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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 498: Small Plates, Transcript

May 3, 2021 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 498 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show my name is John and I’ll be helping you out today. Have you dined with us before? Great. OK, we serve tapas style, which means on our menu you’ll see small plates that are designed for sharing. So, you might want to start with a few topics on the industry section, like open writing assignments, secure screenplays, or pitching animation. Here in the follow up section you’ll see genre, Hanlon’s Razor, and of course Oops.

And our larger plates include a special look at copyright termination.

Now, for premium members you’ll definitely want to save room for our discussion of reboots versus remakes.

So, anything you want to get started on or do you need a few minutes?

**Craig:** I’m leaving this restaurant. I’m angry. I’m full of umbrage at what you’ve just done.

**John:** Yes. So, Craig, small plates restaurants, go.

**Craig:** I’m totally down with small plates. I love that style of eating. I love all of it. What I’m exasperated by is the odd questioning as if I just had – have you eaten here before? Unless you fire food out of a cannon into my face don’t ask me that question. Because there’s nothing you can say that will surprise me. Nothing.

**John:** My friends Tim and Jeff went to a well-known sushi restaurant on Sunset Boulevard and they had a waiter who was obviously new to Hollywood and he came up to the table and was like, “Hey, so have you eaten with us before?” And they’re like, “No, it’s our first time.” It’s like, “OK, well sushi is raw fish.”

**Craig:** Oh no!

**John:** [laughs] Love it. Love it.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** We have so much on the menu today, so let’s start with a little amuse bouche. This first thing is a billboard that went up in Los Angeles this week calling on Marvel to bring back Tony Stark. Craig, what’s your take on fans putting up a billboard to bring back Tony Stark?

**Craig:** Well, prior to the Snyder cut phenomenon I would have said what a waste of money. And in this case it’s 99.4% a waste of money. Although you never know, right, f it starts some big movement. I think that if you put up a billboard asking for something you are doing something smart for 1988. I don’t think there’s any billboard action anymore. I mean, that was like The Room, Tommy Wiseau’s The Room, famously kind of became a cult thing because Tommy Wiseau bought a billboard and left it up there for years on Highland I think.

But, I mean, if people want to bring back Tony Stark just get on Twitter and start doing #BringBackTonyStark. There’s no need to buy a silly billboard. And also that’s not going to be why they bring back Tony. They’re not going to do it for you. No.

**John:** Kevin Feige has a plan.

**Craig:** I think he’s got a plan. And you know what? If I were a Marvel fan I would prefer to just trust the plan. Because the plan got you the thing you want more of. Why don’t you just wait, calm down, and see what else the plan comes up with.

**John:** So two years ago we bought a billboard for Highland. We were advertising Highland 2.0. And billboard are actually really fun to make and they’re surprisingly cheap. So, I sort of applaud them for like, ah, you spent two grand and you got a billboard for a month. Great. But whatever. I do think a hashtag campaign will work better.

But we’ll see whether that happens or if the Vin Diesel in Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots happens first. That’s a little bit of IP news from this past week. So Vin Diesel to star in a Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Robots movie from Mattel.

**Craig:** Yeah. There was a movie called Real Steel.

**John:** Our friend John Gatins wrote.

**Craig:** Penned by John Gatins. And including a surprising acting turn from John Gatins as well. Which this sounds somewhat similar. Father/son fighting robots. Other than Transformers, which is a huge other than, have any of these toy or game-based movies worked?

**John:** Well, G.I. Joe.

**Craig:** OK. Kinda? Right? I mean, they made two of them. But G.I. Joe never quite caught on like the way I think anyone would have hoped.

**John:** Well we have lots of opportunities to see. So the other Mattel movies in the pipeline include American Girl. Sure, great. There’s lots of stories there. Barbie. She actually has a face. I support it. Barney has a face. OK. Rated G. Hot Wheels. They’ve been trying to make a Hot Wheels movie forever.

**Craig:** Forever.

**John:** Magic 8-Ball we’ve talked about before. Major Matt Mason.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Don’t know who that is, but he’s a character with a name, so that’s a plus.

**Craig:** But he’s like one of those people that like Boomers played with when they were a kid. OK. Never going to happen.

**John:** Masters of the Universe. Sure. Absolutely.

**Craig:** They’ve tried it before. Let’s try it again.

**John:** Try it again. Thomas and Friends, feels very young but great. Uno we’ve discussed. And View-Master.

**Craig:** View-Master.

**John:** So Craig I sent you some artwork for the sort of horror versions of Uno.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And that feels like that sort of torture porn version of Uno makes sense. I don’t think that’s what they’re going to do.

**Craig:** They’re not going to do that. They are not going to do that. But it was fun to look at for sure. You kind of want something like that, don’t you? Isn’t the whole point is if you just give people the thing then, oh god, anything but just the thing.

**John:** We don’t want just the thing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Let’s start with a small plate of follow up. Last episode we talked about why comedy is not taken seriously. Craig from Sidney wrote in to say, “I think it works along the same lines as market economics. Comedy has flavors. Those flavors appeal to different segments of the market. My 25-year-old daughter shows me something on TikTok and roars laughing. I have no idea why it’s funny and feel concerned for her health. Drama, on the other hand, is universal. There is no fragmentation of opinion. Everyone except for the truly disturbed finds the death of a child traumatic.

“So if there are five styles of comedy, [unintelligible] logic, there’s 20% of the audience for each of those. A drama which appeals to 50% of the audience will still have a wider base of acceptance.”

Craig, what do you think of this flavors of comedy being the reason why comedy is not as respected?

**Craig:** Craig from Sidney. Sidney. Any Craig I feel an affinity for. We’re a dying breed. So this hurts me to say, Craig. But no. Because your premise is incorrect. Yes, comedy has flavors. So true does drama. When you say drama on the other hand is universal that is incorrect. There are elements of drama that are universal in the sense that, sure, everybody finds the death of a child traumatic. However, not everybody wants to watch something with the death of a child in it. In fact, very few people do.

If you ask my 16-year-old daughter what she finds interesting in terms of drama she will not tell you what a 60-year-old man is going to say. Because the differences are wild and disparate. There are so many different kinds of drama. There’s thriller, and there is romance, and there is sadness, and there’s disaster, and there’s tension. There’s action. There are so many different kinds of drama. So many, so many flavors. Just as many if not more than comedy.

There is, of course, fragmentation of opinion on drama. That’s why all sorts of dramas have niche audiences. I dispute your premise, but I do salute your name, Craig.

**John:** So, I like this question because it actually involves two fallacies that I think are actually interesting to describe.

**Craig:** Poor Craig.

**John:** No, and I think Craig has an interesting premise, but I think it’s based on some faulty logic. First off, he is actually begging the question in terms of saying that drama on the other hand is universal.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** It’s like well that’s not supported by the premise at all. You’re actually just stating that and you’re building your argument that it makes a difference here.

**Craig:** Bingo.

**John:** The second thing is I think there’s a tautology of like drama is taken seriously, well sort of by definition drama is serious. And so why comedy isn’t taken seriously, well because comedy is not serious in that same way. So I think you sort of answer your own question by asking the question why aren’t we taking these non-serious things seriously.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, certainly when you are making a comedy it is deadly serious. Even though you laugh a lot more, the tension and the sweat and difficulty and effort to make in particular a broad comedy is far more intense than it is when you’re making a drama. I can say that from personal experience with total assurance.

**John:** Do you want to take this question, 483, animation?

**Craig:** Yeah. So here’s a question, another small plate if you would. This small plate comes to us all the way from Belgium. Eddie asks John, I already like this question, John, I’m putting a little stink on it. It’s not like he wrote it that way. “John, in Episode 483 you talked about pitching an animation project. You had a little animatic with sound to support your pitch. My question is how did you put this all together? Did you use storyboard software? Or did you have someone do it for you?”

**John:** So, the actual project I was pitching at that point had directors on it. So this was a foreign team who had done something kind of like it and so we had their original short but also this animatic we did just sort of described what this thing was going to be. So I was pitching to set up the project, but also to set up the project with these directors. So we needed to show that these guys could actually deliver on the thing. So I actually had a team that could do it and do an amazing job.

You would not normally do that as a writer going in to pitch an animated project because you’re not going to be the person literally making the animation. So it was sort of a special case where we were able to do the animatic because we were trying to set up the project and show that these people can literally make it.

Normally if I were just pitching animation I would come in with visuals and boards and if not sort of the sketches to show what these characters are going to look like, a sense of what the world looks like, so the style that we’re going for. Because especially in animation you really need to show what this is going to feel like and look like and what you’re putting on a screen.

**Craig:** It sometimes feels discouraging when you hear about professionals and the tools that they have at their avail and you don’t. And so you think well how am I supposed to compete. And what I would say to anybody worried about that is don’t worry. That in fact the extra bit of spit and polish is ultimately not particularly important.

