why.

So basically at 23 she learns that her family is on the run from the mafia and that the mafia is after them and they have to always be constantly careful. And at a certain point all of us as readers say like or your family is not telling you the truth and they’re all operating under some sort of delusion which appears to be the case.

Again, this is a very specific story that you could choose to tell. So we could talk about optioning this story or this as a kind of story. Zeke, help us out here. Think through as a journalist how do you start to tell this story? If you were to write this article where would you begin and what are the hooks for you?

**Zeke:** So this article actually would be – not that I can pitch a news story about some random events of someone’s lives that don’t really have any newsworthiness. But it actually would be a good starting place for the kind of story that I like to write because it’s missing all of the specifics and you could really dig in and try and create – like I want to start with some sort of really dramatic scene which I would find by interviewing the person and talking through all of this and finding out what parts of the story really seemed like most exciting to me.

The version that I was reading was just sort of the barebones outline of what happened, which would be great as a starting place to really dig in and get all the details, interview other people and see their perspective. Because oftentimes the main character doesn’t really have a good sense of how they behaved themselves. You have to talk with other people who saw the events.

**John:** Craig, what is your take on this story?

**Craig:** I love it. It’s terrific. I don’t know if I need the story. Meaning I don’t know if I want – the value of this I don’t think is that it really happened. I think this is just a great to use as inspiration to write a story about a kid and their parents and this life they’re living and the fear that they’re all under and to present it as real and then for this person to slowly realize none of it is real. This is very Shyamalanic. And that in fact something far more weird is happening.

And then the question of who is telling the truth and who is lying and if they’re lying why becomes really florid. And all of the value is about the relationship between a child and a parent. And that stuff requires fictionalization and dramatization to the point that I think this is just a great springboard. I would not want to write a movie where there is a character named Pauline Dakin and her mother, Ruth, and her stepfather, Stan. I would want to just take the inspiration from this. Because it’s a fascinating notion. And I would want to do some research into this concept of delusional disorder.

So it’s very inspiring and a wonderful story that Sarah McDermott has uncovered here. And it will be, oh it will certainly be optioned. No question about that. But personally I think the value is just in the suggestion.

**John:** I think back to Gillian Flynn’s book Gone Girl which was telling the story of oh did this husband kill his wife. And there were true life things that she could ingest into that, but she was telling a fictional story. And she didn’t need to use any of the real life things to do it and she could tell a much better story by not being bound to what really happened. So unlike a true crime novel she’s able to use all the stuff and build her own thing out of it.

And I guess I agree with you here. But I also very much hear what Zeke is saying is that there probably are really compelling moments and scenes and bits here that you could flesh out. That you could create an article that was even more Hollywood compelling given this basic framework.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Our last story here is about Silibill N’ Brains. If you’re not familiar with Silibill N’ Brains they were a ‘90s hip hop duo that burst onto the scene. Let’s take a listen to a clip.

[Clip plays]

All right. So these are two California rappers. Very much in an Eminem style obviously. Fun. Great. MTV is loving them. They’re sort of rising up in music videos. And then it comes out that they’re actually two Scottish guys who just put on California accents and were just basically trying to ape all of their favorite rappers. And it all fell apart and it sort of got exposed in a Milli Vanilli sort of way.

Craig, is there a movie here?

**Craig:** No. I mean, it’s interesting but it feels very familiar to me. The idea of people being illegitimate and inauthentic and hiding that to get some sort of fame. And then it all comes crashing down. This is just very tired. And this is two levels of inauthenticity because it was already questionable when white people in the ‘90s started jumping on the hip hop bandwagon and trying to do that Vanilla Ice style. And then these guys were from Scotland which is even further away. And they weren’t even faking being black. They were faking being white.

**John:** They were faking being white in California which I think is great.

**Craig:** Yeah. But the point is I just don’t care. They weren’t famous enough. Nobody died. There was no shootings, explosions. The stakes were low. I struggle to care about this story. Maybe if they had been more famous. I don’t know, maybe that would make it even worse. Look, if there hasn’t been a Milli Vanilli movie, has there been?

**John:** I don’t think there’s been one.

**Craig:** Yeah. If there hasn’t been one of those I don’t see why we would get to this one. I think the Milli Vanilli is the canary in the coal mine. If we don’t want to make a movie about that I don’t know why we would want to make a movie about Silibill N’ Brains.