So John and I play Dungeons & Dragons weekly with Tom Morello, the Hall of Fame guitarist for Rage Against the Machine. And Tom posted something on Twitter the other day that I thought was really – it contained a certain truth about creation and art. So, way, way back in the early days of Rage, and I can’t remember what song it was, but they recorded a song that is the album version of the song and for whatever reason he recorded it on a guitar that I think he said he got for $70. And a practice amp. And a solid state practice amp. And, John, I don’t know if you know much about amps, guitar amps, but the world of audiophiles will shriek in horror when they hear that you’re using an amp with a transistor. Because what they want are those old amps with the tubes. Tube amps cost way more money and they are supposedly, legendarily they have warmer, richer sound.

**John:** Yeah. Just like vinyl.

**Craig:** Exactly. And transistor amps are just the devil’s poop. And not only was he doing it with a transistor amp, but it was a practice amp. So it was a real piece of crap. So it was a crap guitar, crap amp, awesome performance. Why? Because Tom Morello is an amazing musician. That’s why. And amazing musicians can make everything sound good. Because they’re awesome. It’s the idea. It’s the creativity.

Great writer. Great pitch. If the tools that you have are a little crude, no problem. The magic will shine through. So, do not despair when you hear about these things. You will win the day regardless. You are all Tom Morello.

**John:** All right. Sarah writes in to ask, “I’m currently listening to Episode 77 where Craig talks about the critics reviews for Identity Thief. It’s such a great episode. Really refreshing to hear both Craig and John delve into the complex nature of dealing with rejection even while simultaneously finding success. Because this episode was recorded in 2013 I’d love to hear update and reaction to it now, especially with Craig’s recent career milestone, Chernobyl.

“Craig makes a comment in Episode 77 about how he believes critics may never like what he does. And I’m wondering if/how that view has changed now. Specifically did Craig imagine at that time that a drama like Chernobyl would be in his wheelhouse? Or was this a new discovery as he continued to grow and expand as a writer? I’d be curious to hear if he and John feel the sensitivity they described to critique and rejection.”

**Craig:** Well thank you for bringing that up, Sarah. Not at all curling up into a ball again. Don’t worry about me. I’m fine. [laughs]

So, yes, I did in fact believe that critics may never like what I do. And that has changed because they did like something I did. So, I guess I can’t say anymore that I don’t believe they will never. Because I now have proof that they will once. I don’t know if they ever will again. But I’m a little cynical about criticism in the sense that I feel like criticism has its own self-propelling nature. The people that do things that critics like, well critics have a certain vested interest in protecting their assessment, right?

If you make four things in a row – I know when I make Identity Thief that they look at who has done it, they look back at what I did, and they go, “Well, I didn’t like those things so I don’t like this.” That’s how that goes. It’s the same kind of thing, right?

I’m not saying they all do that. And I’m not saying that they’re not capable of changing their minds. Because occasionally they would. But there is a certain critical momentum people have. It would be insane to deny it. So maybe there’s some positive critical momentum I have. Note that that momentum I am arguing has not much to do with the actual quality of the work itself.

I don’t know if I thought at the time that doing something like Chernobyl would be in my wheelhouse. I didn’t think it wouldn’t be. I just knew what I was doing then. And it wasn’t long after that I started thinking about Chernobyl actually. It was probably a year or two later.

I continue to grow and expand as a writer right now. I will never stop trying to evolve. Doesn’t necessarily mean better, but change. Just keep changing as I go. Do I still feel sensitivity to rejection and critique? Yes. Of course. It’s very upsetting to me. It’s upsetting to everybody. I refuse to believe that there’s some perfect beast out there who reads these things and goes, “I don’t care.” I don’t know how that could possibly be.

I try to not read them. And I held true with that on Chernobyl. Like HBO would send these packets. Here’s a summary. I’m like, OK, great. But I’m not going to read them. I just don’t want to. I don’t. I don’t want to know. And in fact the only one I think really, really read closely was the one really bad one. And it made me so annoyed.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh, god, it bothers me so much. It bothers me because it was stupid. It was just a dumb review. I want to review that review and just say like, look, I can list a number of poor choices you made here in my review of your review. But that guy knows what he did. He’s going to have to deal with that for the rest of his life, too.

**John:** I look back at sort of my response to criticism and reviews and it has changed over time, but also I think mostly because I’ve changed and my relationship to my work has changed a bit. So I remember when Go came out I literally printed all the reviews and had a big, thick binder of all those reviews.

**Craig:** Oh my.

**John:** Because it was also early Internet, and so reviews would just disappear. And so the only way you could guarantee that things would exist would be to actually print them out. And the reviews were mostly really good. Mixed in with those were sort of like “Oh, it’s Pulp Fiction lite.” And that just drove me crazy. But they were mostly really good reviews.

And then moving onto Charlie’s Angels, which was a surprise success. Everyone was rooting against it and then it turned out really well. And then Big Fish got mostly really good reviews and some also really bad reviews in there, too. But we had to do the award season stuff. You start to sometimes look at your own value in terms of how people are receiving your work, which is not good or not healthy.

And so I’ve just paid much less attention to reviews from that point forward. And going to the Big Fish musical and Arlo Finch, it’s nice to see those good reviews, but I don’t sort of hang everything on what the response is to my work.

I’m reading a good book now and one section is talking about imposter syndrome. And it’s making the argument which I think is potentially compelling that imposter syndrome can be helpful to some degree because if you have some degree of imposter syndrome it inspires you to work extra hard because you figure like, well, I’ve got to try extra hard because I don’t know what I’m doing. And it urges you to question your assumptions because you’re not locked into a belief and that you can do this thing, so you’re going to always look for like what are some alternatives or what are some different ways to do things.

And I think even though I have confidence now in my writing ability I think you always hold onto a little bit of imposter syndrome to make sure that you are actually working really hard and doing the work that can actually succeed.

**Craig:** Yeah. The problem with imposter syndrome mostly is that it’s of a binary nature. That you’re evaluating yourself as no good or good. Invalid/valid. And of course we are on a progressive scale. We start as rookies and like all things you do get better with time. You grow with time. Experience helps. You don’t want to be the person that jumps out of the gate with some brilliant bolt of lightning and then that’s it. It’s just you kind of got lucky there and the rest of it is just a sad, slow float to the ground.

So it would be nice if people could cast things in terms of a long progression, a sense of growth, an arc. When you look at some of the movies that people make after huge successes a lot of times there’s a perceived step back.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And then later in the longer sense of the evaluation those maybe become the things that people like the most because they were a little braver. You know, when you have done something that everybody loves you feel safe. When you’re safe you are able to be a little more creatively ambitious and risky. And so you get these things like what sometimes might be viewed as sophomore slumps. But they aren’t. They’re really interesting.

**John:** Craig, a thing we’ve never talked about, so coming off of Chernobyl which was an acclaimed drama you chose to do another drama adaptation – a dark, dramatic adaptation – as opposed to doing a comedy. And did you feel like would you be nervous about following up Chernobyl with a comedy?

**Craig:** Well, no, I wouldn’t be. It was more that I’d been playing pop music for a really long time and then suddenly I put out an album of standards and I loved making the album of standards. And I want to make another album of similar things. It’s not about them, it’s about me. Because I’ve done, I don’t know, 10 comedies and one drama. So I feel like I want to give myself an opportunity to play in that area.

Also, honestly bigger than the comedy/drama split is the fact that it was television. The experience of making television as a writer is so dramatically different than it is making a feature film. And I want to have more of that. I had 25 years of making features and being a feature screenwriter with all of the attendant highs and lows, but also inherent stupidities, inefficiencies, an unfairnesses. And those are not there in television the way they were in features.

And so I wanted to kind of play in that zone, too. But definitely went a very different way. I mean, so Chernobyl was an historical retelling of a disaster and The Last of Us is, A, an adaptation of a preexisting literary work. And, B, is fiction. It does not look backwards. It looks forward. And it’s very much about wildly different themes. And so for a bit I was looking at other possible historical things and I just decided I don’t want to go back to back history. I don’t want to feel like I’m chasing something that works. I’d rather just try something that feels very different to me. And then return to history. Because I’m going to and I know what it’s going to be.

Oh, I know what it’s going to be.

**John:** So, three years from now when people listen to this episode they’re like, oh, he was talking about this.

**Craig:** It will be longer than three years I think because it’s going to take a while to make The Last of Us. And if The Last of Us is going well then I think we’ll probably immediately get beaten into doing a second season of The Last of Us. But I mean we want to be beaten into doing another season of The Last of Us. But we’ll see how that goes.

**John:** Cool. Last bit of follow up here. Timothy writes in, “In Episode 150 Craig refers to the notion that ‘we shouldn’t attribute to malice what is better explained by stupidity.’ This psychological principle is known as Hanlon’s Razor, though it has since been adopted by academics across the social sciences, some believe it originated with Robert Hanlon’s submission to a joke book.” And so I’ll put a link to the Wikipedia article for this. And I fell down a little rabbit hole looking at it and it’s really odd.

It’s a useful quote, but it’s not clear sort of where the quote really came from. It’s also very similar to something that Heinlein, the sci-fi writer, wrote. And so it could just be the name sort of morphed together. But there’s versions of this that go back into like ancient Greece. And so it’s weird – it’s a useful framing of an idea that’s been there for a long time.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m looking at the Wikipedia article that you linked to here and it looks like at least we’ve got back in the 18th Century Goethe wrote, “Misunderstandings and lethargy perhaps produce more wrong in the world than deceit and malice do. At least the latter two are certainly rarer.” So there’s all versions of the same thing.

And what happens is that when somebody makes an interesting observation that connects with people other people then compete to make it terser and terser. So eventually you get something very, very tight and–

**John:** Eventually Dorothy Parker gets her hands on it and it just becomes the perfect version.

**Craig:** Correct. And they turn it into a rule or a law. But it’s true. It’s true. We do this all the time. The conspiracies that people assign to the government are hysterical to me. The same government that is seemingly incapable of doing anything particularly well.

**John:** Yeah. The Heinlein quote is, “You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity.”

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** The same idea in slightly different words.

**Craig:** And you get a lot – often there is a villain. But that villain is only able to achieve their nefarious aims because of the stupidity of dumb-dumbs. And, you know, talking about Chernobyl, there was some evil involved in Chernobyl, but mostly not. Mostly just laziness, stupidity, fear, a kind of rigid way of thinking. We don’t need to deny that there is malice. But it is definitely rarer than stupidity.

**John:** Yeah. But as people looking for thematic ideas, that idea that incompetence is its own form of evil is worthy to explore. So that idea of did you mean to do wrong or did you just do wrong because you’re useless? And to some degree that’s a worthy idea to explore.

**Craig:** Completely. I love that.

**John:** All right. So now for what everyone has been waiting for. We have another update on Oops.

**Craig:** The Days of Our Oops.

**John:** Phil wrote in to ask, “Can asking John and Craig for dating advice be a thing? That was a blast.” And so here’s where we’re officially announcing that we are transitioning this podcast from being – it’s a pivot. So, it’s now a relationship advice podcast that occasionally touches on issues of screenwriting.

**Craig:** Are we going to have live call-ins?

**John:** We should have more live call-ins. Because I love live call-ins.

**Craig:** I think they’re great.

**John:** So, we’re not going to be focusing much more on Oops and the drama around this, the romantic comedy around this. But I felt like our discussion with Aline last week brought up some interesting issues that some folks wrote in about in terms of it’s not just a love story. It’s also about work-life priorities and power and patriarchy. So I thought we’d go through some of the email we got in.

**Craig:** Let’s do it.

**John:** People writing for this. Do you want to start with Sarah down there?

**Craig:** Yeah. So Sarah writes, “Work crushes are great. They put spice in your day. They make your heart beat faster. I agree with Megana that letting those feelings simmer is very sexy and Bridgerton. But only you know how hard you fall when you fall. If you know yourself well enough to know you’re the sort of person who can use a little production time romance, much like a needed pressure release, fine. But if your crushes are all-consuming don’t pursue it if it’s going to get in your head at a time when everything should be you, you, you, not us, us, us. Or the worst: him, him, him.

“I want Oops to suck the marrow from this experience.” Oh, Sarah. “Without having to share her energy with a new relationship. Energy spent wondering what to wear for a date or what a text meant should go right into your film.”

Well that’s an interesting perspective. Sarah is implying a little bit of a zero sum energy kind of model here.

**John:** Well, actually in the first paragraph Sarah is implying that it can be a little flavor on your day. She worries that it could become all-consuming.

**Craig:** Well that is a thing. Right? My guess is, well, I don’t want to guess. I will say that for me I’ve always been the kind of person that is sort of in the middle of those things. I have never been the kind of person who can just like casually have a crush on somebody. Because I’m too emotional. When it happens definitely things are happens. But I’m also because I have certain interests in the things I’m doing I’ve also never been the kind of person that loses myself in the other person. So it’s never been – I can’t say that when a crush would happen that I would be able to me, me, me. I would never been just her, her, her.

But I could turn into an us-us. I could see that. Yeah, I could see that. I mean, these are good warnings.

**John:** Yeah. They are.

**Craig:** It’s important. Like we have to be able to warn and also cheerlead at the same time.

**John:** So let’s get into more warning here. This is Courtney in Los Angeles and she agrees with most of Aline’s advice. “As a youngish female screenwriter who met and began dating a much more established though not older writer in a writer’s room I can absolutely speak to being patronized/looked down upon once we openly started dating. Everyone assumed that my ideas ‘came from him’ or that he had helped shape form any project that I was working on.

“People at parties asked if I ever ‘worked on anything on my own.’ No one of course ever assumed that I influenced him in any way, or that his ideas weren’t original to him. I want to point out this guy was great and we had a great connection, but looking back I needed to have been much more aware of what people would now assume about my writing and my abilities once I got together with such a well-known writer while still largely unknown myself.

“I don’t regret the experience, but I wish I’d had Aline to give me some guidance at the time. I began the relationship pretty naïve about how it would be perceived.”

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. That’s really interesting. And what I like about what Courtney is saying is that when she says “but looking back” she doesn’t say “I should have never done it.” Right? So there’s not a regret of having a relationship with somebody, or having feelings for another person and enjoying all the things that come out of that as Sarah says “suck the marrow from the experience.”

But on the other hand she’s saying it would have really been good to have been more aware. Be prepared for the pitfalls so that you can – I think if you’re ready for these things when they come at you you will be ready to respond and overcome them and sort of kill them in their cradle rather than have them wash over you over and over. And then sometimes spoil you on the relationship that wasn’t to blame, right?

The relationship you were having with somebody didn’t say that dumb crap. Other people did. So this is a very interesting notion of kind of getting – I like getting warnings from people who have been through it about the things that will be headed your way that are not disqualifying. They don’t mean don’t do it. They mean just understand what you’re in for.

**John:** Yup. For sure. All right. Now we have an update from Oops and so by podcast rules Megana needs to come on the show because Megana is the voice of Oops as far as we have to have narrative continuity. So, Megana, if you could please give us the latest scoop from Oops.

**Megana Rao:** OK, so Oops wrote in. “So had drinks on the weekend and it was just kind of brilliant and affirmed all the dumb feelings I’ve been having.”

**Craig:** Ooohhh.

**Megana:** “It was all going so well that I just absolutely failed at biting the Mazin bullet and ‘talking about it.’ I was sitting there just realizing, wow, this is going to really suck if I kill this whole evening talking about feelings. So I totally chickened out, but lucky for me/us/the Scriptnotes listeners he did not chicken out.

“Long story short he basically laid it out on the table. He likes me a lot. And I like him a lot. We talked that through and about my concerns getting through this production, set gossip, et cetera, and he shared a lot of them. So it’s good to know I haven’t been thinking of all this stuff in a vacuum. So we landed at just taking things super easy. Get through the shoot first and foremost and then in four months’ time see if this is something we could do ‘for real.’ His words, not mine.

“For the record it was very, very difficult not going straight back to his hotel. But a couple days away from it I’m glad I didn’t. Apparently we’re still allowed to take our time in 2021. Who knew? So that’s where we’re at. I’m excited and nervous, but feeling good about it. The film comes first and that’s the real joy in all of this. And for us and the future, well, we’ll just wait and see. I promise to come through with an update when, well, we get to a worthy update.”

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** All right. Wow, so this such a relief I’m feeling. Just the tightness in my chest has dissipated because he reverse [unintelligible] by stepping forward and explaining his feelings first. Great. That he has the same concerns. He seems like a grownup. You’ve been a tremendous grown through all of this, Oops. So I’m excited for them and this film that they’re making. I’m excited to see what happens in four months.

Craig, how are you feeling?

**Craig:** I love this. I think, first of all, it speaks very well of him. And it speaks very well of you. There’s no, listen, you never fail at biting the Mazin bullet. You probably shouldn’t bite anything called the blank bullet anyway, right? I mean, that just sounds bad.

But I think you did what you needed to do which was just have an experience and not make it about that. And then he did what he needed to do which was to help you. Because I think he saw this. And he decided I want to help by just popping the balloon and letting this out, which he did, and apparently he did it perfectly.

So, this is going really, really well. And this I will tell you, Oops, is actually more important than the massive hormone cloud that hit your brain on the way to not go back to the hotel, which is like – it is like a version of psychosis when it hits you. It’s pretty heady stuff. That stuff will not last.

Here’s what will last is somebody who is thoughtful and kind of read your mind and helped you. And sounds like a very sober, thoughtful person. That’s real. So, this is very exciting.

**John:** I want to push back a little bit on that idea that he helped her, because I think one of the things I’m recognizing over the last two weeks of talking about this we really haven’t thought about this from his point of view. And in Oops’s update is the first time that like, oh that’s right, he has perspective on all of this, too. And he has his own concerns going into this. And so I think I was always ascribing sort of like man wants woman motivation to him when actually he has agency in this as well. And he’s really thinking about himself in addition to thinking about her.

**Craig:** Well sure.

**John:** It’s important to remember that there’s two people in a relationship.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, it’s not – when I say helped her I mean just helped–

**John:** The situation.

**Craig:** Helped get it on the table.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** What he chose was good for him, and also I think she is saying it was good for her, too, because they agreed. The help was just to sort of say, OK, one of us is going to have to say something. There’s no way this is going to go four months. And it’s dangerous actually if no one says something. After a while suddenly what’s going to happen is the two of you are going to find yourself in an elevator and then ka-boosh. Because no one ever talked. And so it was good that he kind of picked that moment and gave you both the opportunity to talk about it.