**John:** Now, Zeke, there’s three articles here we’ll link to. So we’re linking to an article by Tom Seymour for Vice, by Sam for DDW, and there’s also a documentary called The Great Hip Hop Hoax by Jeanie Finley. So this is areas that have been explored. Do you see a movie or a series coming out of this?

**Zeke:** I really didn’t like this idea at all until I listened to the song. I mean, it’s just so horrible that it’s kind of amazing that this ever fooled anyone. So, maybe it would be best as a documentary. And I was trying to think of some way to make this kind of relevant. Basically I come down on no, but I think one thing that’s a little interesting is why was everyone so eager to believe. And I think it’s because they wanted white rappers. They wanted some next Eminem. And so I feel like there’s kind of a racist element to it that could make it kind of interesting to explore, but still not that interesting.

**John:** Yeah. I think there’s a Lonely Island movie here where you can just – you find the right two kids who have the right charisma and you can just play with all these themes and use their songs but write other great parody songs. So do you need this exact story? Maybe not. And I guess they already made Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping or whatever. So maybe it’s kind of already been done.

**Craig:** By geniuses.

**John:** They’re geniuses. And so I feel like the right people could approach this and make something great. But it’s not a slam dunk by any stretch. It’s very execution dependent.

All right, let’s do a recap of our stories here and figure out which of these might actually become movies. Zeke, if you had to pick between our five here which is the movie. Which gets optioned?

**Zeke:** You were very down on it but I actually think that the story about the migrant workers is the one that people would go for.

**John:** All right. Craig, of these five which is the movie?

**Craig:** Sushi.

**John:** Sushi. I am going to go with sushi as well. I think sushi is the one that – it’s not a movie, it’s probably a limited series, but I think that’s the one that most happens. But I’m excited for all of these. And I want to thank all of our listeners because I put out on Twitter a call for suggestions and most of these came from their suggestions.

Here’s the ones we didn’t cover just so you can—

**Craig:** And you’re telling us about them?

**John:** Yes. Ivy Getty’s Wedding was amazing. But, no, we don’t care.

**Craig:** We don’t care.

**John:** The 1902 eruption of Mount Pelée on Martinique. Great.

**Craig:** I’ve already done a thing blowing up. I can’t do it again.

**John:** The billionaire space race. We’re in the middle of it, so no.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** The Havana Syndrome. We don’t know what’s really happening, so no. Chinese dancing grandmas.

**Craig:** Adorable.

**John:** Kind of interesting.

**Craig:** Hysterical. Not a movie. But I like that people are throwing bags of pee on them. It’s an amazing story.

**John:** Biker getting breast milk.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** So it’s these biker gangs who formed a shuttle service to bring breast milk to mothers who need breast milk.

**Craig:** Such a great band name.

**John:** Yeah. The plot to dig up Lincoln’s body was actually a great story. It just came a little too late, so we’ll keep that for the next one.

**Craig:** Because he died a long time ago.

**John:** Yeah. So basically people are trying to dig up his body and hold it for ransom.

**Craig:** What? Oh boy.

**John:** You’ll love it. It’s terrific. The IVF mix-up leaves an LA couple giving birth to another family’s baby. Yeah. The bio of Ruth Fertel who created Ruth’s Chris Steak House. It’s fascinating. So she’s good. The great emu war which is about the plot to eradicate emu, sort of like cut back on emus in Australia. They’re already making a movie so it’s too late.

**Craig:** Too late.

**John:** And Stagecoach Mary who was a groundbreaking black postal carrier in the old days, olden days. She seems great. There’s a biopic maybe to be made there but it didn’t make it in time for this one. So, good suggestions everybody.

**Craig:** Thank you folks.

**John:** Now, Zeke as we transition out of this I want to talk to you about point of view in a magazine piece because in this article we first talked about that you wrote clearly we’re on the POV of this guy who is investigating these scams. But as a journalist when do you know who the person is that you’re going to be focused on and going to hang the story around? Does that come pretty early or only as you sit down to really start writing it?

**Zeke:** I always like to have a really exciting story with a point of view. So I might find a space that I find is interesting. Like in that case I’d been looking into debt collection for quite a long time. Maybe I’d even written some straight news stories. And then when I meet someone who is a great character I get really excited and I think about how can I use everything that I’ve learned about this shady debt collection industry to inform a story that would be more compelling to read because it centers on a character.

**John:** And do you ever feel guilty thinking about people as characters? Or is that just the nature of the work you’re doing?