So I’m tipping my hat to him for that.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** This is good.

**John:** This update came before Oops had listened to the episode with Aline. And so Megana if you can update us on her post-Aline reaction.

**Megana:** OK, great. I’m still laughing at ka-boosh.

**Craig:** Ka-boosh. What floor sir? Ka-boosh.

**Megana:** So Oops responded to Episode 497 and she said, “I just listened to this week’s podcast and the very sage advice from Queen of Queens, Aline. Everything she spoke about was 100 percent on point and is honestly all the stuff I’ve been wrestling with these past few weeks. For the record, I’m in my early 30s and have been doing this for six years now.

“I’ve dealt with all the gross male behavior under the sun. Whereas before I could in theory shut down any overt interest with the old ‘I’m in a relationship’ card, now that I’m single it’s a different single. I guess I just share this to say that her advice is spot in, and I wouldn’t have landed on this attraction if I didn’t think it might be something worth actually exploring. And it’s not something I landed on easily.”

**Craig:** You know, Oops, I love Oops. You know what’s so great about Oops is that she is capable of doing something that so few people are, which is holding two thoughts in her head at the same time. It’s great. Exactly. Yes, you can do both things. You can be wary and prudent and smart and cognizant of your own experience, and also you can aspire to love.

**John:** Now, Craig, I don’t want to make any offers that you’re not willing to sort of back up, but you and I have both officiated weddings.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And if Oops at some point in the future did want a joint officiated wedding–

**Craig:** Yes. Yes.

**John:** I would be up for it. I don’t know if you would be.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** I am a member of the clergy.

**John:** The offer is on the table if this gets down to–

**Craig:** I totally would do it. I would totally do that. And I think even though I think technically I’m a member of like whatever it is the Church of the Internet Universe, whatever it’s called.

**John:** We’re in the same congregation.

**Craig:** I feel like, correct. What I would like to do, and this isn’t anything – Oops, this isn’t anything I would bring up at the wedding.

**John:** No pressure.

**Craig:** But just between us I would probably want to actually be a cleric like a D&D cleric. So, I’d want like a domain. And I’m just saying Oops if for instance there was some sort of zombie insurrection at your wedding I could turn the undead. Send them away. And then we resume the – I’ve probably disqualified myself. I just got fired, didn’t I?

**John:** The undead or the patriarchy, whatever it is you have to keep at a distance.

**Craig:** I turn the patriarchy. Yes. Oh, of course I would. Here’s the problem. Now these two are going to get engaged and then it’s going to be like, ah-ha-ha, John and Craig are going to do it. And then one day Oops’s fiancé is going to be like I don’t want that at all. And she’s going to be like but it will be fun. And then they break up.

**John:** Yeah. We don’t want to see that.

**Megana:** I also did clarify with Oops, I was like does your producer crush listen to this podcast, because I am very concerned. And she said he does not. And she made that clear.

**Craig:** Well then he’s a cool guy. He just shot way up.

**John:** He’s like Craig. He doesn’t listen to podcasts.

**Craig:** This guy sounds amazing. Oops, Oops. If you like it, put a ring on it.

**John:** Craig and this producer have a lot in common in that neither of them listen to Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** Wait. Is this me? Is she talking about me this whole time?

**Megana:** But also just based off of the way Oops spells certain things I don’t think that she’s an American, so you guys are committing to travel.

**John:** I agree. I noticed that extra U in the “behaviour.”

**Craig:** Oh, I have no problem traveling for a wedding. I love a wedding. I love a wedding.

**John:** I do too.

**Craig:** Plus I also love England. So, now, look, if she’s in Australia like Craig from Sidney then that’s going to be really annoying. But if she’s in London, I mean, yeah. Or Ireland. Ooh. Yeah.

**John:** Wow. So it feels like we had already a five-course-meal, but that was just really the first wave of small plates.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** There’s a bigger thing being put down on the table now which is we’ve talked a lot about copyright before on the podcast, but we haven’t talked about termination. And there were a couple of stories in the news this past week about copyright termination. So I thought we’d dig into this and sort of what this is about. And why some classic movies are facing this, but why modern screenwriters probably don’t need to worry so much about it.

So, some of the stories you see in the news are about Friday the 13th, Terminator, This is Spinal Tap, Predator. And what’s happening is the screenwriters behind these projects are trying to basically claw back their copyright on the scripts they wrote, which is becoming lawsuits galore.

**Craig:** Yeah. So most of the work that we do starts immediately as work-for-hire. And when it starts immediately as work-for-hire this does not come into play. There are circumstances where companies have made mistakes in the past where they didn’t quite wrap it up as work-for-hire. And then suddenly the copyright transfer, like OK I’m the copyright owner, I’m going to transfer this to you, is terminate-able. At which point the writer attempts to do that and then the company is like, “What? No.”

There are also quite a few circumstances where companies bought literary material that had been out on the spec market, therefore it preexisted work-for-hire, so they had to get a copyright transfer. And then they immediately have the writer do the next revision which is a work-for-hire, so they own everything that follows that first draft.

Some people are making the argument, hey, that spec script that you got as that copyright transfer, we want it back. And then the studio is like, well fine, but you cannot do anything that touches on any of the stuff that happened after that first draft. Anything. So it becomes harder to see how you make something, but it is possible.

The other thing that complicates a little bit of this is the way that the Writers Guild works with these things where oftentimes under copyright transfers there is this strange fiction that occurs where they kind of reverse engineer a work-for-hire. All of which is to say there are areas where writers may be able to claw back some of this stuff. Even if they can it will be of limited value. Not no value, but in many cases limited value. And for almost everyone involved in this business this is not an option at all.

**John:** Yeah. So anything you’re going to sell now they will contract this up in a way that you will not be able to claw this back in 35 years.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** But let’s talk about sort of what the purpose was behind this ability to rescind the transfer of copyright. So in 1978 there was a new law passed, 1978 Copyright Act, and this termination right was put in there to let authors basically take back successful work that they could not have initially anticipated they were giving up when they convey the rights. So basically something was undervalued and they basically sort of pull it back and reuse it, or something that sort of got stuck someplace and they can finally take it back.

It applies to not just movies, and movies are sort of the exception. It’s more other literary works. It’s complicated around music. I’m going to put a link in the show notes to Lawyer Mark Jaffe talks through a lot of these issues and has links from there to a bunch of the lawsuits that are sort of digging into these situations, these cases.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Useful for looking at historical things and sort of these big name titles, but these are because they were from the ‘70s and ‘80s and weren’t contracted in the same way that modern things were. If I were to sell a spec script tomorrow this would not be available to me.

**Craig:** No. It’s really clear for us. What the ambiguity is around that 1978 Copyright Act is that it specifically refers to audio visual works. It doesn’t specifically refer to music, or songs, audio-only works. So, they were talking about television, film, things like that. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t cover songs and things like that, but that’s been the argument.

Regardless, the year 1978 is relevant here. That was just two years away from the last time that our government was largely run by the left in our country. And this is a left kind of thing to want. To advocate for individual artists against corporations that are in the intellectual property industry. And since the sort of change of things in 1980 we have seen nothing but a continual erosion of individual artist rights in the context of copyright power. And a continual extension and strengthening of corporate ownership of copyright work-for-hire, et cetera.

**John:** Yeah. And so what my prediction and sort of what will happen with these lawsuits is I think some of them will prevail and the original screenwriters will get their copyright back. That won’t mean that they can sort of go off and make their own new movie. But it will stop the other rights holder, the person who actually owns the rights to the movie-movie from doing a reboot or sequel or other things like that. And so they will have to negotiate with that rights holder in order to be able to make new things, which they probably will want to make new things.

That’s what’s likely going to happen here in some of these cases.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s the end game. If you’re actually involved in one of these things you’re trying to get the company that owns the movie built around your spec script to pay you more money.

**John:** Yeah. All right. Let’s get to our questions, which is sort of the – I don’t know where this sort of falls in the meal. It’s when they sort of keep bringing plates and you’re like I don’t remember ordering this. But–

**Craig:** Right. Why did we do this?

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** Exactly. And you know what? Maybe I did need you to explain how this restaurant worked. Because what’s happening?

**John:** Megana, can you talk us through some of these questions that are coming up at us fast and furious?

**Megana:** All right. So Elias from New Hampshire asks, “I came across this article by Jessica Mason arguing ‘let’s just replace every terrible man in the movies with Tig Notaro.’ Basically what happened was an actor was Me Too’d after filming wrapped for Army of the Dead and then replaced. What are the legal, social, and financial implications for replacing an actor at a late stage like that?”

**John:** I love Tig Notaro. I love her in this trailer. I’m excited to see it. I’m so happy that she’s in this. And this article by Jessica Mason she’s looking at some of the other movies that have problematic people starring in them, like Johnny Depp, or Armie Hammer. It’s like, yeah, it would be kind of fascinating to stick Tig Notaro in there.

It’s really difficult and expensive to do it in most cases. I think this was a special case in that it was already a visual effects heavy movie. It was comparatively easy to stick Tig in those places. But to replace Armie Hammer in Death on the Nile is a much bigger lift and ask. You’re not going to be able to sort of swap someone else in there.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, you did have the strange case of Kevin Spacey and–

**John:** Oh that’s right.

**Craig:** And Christopher Plummer.

**John:** All the Money in the World.

**Craig:** All the Money in the World. Where they, yeah, that was Sir Ridley Scott I believe who just said let’s just remake half this movie. And you can depending on what the movie is. Now, in this particular case the person in question was Chris D’Elia, the comedian Chris D’Elia who has been accused of sexual misconduct, including with girls, with people who are underage. And he is in a big budget movie. Army of the Dead is a big, huge movie. It’s not a little movie.

But his part I guess wasn’t super huge. So, replacing him digitally with Tig Notaro was not I guess a game-breaker. But I have to say that Zack Snyder is on a roll right now. I mean, so that’s maybe the smartest goddamn choice in history.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Because Tig Notaro has a certain built in awesomeness. I love Tig Notaro. She’s a really great comedian. But also there is a – let me just speak cynically for a second. She has an unexploited amount of awesomeness. Like some people everyone is just like we want to love you. Why won’t people let us love you? Give us more of you to love you. And Tig Notaro I think is one of those people. He very smartly was like there is a pent up demand for Tig Notaro that has not been met. And he met it. It’s very smart.

**John:** And I think part of the quality to her is that a Tig Notaro would not see this movie, would not know about this movie.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right.

**John:** She has no idea this movie exists, and yet she’s in it.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Which is a great thing.

**Craig:** She probably still is not really aware of the movie. She’s been in it. She’s like – I want to see her stand up about being in this because it would be amazing.

**John:** So Elias asks what are the legal, social, financial implications. So what are the legal implications? You as an actor are not guaranteed to be in that final movie, so you can be replaced. I don’t think there’s any real huge concern there.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Social. I think, you know, you’re making these choices because a person is dragging your movie down and the movie is going to be centered around that person who is dragging it down rather than about the movie itself, so that does make sense.

Financial, listen, is it a lot of money to reshoot and redo stuff? Yes. But if you’re looking at sort of like what is most likely to succeed on the marketplace it may be worth the money to reshoot that stuff. You look at Back to the Future. They stuck Michael J. Fox in there after they shot a whole bunch of stuff with Eric Stolz. It was probably the right choice. They saw what they had and said like, listen, the A version of this is worth so much more than the B version that we think we have right now.

**Craig:** Yeah. In almost no situation will you have a legal problem unless when you make the switch you announce we’re doing this because, you know, and you make an allegation. Because Chris D’Elia is a blank. Well, he has not been put on trial. You know, you can get sued for that. But assuming that you don’t do that, it’s your movie, you can cut somebody out and you can replace them. They may have things in their contract. There may be penalties. You may have to pay them completely. But you make that decision.

Financially there are absolutely costs. And those costs are weighed against the expected loss of income. Here’s the only thing you’ve got to be worried about. Every time somebody does something in Hollywood that is smart, well thought out, and then succeeds, they will be followed by copycats.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And what we don’t want to see are things like this being done for cynical reasons. It will be a bummer if suddenly a bunch of movies are like “we did it.” And everyone is like, OK, but that you see wasn’t authentic. You didn’t really want to do that. And we know you’re doing – now you’re begging. The great thing about a moment like this where that trailer comes out is that the world said you didn’t tell us to feel anything. We’re telling you how we feel. And how we feel is awesome. And that’s what you’re going for. Eventually somebody is going to be like “and also you should probably feel that we’re awesome because look what we did.” And then everyone is going to go, boo, you suck.

That’s how it goes.

**John:** Yeah. I think the best versions of this are when we never even hear that someone was replaced. If Zack Snyder had just cast Tig Notaro in that role I would be cheering. I’m not cheering because she replaced somebody else. I’m cheering because she’s in this movie. And so the best of these situations are when you don’t even hear about it. And honestly it happens a lot and we never hear about it. An actor will be a couple days into shooting and they’re like, nope that’s not working.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And you replace them and no one ever knows.

**Craig:** Correct. And that’s why I have an immediate affinity for anything that Jessica Mason is writing because my daughter’s name is Jessica. So she’s Jessica Mazin. It feels very similar. So it seems like my daughter wrote something and I’m rooting for her 100 percent.

**John:** Maybe this is your daughter.

**Craig:** However, let’s just replace every terrible man in the movies with Tig Notaro, it’s a great way to get clicks. It’s provocative. It does have that Mary Sue kind of vibe to it. Marysue.com kind of vibe. But it’s also basically saying, hey, let’s have a fight. That is a fight spoiling headline that you’re like, go ahead, say dumb crap about this on Twitter so that we can get into a fight. And I don’t know if we necessarily have to frame everything as a fight.

I mean, maybe we should just like celebrate it. It just seems like what that is asking for is assholes with dumb-dumb opinions to come out and start saying their dumb-dumb opinions. But I suppose they’re going to anyway, aren’t they?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Megana, I see you approaching with one more plate.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** It looks like you’ve got an Alan question there. So maybe Alain we’ll stop there and basically say no mas.

**Craig:** We have waffle thin Alain. Monsieur it’s just waffle thin.

**Megana:** The final plate. Alain asks, “So often with big budget projects you hear wild rumors and stories about protected screenplays, blackened out text, and actors who are locked in a room with the script. Christopher Nolan films and Marvel movies come to mind. Obviously the secret nature of the screenplay helps create a lot of buzz, but I was wondering how you felt about the impact on screenwriters. Have either of you ever written a highly guarded screenplay? Do you receive guidance for saving files or using digital clouds? Does the psychological weight of each page increase knowing how coveted this screenplay is?

“Do you think writers feel more pressure to complete drafts with these scripts? I can imagine that writing habits like sharing pages with friends for feedback drastically changes. And how do you think being assigned a secret project impacts a person’s ego?”

**John:** These are great questions. So I asked a lot of these questions of my friends Lisa Joy and Jonathan Nolan off-mic, but also we talked a little bit about it on-mic when they came on the Scriptnotes Live show. Because with Westworld and some of the other things they’ve worked on they’ve had to do these sort of secret things where they have locked down iPads or they’ll send pages to an actor and then if another deal closes those pages can be dissolved over the Internet. Basically the actor could be half trying to flip a page and there’s no more page because that actor did not get the role.

I personally have not had to do anything like that. But Craig I’m curious whether on The Last of Us are you doing that kind of locked down stuff?

**Craig:** Not to that extent. You know, the only time I’ve experienced that is just when like Rian asked me to read his Star Wars movie. So I had to go to Disney, sit in a room, get the iPad, read it on the iPad. Give them my phone while I was reading the iPad. You know, all that stuff.

Look, we certainly, you know, leaks are things. And you know when you’re working on something that people have an interest in. And so you want to protect it as best you can. And you follow certain rules. I don’t sit there killing myself over fear. Leaks happen. But when you look at the aftermath of the leaks I think that’s where you find a little bit of comfort.

Quentin Tarantino famously announced that he was no longer going to be making any movies after the script for The Hateful Eight leaked. He was down. He was out. Screw everybody, I’m going home. And then everybody went to go to see The Hateful Eight anyway and it was nominated for a bunch of things. People forgot – most people, I would say 99 percent of people did not read the leaked screenplay because reading screenplays is super annoying. Nobody likes it. And even if you had, it doesn’t matter. You wanted to go see the movie and you saw the movie and he’s going to continue to make movies.

Neil Druckmann who I’m working with on The Last of Us famously had to deal with a leak around The Last of Us 2. The Last of Us Part 2 was leaked or large chunks of it were leaked by a hacker. And it created a massive amount of distress for him and for Naughty Dog, the company that makes The Last of Us, and for Sony, which owns Naughty Dog. And it created a lot of sturm and drang on the Internet. And you had a revolt of what I would call some backwards thinking folks. And all of it was happening like a month or two before the game was released.

So there was this pent up stuff going on. And it almost seemed like after all these years and all this work that they were going to crash at the very last moment in their car because of this leak. And what happened? It sold a kabillion copies. It won every award. It got reviewed through the roof. It’s one of the top ten Metacritic game reviewed blah-blah-blah of all time, for whatever the reviews are worth. And more importantly none of the leaks mattered because facts are not the same as experience.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** We know when we write things that if you want to write at the end of the script, “Oh my god, he’s been dead the whole time,” fine, great. Clever. The reason we don’t sell screenplays but rather watch television and movies is because feeling those things is a vastly different experience. Even if you know. So, I understand the stuff around it. I would hate for the stuff that we’re doing to leak. I would hate it. Because I want people to go into it knowing nothing. It’s the best way. It was a luxury we had on Chernobyl because nobody cared enough to leak Chernobyl.

But, you know, just trust that people will find that experience.

**John:** Yeah. I think this desire to lock down screenplays is in some ways misguided and I think it’s frustrating. Because I can understand locking down edits of things. I can understand locking down twists in Game of Thrones and stuff like that. But at some point you have to just open up enough so you can get some work done.