**Zeke:** Absolutely. I mean, it’s incredibly important to me that the story is true. It’s a tricky thing because when you tell the truth about someone they might not even recognize it. So I can’t be overly concerned with how the subject will react to the story, but I also want it to read like if someone who knows the subject reads it I want it to read true. And I can’t take any liberties at all with the timing of events or the characters.

You have a lot of constraints as a writer of true stories that you wouldn’t if you were writing a screenplay. And in this case it was kind of interesting. The subject really took exception to the fact that I called him stocky which I did think was an insulting adjective.

**Craig:** I’m stocky. I think it’s very nice.

**Zeke:** Yeah, I mean he’s a big perfectly good-looking guy. I mean, not even that big. I don’t think stocky means that big. Anyway, of all the things that’s what he didn’t really like, but we still joke about it so I guess he got over it.

**John:** This last week I was talking on a Zoom call with two writers who were working with the Inevitable Foundation which is a foundation that helps disabled writers past middle career up into becoming showrunners. And one of them was working on a project that was centered around this civil rights figure. And someone who was kind of always behind the scenes but actually had a really compelling life story.

And she was running into a problem where she had all this research and all these facts about this character but didn’t feel like she sort of knew who the person was or what the person’s voice was. And I was trying to encourage her to really channel her inner Aaron Sorkin and just make a choice and just run with it. And it strikes me as such a different thing for what I’m telling a screenwriter to do versus what you as a journalist has to tell another journalist to do. You can’t put words in a person’s mouth whereas she has to put words in a person’s mouth and has to actually have the confidence to just create a voice for this person who no longer exists.

**Zeke:** Yeah. I mean, I would find that really hard. And the amazing thing about this story, a lot of my stories don’t even have much dialogue. In this story the guy had taped everything. And when I heard these tapes I honestly wanted to cry. The dialogue was so amazing. I just couldn’t believe that this guy actually – I mean, he actually said things that are as good as what you guys would make up. So that was a very unique situation, but ideally I can put myself in a place where I can observe someone actually doing stuff and hear how they actually relate to other people. That’s a little more authentic than just interviewing them and hearing what they say to me.

**John:** Yup. All right. Let’s get to our listener questions because we have two that are very much on topic here. Megana, do you want to start us off?

**Megana:** So Chase from London writes, “I’m currently developing a script based on a pretty famous historical trial. The story has been adapted a few times in different mediums, most famously with a golden era legal drama. But I believe a retelling would have a completely different weight and meaning if written for a modern audience. My question is whether I should watch and read every previous adaptation of this story in my research. Is it helpful or harmful to see how other writers dramatized certain events? Are there copyright complications to look out for when drawing upon the same courtroom transcripts for dialogue?”

**John:** I don’t think you should look at all the other adaptations because you will start judging what you’re doing based on what they were doing and it will become a trap and you shouldn’t do it. Craig, what’s your thought?

**Craig:** If it’s been adapted a lot I think you have to at least – you don’t want to study those things because I agree with John. But what you don’t want to do is just mistakenly replicate a bunch of stuff because then you’re going to hear about it when you send your script around. Everyone is going to say well yeah it’s not that you ripped them off, it just doesn’t seem different enough. We already have that movie. What do we need this movie for?

In terms of drawing on the same courtroom transcripts for dialogue, no, those are facts. Those are a published public record and anyone can use that freely. The problem is if someone else has used it freely you’re a little bit stuck. Just because you can doesn’t mean you’re not going to seem like somebody who is a Johnny Come Lately.

You’re in a tough spot here. And I guess the way I would turn it around to you, Chase, is to say why are you developing a script based on a pretty famous historical trial that has been adapted a few times in different mediums, most famously with a golden era legal drama? I know you say a retelling would have a completely different weight and meaning if written for a modern audience, but maybe that’s not enough? You just don’t want to seem like you’re delivering something that feels warmed over.

Writing for a modern audience, I’m not sure what that means exactly. If it’s just a question of language and such then I’m concerned. If you’re talking about retelling that story from a very different perspective then you might be onto something, in which case I don’t think you have to worry so much. But if you’re doing something straight on that’s been done a bunch it’s going to be an issue.

**John:** Zeke, if you’re writing something in an area or about a story topic do you read other writers writing on that topic? Or is that in bad form? Tell me about the research you’re doing and reading other writers.

**Zeke:** I feel like it’s my duty to read everything that I possibly can. But I understand why you might not want to. It’s hard to avoid feeling influenced if you’re – I mean, I would prefer not to write a story about something that somebody else has already written a great magazine story about because it is challenging to set aside their take and write your own original one.