My experience with locked down stuff, we’ll talk about sort of in the superhero genre because that’s sort of where spoilers tend to be bigger. I worked very, very, very early on on a Marvel project and it was not really locked down at all. I sent in files. It was all over email and it was all fine, and normal, and good. But as we talk to friends who work on Marvel stuff now it is really locked down. And so two people within Marvel will actually have a file they can look at. And you can’t send stuff in. There are real restrictions because they’re trying to control these kind of things.

That said, I worked on a DC thing a couple years ago and it was in production and files were just being schlepped around. I got the whole script. I got everything. Got all of it. And there were not the kind of protections on that I would have guessed. Back when we were first starting out, Craig, remember red scripts?

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**John:** So annoying. So the way you–

**Craig:** They would defeat a Xerox machine.

**John:** Essentially so they would print scripts on red paper that was difficult to Xerox. And it was a hassle. It was a hassle to read. They were terrible.

So, watermarks are a less burdensome thing and they’re relatively common because you can see who has the script and sort of make sure that only people who have the script are supposed to have the script. These locked iPads are another way to do it. But for most movies I don’t think it makes sense. I think you’re actually just creating barriers where you don’t need barriers.

**Craig:** And it really is an enormous amount of friction in the gears of the machinery. We have to cast all of these parts. We also have to – and for The Last of Us we’re not just casting actors, we’re also casting directors, because we have multiple directors. Which by the way we just announced happily that – I’m able to tell people now – that in addition to Kantemir Balagov we also have Ali Abbasi, who is going to be working as a director on our series. He did the incredible movie Border. And Jasmila Žbanić who is nominated – I don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re recording this on Friday, April 23. The Oscars are this weekend. She is nominated for Best Foreign Film for her movie Quo Vadis, Aida which if you have not seen you should absolutely see. It’s incredible.

So Jasmila Žbanić and Ali Abbasi joining us on The Last of Us. That’s a little plug.

**John:** Nice.

**Craig:** A little plug. And you know what? It’s super annoying to try and get actors and directors to do things when you’re like but you have to enter 15 passwords and then read this thing that is colored different colors.

**John:** So for a person who is like a day player and you’re auditioning those people, are you sending them a scene with fake names on it? What are you doing?

**Craig:** I don’t do fake names because currently we don’t need to do fake names. If we were in season seven of some sort of ongoing thing and somebody came back to life then I would do the fake name. But almost everybody we’re dealing with is getting sides. So, in our business sides just means the pages of your scene that you’re auditioning with.

**John:** You’re not getting the whole script. You’re just getting the part that pertains to you.

**Craig:** Right. Now there are some actors because of my relationship with them or because of their stature you want them to have the whole script because this isn’t a situation where they’re going to go and necessarily audition. It’s really more we’re going to have a discussion and then if we all agree you will play this part. So we’re not going to just give them sides. That’s not enough information for them.

**John:** Megana, thank you for bringing these delicious plates to us.

**Craig:** Oh, Megana, you should have told us how this restaurant works.

**John:** If only someone had explained it at the start.

**Craig:** I know. I’ve never been to a restaurant. I always want to say like I’ve actually never been to any restaurant. I don’t know how any restaurant works. What’s happening? Where am I? Why are all these people eating?

**John:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. The first is a really great thing you should try to bake this weekend or whenever you have a chance if you live in the US and you have a Trader Joe’s handy. Next time you’re at Trader Joe’s pick up the Bake at Home Chocolate Croissants, which are not actually chocolate croissants. They are pain au chocolat or if you’re in some parts of French speaking world chocolatine. They are a delicious pastry with chocolate in the middle of them. They are so good and since I’ve moved back from France a couple years ago these are the best I’ve had in the US, even at fancy LA pastry chops. They’re really good.

So you set them out overnight and they rise over night and then you bake them in the morning. They are terrific. So I encourage you to try those.

Have you had those, Craig?

**Craig:** I have not. This sounds great.

**John:** They’re incredible. And you just literally take them out of the box, you leave them on the sheet to rise. They’re delightful.

**Craig:** Spectacular. What else you got?

**John:** My One Cool Thing. I got an email this last week from this kid, I think it was actually his parent writing in, but the kid’s voice saying like hey would you consider writing a fourth Arlo Finch book. And so I tweeted about that this week. And people said lovely things about my book series Arlo Finch. But Michael Strode wrote to say, “Hey, I listen to Scriptnotes religiously but I haven’t heard you mention Arlo Finch. Did I miss it? Self-promotion encouraged.”

And it’s a thing I’m sort of trying to figure out is the degree to which self-promotion makes sense on this podcast. Because I don’t want to run through my credits every week. But I have a book series called Arlo Finch that you should read, or you should have your kids read. I made a movie called The Nines which you should watch. I did Big Fish.

It’s weird on a podcast because I can’t just point to a list of things. I actually have to say it aloud. So, this is just going to be my self-promotional moment. If listeners have suggestions for how we can do the bits of self-promotion that make sense without being annoying we’d love to hear it.

**Craig:** Fantastic. I’ve done nothing. I’m useless. I’ve got nothing to say. I have nothing to promote.

**John:** Well, Craig, but I feel like we do talk about Chernobyl a lot on the show. And so like–

**Craig:** Well we have to. You have to talk about what you’ve done, and I have to talk about what I’ve done because that’s our touch point for the craft that we’re describing. But there’s not a lot of backwards promotion.

**John:** No. There’s not.

**Craig:** Yeah, you can go see things that came out already. The areas where it’s interesting is the stuff that’s upcoming. And I think we – hopefully we don’t bother people by talking. Obviously we don’t bother people by talking about it too much because people are saying talk about it more, I guess. I don’t know.

You know, just read an article or whatever. Just watch the show. There you go.

**John:** What do you got for One Cool Things?

**Craig:** OK, I have two One Cool Things. Both are interesting non-profit organizations that are doing good work. The first is an interesting effort coming out of the MLK Community Health Foundation. They are running a program where you can help support mobile vaccination groups that are working in South Central and underserved communities to help improve and increase the amount of vaccines that are spreading out there.

This is something that Chris Miller and his wife Robin, mostly Robin, have been working on. And so there’s this mobile clinic team that MLK Hospital is putting together. They’re converting sprinter vans into mobile vaccination units.

**John:** Neat.

**Craig:** And they’re still taking lots of donations in. They are attempting to raise $200,000. They currently have $80,000. So they’re on their way. But with a week to go I think they could use your help. So we’ll put a link in the show notes for this MLK Community Health Foundation effort to bring vaccines to South LA. Super important. Even if you hate people, you should do this anyway.

**John:** Because vaccination helps everyone.

**Craig:** It will help you.

**John:** It helps you. Selfishly, yes.

**Craig:** It helps you. Right. If you’re The Grinch you should still do this if you have some money to donate. So we’ll put a link in the show notes for that.

OK, second interesting thing that is burbling out there. There is a manager named Erin Brown who I have worked with a couple of times. She represents different people that I’ve worked with. I don’t have a manager but she represents some fine writers and some excellent directors, including the aforementioned Ali Abbasi.

And she is working on a new advocacy organization called One in Four. And the idea of One in Four is that it is an intersectional advocacy organization led by disabled creatives working in Hollywood. They are determined to reframe the cultural narrative of disability through storytelling and the authentic representation of disabled people. And that starts with the jobs.

So this is very much a focused effort to improve the presence of disabled people in front of the camera and behind the camera. This overlaps a little bit with the discussion we had with Nick Novicki who is doing similar with an offshoot of Easter Seals. But it’s a really cool program. And so maybe we will have Erin on at some point to dig in a little bit deeper. Because I think we’re going to be seeing a lot more of this and for all sorts of good reasons.

So seems like a great thing to support. Right now I don’t know if there’s a fundraising effort or anything like that, but if there is we’ll let you know. But it’s good to see that that organization exists and we’ll dig up some more information about that for you. But wanted to let people know what Erin Brown was up to. A very positive thing.

It is One Cool Thing.

**John:** Indeed. Awesome. Well that is our show for this week. And, man, that was a full meal.

**Craig:** I’m going to vomit.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Nora Beyer. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions I’m on Twitter @johnaugust.

You can find t-shirts. They’re great. You can get them at Cotton Bureau. 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 interesting links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on remakes and reboots. Craig, thanks for a good meal.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you John. I’m stuffed.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, so Craig, this last week I was on a podcast called Galaxy Brain. It’s the launch of a podcast. And they were talking about the Mighty Ducks reboot series thing happening on Disney+. And really the question what is the boundary between a reboot and a new installment a thing, versus a remake. And sort of as a person who I’ve done a lot of reboots and remakes they wanted to ask me questions about it. But I want to ask you questions about. Can you define the difference between a remake and a reboot?

**Craig:** Well, in terms of art, but I guess in my mind a remake is something that is being done again and isn’t particularly reinventing the tone. It’s just representing it. It’s giving it a little bit of update, new polish, resetting it in the modern world. So if you want to remake some wonderful old movie like It Happened One Night and you’re basically following the same plot and the same kind of screwball comedy tone, it’s a remake.

Reboot is when you’re taking something and you are remaking it but you’re remaking it with a complete flip on the tone, or the setting. Maybe you’re swapping genders for roles. You’re doing something to basically say we’re doing the equivalent when they take Mary Poppins and make a horror movie trailer out of it. That’s the reboot vibe.

**John:** Yeah. I agree with you there. So this Mighty Ducks is apparently more in the reboot model in that the Mighty Ducks are the villains of the series. They’re the evil team that you’re sort of rooting against which changes the framing. So the hero/villain swap there is important.

But one important question which is implied in both reboots and remakes is is there continuity to the original property. And basically does it exist in the same universe as the original thing. So like Charlie’s Angels, my version existed in the same universe as the Charlie’s Angels TV series versus other versions which did not acknowledge that Sabrina wasn’t one of the original Angels. You have to make decisions as a creator like how does our reboot or remake fit in with the initial continuity of all the things that have come before.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s hard. It’s really hard. You want to have the freedom to make all the decisions that are correct internally for the work of art you’re making. And you do not when you are making a sequel, or a remake, or a reboot. There are things in place that will always be there. Even reboots. Sometimes reboots are more annoying because there are pillars that cannot be moved that are potentially incompatible or not perfectly compatible with the new tone.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** And so then you can – the thing with reboots is when they first started happening everyone was like oh that is so cool, like I never thought of it that way. But now we live in a world – we live in world–

**John:** In a world where…

**Craig:** We live in a society where every trailer seemingly has some song that has been rebooted. Let’s just take Smells Like Teen Spirit and slow it down and play with one piano and have a lady sing it. And it’s like a different song. We’ve rebooted it. Except you keep doing that same thing over and over. So it’s like oh yeah you’re doing the thing again.

So after a lot, a lot of reboots everyone is like, yeah, you’re doing the thing. So it’s like I get it. It’s a real serious version of Sponge Bob.

**John:** Sponge Bob is a killer.

**Craig:** Yeah, like gritty Sponge Bob and it’s like, OK.

**John:** It’s Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer but with Sponge Bob Square Pants.

**Craig:** Right. But also what’s so stupid is you still have Patrick and there’s still the crusty crab, so like what?

**John:** Got to have all those things.

**Craig:** You’ve got to have those things. And so it’s like what are you doing? And then you can start to smell the cynicism coming off of it.

**John:** We should clarify from a legal perspective and from a guild perspective we can say reboot, remake, whatever, it doesn’t matter. Basically if you’re working off of previously existing material you’re framing up – what you want to call it doesn’t actually matter. It’s whether it’s an original screenplay or not an original screenplay. So that’s where it comes down to.

I’m involved right now in Toto which is – it’s not really a remake. It’s not really a reboot. But it springboards off of the MGM film Wizard of Oz. And so therefore it has all those things. And because it has those things it has expectations about how characters are supposed to behave. And that can be really frustrating at times. I think back to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is based on Roald Dahl’s book and it’s only based on Roald Dahl’s book. It’s not based on the Gene Wilder movie at all. And yet I would still get notes from the executives who kind of thought they needed to respond to the Gene Wilder version. And they were reacting to things that were not present in material at all.

Those are those pillars you’re talking about.

**Craig:** Yeah. And, you know, there is an attraction as a puzzle solver to say, ooh, I think I can solve this. A lot of times with reboots and remakes, especially now, one of the things you’re solving for is how to handle the presentation of race, gender, sexuality, which has changed. Gender which has changed dramatically. It’s even changed dramatically over the last six years, much less something that’s 50 years old.

So when they say like here’s a toy. It’s Jim Johnson action figure from 1973. And you’re like, but?

**John:** No, no, it’s Major Matt Mason.

**Craig:** There we go. Major Matt Mason. I don’t know anything about Major Matt Mason. But if Major Matt Mason had a sidekick who was like a young Bengali child who would lead him through the jungle you’re like I ain’t doing that shit anymore. That’s over. No. No, no, no.

**John:** Let’s think about that.

**Craig:** We’re not making colonial hero. So, part of it is that puzzle solving. The problem is that just because you solve the puzzle doesn’t mean it’s good. It just means it’s solved. And solved is not necessarily the end goal.

**John:** I think the first question you have to ask is why are we approaching this remake or reboot. Is it because there’s a fundamentally fantastic idea there that deserves a new version of the movie? Or it’s because we can make money off the nostalgia. And so if there’s a foreign film that you’re remaking in English, it’s probably because it’s a really good idea for a movie. Fantastic. If it’s this is a piece of intellectual property that we own and therefore we need to make a new movie that’s based on this, you have to be honest about why you’re doing the thing that you’re doing. And as a screenwriter you have to be aware of what’s really driving the decisions. It’s not necessarily to make the best movie. It’s to make the movie that best capitalizes on what’s possible.

**Craig:** Correct. I couldn’t agree more.

**John:** Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you John and thank you Megana for a sumptuous feast.

**John:** Yes.

Links:

* [Bring Back Tony Stark Billboard](https://twitter.com/culturecrave/status/1385306093799165953?s=21)
* [Vin Diesel in Rock ‘Em Sock ‘Em Movie](https://deadline.com/2021/04/vin-diesel-rock-em-sock-em-robots-movie-mattel-universal-1234739487/)
* [Scriptnotes, Episode 77: We’d Like to Make an Offer](https://johnaugust.com/2013/wed-like-to-make-an-offer)
* [Hanlon’s Razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)
* [Real-Life ‘Terminator’: Major Studios Face Sweeping Loss of Iconic ‘80s Film Franchise Rights](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/real-life-terminator-major-studios-face-sweeping-loss-iconic-80s-film-franchise-rights-1244737) by Eriq Gardner for THR
* [Lawyer Mark Jaffe on Twitter](https://twitter.com/markjkings/status/1384521865641685000?s=21)
* [Cornell Law](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/203)
* [Friday the 13th Copyright](https://ecf.ctd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2016cv1442-73)
* [Trader Joe’s Bake at Home Croissants](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1383458980450627600?s=20)
* [Covid Vaccine Mobile Clinics](https://www.mlk-chf.org/mobile-clinics)
* [John on Galaxy Brains Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mighty-ducks-game-changers-a-roast-of-reboots/id1562785021?i=1000518173979)
* [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/)
* [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 Nora Beyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/498standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 496: The Thing You’re Not Writing, Transcript

April 20, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

You can find the original post of this episode [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-thing-youre-not-writing).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 496 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’re looking at those projects that are not the ones you’re currently writing, with some suggestions for keeping them in mind without letting them take over your entire brain space. We’ll also be answering listener questions including what to do when you have a crush on your producer.

**Craig:** Oh my.

**John:** Oh my.

**Craig:** Oh my.

**John:** In our bonus segment for premium members Craig and I will discuss which words we’re willing to lose forever.

**Craig:** Oh, OK. That sounds like fun. Sure.

**John:** But Craig some really breaking news. Had you ever heard about this producer Scott Rudin? And some alleged bad behavior? An article came out this last week detailing this in the Hollywood Reporter. It was an article by Tatiana Siegel. And did this shock you?

**Craig:** [laughs] Not only did it not shock me, but it was a bit like after five years of people finally doing something about the predatory large cat problem someone stood up and went, “Wait, there’s also a tiger. Why don’t we talk about the tiger?”

People have known about Scott Rudin since you and I showed up in Hollywood.

**John:** Yeah. And in 1994 there was a movie called Swimming with Sharks.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** Which I remember seeing at the Laemmle Sunset Five. And it was about this abusive producer, playing by Kevin Spacey, and it was widely discussed that this is based on Scott Rudin. This is who Scott Rudin is.

**Craig:** My understanding was that it was a conglomeration of Scott Rudin and Barry Josephson.

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** But Scott Rudin, also there was an article that was written about Scott Rudin in the ‘90s that detailed the horrendous things he did and the tenor of the article – and I would also say the reception of the article – was kind of like “awesome.” Like “what a legend.”

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And I know people that worked as his assistant and everything you ever heard was true. And I guess in my mind I thought like does Scott Rudin just get a pass because he’s always been this way? Kind of like South Park gets a pass on everything. I guess. But finally somebody was like enough already. Enough already with this guy.

**John:** So what’s weird is I had Megana check our back emails because I knew I had spoken to a reporter at the New York Times over a year ago about Scott Rudin. It was sort of like – and this reporter’s question was like after Weinstein do you think there’s a market to talk about Scott Rudin and all of these stories of abusive behavior. And so I spoke with this reporter and said like, “Listen, I never worked for Scott Rudin. But all I’ve heard is very consistent stories about the people who work for him. And not writers who work for him, mostly, but really his employees being just horribly, horribly mistreated.” And so I could say that, but I didn’t go on the record because I didn’t know anything.

And so that story never happened, but this story finally did come out. So, I want to both praise the Hollywood Reporter and Tatiana Siegel for writing this story, but it’s also I’m sort of grappling with this, yeah, why didn’t we address this earlier?

**Craig:** Well, we get used to things. There’s like a weird background noise thing that happens and your brain just becomes inured to it. And then one day someone says, “You do realize, right, that this weird thing has been going on for the last 20 years and it shouldn’t be going on?” And there’s just a moment where everybody goes, yeah, what the F.