**John:** All right. We’re running short on time so we’re going to cap it at one question here. And it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is called Friendsgiving by Miry’s List. So Miry’s List is a great charity that works with immigrant families, refugee families that come to the states, mostly to Los Angeles, and helps them get set up in apartments with furniture and food and toys for their kids, and books and such.

I was first introduced to them by Rachel Bloom. They are fantastic. So I’ve been supporting them for the past couple years. Their Friendsgiving campaign is especially important this year because they have a bunch of new Afghan families that have come to Los Angeles and need some support. So, I’ll have a link in the show notes for that, but it’s Friendsgiving by Miry’s List.

Craig, what do you got for us this week?

**Craig:** So my One Cool Thing this week is Once Cool Person named Jasmila Žbani?. She is currently directing an episode of The Last of Us for our production and she’s terrific. She is a Bosnian filmmaker and I became aware of her through the last feature film she made which is called Quo Vadis, Aida? And that was nominated for Best Foreign Film in the last round of Oscars. It’s a wonderful movie, heartbreaking movie about the terrible events in Srebrenica. The terrible war that tore Sarajevo apart and just a brutal conflict between Serbs and Bosnians.

I just like drawing people’s attention to it because I think normally if somebody says, oh, there’s a Bosnian movie and it’s about war you might go, meh, I don’t. But what’s so brilliant about Quo Vadis, Aida is that it focuses on a woman who has a fascinating job. She is a translator who is the go-between between these Bosnian refugees seeking shelter in a UN compound and the Dutch soldiers who are in charge of the UN peacekeeping compound and of course everybody then uses English as the lingua franca. And so I guess it’s lingua anglica. And that woman’s story is an incredible way to work in and out of this brutal story.

Jasmila is just a terrific filmmaker and a wonderful person. I am having such a great time with her. So I thought I would spread the news about her and her movie as my One Cool Thing.

Oh, and I do have one other cool thing. It’s my new nickname for me and Megana. Because I was thinking about it. We had talked about Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas. And somebody pointed out obviously how did we miss BenAna.

**Megana:** BenAna.

**Craig:** BenAna is just like how did we miss it. It’s just right there. And then I was like what happens when Megana and I start dating. And obviously we’d be Craigana. So, I’m just super excited. Craigana is the new thing. #Craigana. And the story of our romance and how it begins in winter and ends when fall arrives, obviously. It’s just such a great story.

**Megana:** Because I just become unbearable during the fall? Yeah.

**Craig:** What happens is everything is going OK and then you message Spooky Season in August and that starts to get me really worried, and then it just gets worse and worse. And so by the time Thanksgiving arrives it’s over.

**John:** Zeke, save us. If you have a refugee related One Cool Thing then that would be fantastic and it would check all the boxes. But tell us, do you have a One Cool Thing for us this week?

**Zeke:** Mine is actually kind of nerdy. It’s productivity software. Or, I shouldn’t call it that but it’s called Roam Research.

**John:** I love Roam Research. We can geek out about Roam Research.

**Craig:** Oh. Oh good.

**Zeke:** It’s kind of intimidating. It looks like something that’s almost for like computer programmers, but once you learn to use it I feel like when I open it it’s like I’m opening my favorite paper notebook and I just feel really free to write down whatever. If you don’t know it, it just opens up to a page with a date at the top and you start writing stuff down. And you can tag it with whatever tags you want. You end up creating your own personal Wikipedia that’s really easily searchable. Because at any given time I’m researching so many different topics it’s really hard to keep them straight. And this makes it super easy.

I’m starting to work on my first book which is a really intimidating organizational challenge and there’s just so many different threads to keep in the air and so many different things to research. But I feel like I feel weird giving this free ad for this software but I feel like I can do it now by using this. And that I won’t lose track of all the 18 different things that I have to research.

**John:** I think it’s great as well. So I’ve been using that. And it’s like Workflowy but with much looser organization, sort of like a very freeform taxonomy. It’s really smart. People should give it a shot.

**Craig:** There’s this incredibly elegant version of what you guys are talking about called paper. You just write stuff down on it.

**John:** Yeah, but you can’t search paper.

**Craig:** Yeah, you can. With your eyeballs. [laughs]

**John:** That is our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Ryan Gerber. 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 sometimes @clmazin. I am always @johnaugust. Zeke, where can people find you?

**Zeke:** I’m @zekefaux.

**John:** We called you Zeke Faux the first time on the show.

**Craig:** Which is the coolest name.

**John:** But then we fixed it.

**Craig:** I’m bummed out that you’re not Zeke Fox.

**Zeke:** I’ll forgive you because you are so nice otherwise.

**John:** You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

We have t-shirts and now hoodies. They’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. Remember to order your hoodie right now or else they won’t get there in time for Christmas. 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 talking about magazine versus feature writing. And the differences between them.

Zeke Faux, thank you so much for coming on.

**Craig:** Thanks Zeke.

**Zeke:** Thanks John. Thanks Craig.

**John:** Thanks Craigana.

**Craig:** Craigana.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right. So our bonus segment for this week we have studios that now own publishers. We have the WGA now represents both writers for film and TV but also for magazine and print journalism. Let’s talk about the remaining differences between what screenwriters do and what other journalists do. Craig, start us off.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, two different jobs. [laughs] It’s two completely jobs.

**John:** But weirdly related jobs. Like Zeke was just talking through as he’s crafting one of his pieces he is thinking about what are the hooks, what are the things. So maybe that’s distinguishing the business jobs, but it feels like how you put together a successful magazine piece is not that dissimilar to how you’re putting together a good screenplay because you’re looking for what is the reader going to take out of this, how are you building scenes, how are you building characters. All that stuff is similar, right?

**Craig:** Yeah. It is. I think the structure and mechanisms of writing a narrative piece whether it is a fictional narrative piece or a journalistically narrative piece are similar, of course. The big difference is intention. We are intending in the Hollywood business, and screenwriting, to entertain. And entertain is not a frivolous word. It means to interest, to engage. And I think the intention for journalism is perhaps to entertain and maybe that’s what the ad salesmen want more than anything, but it feels to me that if you’re going to be a journalist surely your ultimate intention is to inform. And that means you have an accountability to fact and truth whereas we do not.

We merely have an accountability to the audience and to entertainment. So those are two massively different intentions. And to me that is the shining bright line between these two jobs.

**John:** I’m going to confess something. Tell me about how you get a job writing a piece like the one we were discussing? Are you pitching that to your editor? Are you pitching it to multiple pieces? Are you getting assigned things? Talk to us about how something like the article we’ve been discussing came about.

**Zeke:** So I work fulltime for Bloomberg News which is the owner of Bloomberg Business Week. And I’ve spent ten years working there and sort of developed a specialty on the shady side of the financial industry. So, I generate ideas and then bring them to editors to see what they think of them, if they think it would be a good story, if they think there’s some worthwhile issue to expose.

And like you were saying of course we want people to read the stories, so they can’t be boring, but at the heart of it we need to think that there’s something – this is going to teach people something about the world that they really want to know. And in the case of the Andrew story this fake debt is a real problem that could be written about in a different way, but I think that by telling the story in this narrative way you can really get people’s attention and you can spur people to action.

Like even if our interest is in telling the truth and exposing wrongdoing and being informative we still need to be entertaining, otherwise no one is going to find out whatever it is you – no one is going to read to the end and find out whatever it is you want them to learn.

You had asked how you get the job and when I started at Bloomberg I wasn’t writing these long narrative pieces, but over the years of working with editors I started pitching longer and longer ideas and now often when I have an idea I think about how to do it in this way and I’ll pitch it to Business Week as a feature story.

**John:** And when you’re pitching that you’re saying it’s going to be about this many words? And how much information do you have about the story when you start? Because do you have kind of all the facts and it’s really a matter of writing it? Or is it I’m going to need to do three weeks of research and fly to these places to make this happen?

**Zeke:** It can really happen either way. You might be really at the beginning and just say there’s this area I want to explore, what do you think. Or you might have already learned much of the story and now you’re proposing is this going to be something that would be good for the magazine.

**John:** Great. So let’s talk about you going to talk with a possible subject of your story. So when you’re first sitting down with Andy how do you build trust with him about I’m the person who can actually tell the story well? What are those initial meetings like and how are you communicating because, yes, you’re trying to tell the truth and his story but you’re also trying to get him to tell you the truth and his story. So what are those conversations like?

**Zeke:** Yeah, it’s always really interesting. And so when I meet someone I might start talking with them off the record where I say like we can just talk but I’m not going to print this. Then I might say, hey, this is like a really compelling story that you’ve just told. It could really help a lot of people to learn this. Phantom debt is a real problem. I’d love to interview you and really do justice to this story and write it. But you’d have to agree to it and you’d have to sit down and talk with me on the record for many hours.

I’ll also say and you know if you agree to this this isn’t your story. I’m going to write the story based on what really happened, based on my research from all kinds of sources. Whatever I can dig up from court records, from interviewing other people, and what I end up saying might not be exactly the way that they see it. And I like to have that conversation before they agree to have the interview because I think it’s fair to the subject of the story because they can start to – I don’t want them to start to think that this is their story and that they are the ones who are going to control the end product.

**John:** So one last bit to wrap up on because a thing we all as writers have to deal with is actually getting stuff written. So, can you talk to us about the actual writing process? I’m going to achieve this minimum of words per day? What is the writing process like for you? And how do you sort of get stuff written?

**Zeke:** Well I see you on Twitter saying like it’s time to write, let’s get going.

**Craig:** You don’t have to do that.

**Zeke:** And I probably should adapt that procedure. But I mean there comes a time when I feel like I’ve turned over every rock I can think of, I’ve interviewed every single person. And I’m ready to sit down and try and write this story. Because I feel like I wouldn’t want to start writing it too early because I don’t want to become really set on my perspective before I know what happened. I have to create an outline so I can figure out all the interesting details that I heard that I really want to work into the story. Where do they fit? I can’t keep all these different true details in my head at once. I have them all written down in different places. It’s almost like an organizational task to figure out all the different things that happened. Where do they fit in the chronological order of what happened? What are the most interesting parts that I want to make sure that I get in there?

But it can be a real challenge to sort of transition from the researching to the writing because I really enjoy the researching part of it, too. It’s really fun to always be calling sources and trying to find out even more details about when Andrew called Joel to confront him or something like that. But at some point I have to kind of stop and just switch from researching to writing.

**John:** And that is an experience that everyone listening to this podcast has been through. Which is like planning is great, and at some point you actually have to get it done.

Thank you for getting it done on this article and for joining on this podcast. It was so much fun having you here to talk with about your stories and sort of the story behind these stories. So thank you.

**Craig:** Thanks

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Zeke:** Thanks a lot.

Links:

Links:

* [Scriptnotes Hoodies](https://cottonbureau.com/products/scriptnotes-tri-blend-zip-hoodie#/12684369/sweatshirt-unisex-zip-up-hoodie-solid-black-tri-blend-xs) order by November 18 in time for the Holidays!
* [Veterans in Media and Entertainment](https://vmeconnect.org/)
* [Movie Pass is Back!](https://www.businessinsider.com/moviepass-cofounder-stacy-spikes-buys-back-company-and-plans-relaunch-2021-11)
* [339 – Mostly Terrible People](https://johnaugust.com/2018/mostly-terrible-people) sign up for the full episode at Scriptnotes.net
* [Zeke Faux](https://www.bloomberg.com/authors/AP5w7epl1Xo/zeke-faux) and on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/ZekeFaux)!
* [How Thieves Stole $40 Million of Copper by Spray-Painting Rocks](https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-painted-rocks-copper-heist/?cmpid=BBD062921_MKT) By Andy Hoffman and Benedikt Kammel
* [Secret History of Sushi](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/11/05/magazine/sushi-us.html) by Daniel Fromson with illustrations by Igor Bastidas for the NYT
* [The Migrant Laborers Who Clean Up after Disasters](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/11/08/the-migrant-workers-who-follow-climate-disasters) by Sarah Stillman for the New Yorker
* [‘The story of a weird world I was warned never to tell’](https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-42951788) by Sarah McDermott for the BBC
* Silibill N’ Brains: [Meet the Two Scottish Rappers Who Conned the World](https://www.vice.com/en/article/rknaa6/meet-the-two-scottish-rappers-who-conned-the-world) by Tom Seymour for Vice and [Fake It Till You Make It: The Great Hip Hop Hoax](https://www.dontdiewondering.com/fake-it-till-you-make-it-the-great-hip-hop-hoax/) by Samuel on DDW Magazine
* [Inevitable Foundation](https://inevitable.foundation/)
* [Friendsgiving Miry’s List](https://give.miryslist.org/campaign/2021-friendsgiving-with-mirys-list/c373800)
* [Jasmila Žbanić](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmila_%C5%BDbani%C4%87), [Quo Vadis, Aida?](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8633462/) and [#Craigana](https://images.app.goo.gl/5K3sehZMad1pVjWSA)
* [Roam Research](https://roamresearch.com/)
* [Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!](https://cottonbureau.com/people/scriptnotes-podcast)
* [Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/gifts) or [treat yourself to a premium subscription!](https://scriptnotes.supportingcast.fm/)
* [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 Ryan Gerber ([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/525standard.mp3).

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (490)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.