And I’ve never worked with Scott Rudin. And nonetheless I believe everything I’ve read about Scott Rudin because it’s been said by so many people for so long in the exact same way. You know, there are cases where you can question people, but when you have a Cosby situation where 50 women all tell the same story that story has got to be true. And in this case you’ve got so many assistants telling stories of things being thrown at their heads. Things being broken on their hands. And people being sent to the hospital. And people being physically, emotionally, mentally abused.

**John:** Yeah. The HR person leaves in an ambulance due to a panic attack.

**Craig:** The HR person left in an ambulance.

**John:** Can you imagine being the HR person in that office? How would you even possibly do that? Because you’re constantly churning through these people who are not being treated in any way that should be happening.

So, bringing this a little bit more local, you know, the last couple of years we’ve been talking about #PayUpHollywood and we’ve been talking about the treatment of assistants in Hollywood, and specifically focusing on pay but also respect. And this is a situation where these people who are working for Scott Rudin were not being treated – maybe they were being well paid, but they were not being treated with respect. And they were working insane hours and in abusive situations. And it’s all part of the same thing, too.

If you see the value in a person as an individual you’re not paying them well and you’re not treating them wall, it has to stop.

**Craig:** Not only do I hope that it stops immediately, but I think it’s probably valuable to outline a path for Scott Rudin to perform some reparations here. Because, look, it may be that somebody actually files criminal charges against him for physical abuse, and if that happens then he will be held accountable by the criminal justice system. However, in the absence of that because of statute of limitations or any other reason this is a very wealthy man. An extraordinarily wealthy man, because he’s an extraordinarily successful man.

And to add a little bit of a strange kind of quirk to this, he’s different than Harvey in this one particular regard – well, first of all, because he’s not necessarily being accused of sexual assault, but also Scott Rudin is brilliant. And he has remarkable taste. And Harvey was an idiot. I like to say “Harvey was” because I like to imagine that he’s not alive. It just makes me happy.

So, Harvey is dumb. Scott Rudin is brilliant and has tremendous taste. And so there is this world where you want him to be a good person, because he does participate and help create and bring into the world a lot of really interesting art. With all of his money it seems to me that he could perhaps take a moment and then just start giving it back to all of the people he hurt. Just start writing checks, Scott Rudin.

You can’t buy away pain. You can’t buy your way to a clean soul. This isn’t papal indulgence time. But you can do what you can do. And if I were advising Scott Rudin right now I would say, hey Scott, sell a bunch of stuff, get out your checkbook, and make things right between you and your god. Because you’ve hurt a lot of people. And he has.

**John:** Yeah. This idea of a reckoning is so different between the Weinstein situation because like there were actual crimes committed in the Weinstein situation. Like the criminal justice system was involved and it’s not clear that any crimes have been committed here. There was bad behavior. And it sort of goes back more towards the discussion we had a couple weeks ago talking about what do you do when everybody knows. Everybody know, there’s a whisper network saying this person is toxic, this person is bad. But it’s not at a level where there’s actual crime.

We’ve seen this in some cases where showrunners get ousted because they are not running their shows well and they’re being assholes to their staff. But in a weird way with Scott Rudin, there’s no person employing Scott Rudin. As the producer he’s the person who is coming in with the rights and running the show. And so it’s really a matter of people choosing not to work with Scott Rudin until there is some reckoning, some way to sort of address what’s happened here.

**Craig:** Which I think is almost certainly going to happen. The thing that keep people glued to abusive humans in this business is either the fact that they are relying on that person for their livelihood or they are afraid of what that person can do to them. If you are one person standing up and saying “I am Spartacus” you may get your head lopped off. If everybody stands up and says “I am Spartacus” no one is getting their head lopped off.

And right now I think finally everybody just stood up and said, “Enough already. We’re all Spartacus.” And at that point Scott Rudin is not capable of hurting, damaging, or destroying anyone’s career. So these other folks who have been afraid of him and what he could do I assume are no longer afraid. I hope they’re no longer afraid.

Obviously you and I aren’t afraid, because we’re saying all this stuff. We are not afraid of Scott Rudin, apparently.

**John:** Apparently.

**Craig:** If this show is off the air next week you’ll know why.

**John:** You’ll know why. I think a thing we can also do as people who make films and television is really look at the role to which we are glamorizing abusive bosses. And I think there is such an iconic role, you know, from the Miranda Priestlys, to sort of all the other asshole bosses. And where we sort of like, oh, they’re the kind of villain but we also kind of love them. Maybe we need to take a sharper look at sort of what we’re doing here. Because I think we might be sort of extending the cycle for these people to sort of stay in power.

Because it’s a belief that you’ve gotten the power because you were this power. And you stayed in power because you’re this person. And it’s OK because you are this person. We see this in politics as well. So maybe we need to really look at sort of our role in glamorizing this type of behavior.

**Craig:** Yeah. I feel like generally we are – we meaning Hollywood – a little bit behind the world. We tend to echo what we see in the world. We rarely create something, some new movement. But in a positive way I think the world has moved on a little bit from that idealized cliché.

I don’t think people want that anymore. I don’t think they want to see the romanticized vicious boss who brings out the best in you. It’s a little bit more like Whiplash where we say, oh, look, it’s the romanticized brilliant but abusive mentor that pulls the best out of you, and then we go, wow, actually we don’t like that guy at all and he’s no good. And he wasn’t. He was no good.

So, that seems like where we’ve evolved. But, yeah, you know, bad sign when your HR person is leaving in an ambulance due to a panic attack. That’s probably a red flag, right?

**John:** That’s never good. So, we’d all heard of Scott Rudin but until this week I had not heard of Zachary J. Horowitz.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** So Zachary J. Horowitz was a smalltime actor. He was arrested this past Tuesday on federal charges that he ran a massive Ponzi scheme.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** He was defunding investors of $227 million.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** And he basically had all these make believe licensing deals with HBO and Netflix and other platforms. So, I was going to save this for a How Would This Be a Movie, but it’s also newsworthy and it’s also a chance for us to talk about licensing deals and sort of how this could possibly happen. But I will point everybody to the article. We’ll put a link in the show notes.

So this guy is a smalltime actor. Zach Avery was his acting name. And he just had small roles. And the classic cliché is you can’t get arrested in Hollywood. He was able to get arrested in Hollywood for defrauding $200 million worth of deals on movies that didn’t exist and were not going to exist. It’s just kind of fascinating that this could happen.

**Craig:** Wow. So I love a Ponzi scheme. I mean, I don’t like participating in them and I don’t like that they exist. I just enjoy reading stories about them because they’re fascinating. Like everybody knows the phrase Ponzi scheme. I think most people understand the vague idea of a Ponzi scheme. And yet people still keep falling for Ponzi schemes.

But in looking over this particular story it sounds like this guy was a bit more Madoff-y in his Ponzi scheme execution because he was fully forging emails from nonexistent HBO executives or Netflix executives. So he was running quite a scam.

But, I mean, OK, just a psychological question for you John. Do you enjoy the process of keeping a bunch of lies in the air?

**John:** I absolutely hate maintaining lies. And so talk about abusive bosses. Back in my days as an assistant I had a boss who was absolutely obsessed with just stirring up stuff and just would have all these lies going. And so as the assistant who was answering the phone I had to have a sense of like what his lies are so stuff wouldn’t get tripped up. And I hated it. I hated it so much. And I don’t know how people who lie a lot can sleep.

**Craig:** Yeah. This guy, I guess one way to explain it would be some sort of sociopathy. I don’t know if that’s what’s going on here. But the lies weigh on you to some point. Everybody lies a little bit, so every now and then you have to lie a lot. Sometimes you choose to lie for bad reasons. But, you know, this kind of full on massive lying, he took everyone’s money, told them that they were going to get 40% returns within a year, and then he turned around and bought a house for $6 million.

**John:** It’s a nice house. We can put a link to the Zillow.

**Craig:** It’s a nice place if you want to buy it.

**John:** It’s nice. It’s available.

**Craig:** Yeah, you can buy it. And so he knew at that moment it was never going to happen. That just seems crazy to me.

**John:** That’s the thing that I really do wonder about. Because if this were a protagonist in a story that we were writing you’d be like you know this can’t end well. There’s no way you’re going to get yourself out of it.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** This isn’t going to be The Producers’ Springtime for Hitler where like suddenly something is going to happen [unintelligible]. No, no, you’re breaking the law and it was going to catch up with you.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like he said, OK, you’re going to give me a whole bunch of money. Like he told one investor you give me $750,000 for the distribution rights to a movie called Bitter Harvest, which is ironic, and that I will pay you back within six months. I’ll pay you back $1 million. Well that’s a pretty good deal.

**John:** That’s a good deal.

**Craig:** And he sent that investor an agreement between I guess himself and HBO to distribute the film in Africa and Latin America for three years. But the president of operations for HBO Latin American Holdings was not a person. He made it up. So he knew there was no way in six months he’s sending this guy $1 million. So I guess the deal with the Ponzi scheme is you find some other sucker, you tell that person–

**John:** You pull their money.

**Craig:** — I’m going to pay you back, and then you just send the first guy his money. Meanwhile this is your life now, just this sweaty – it seems like it’s worse than whatever your life was before.

**John:** Yeah. It’s challenging. So, I think part of the reason why he may have been able to do this for a time is that the way that small budget films get financed and sort of internationally financing and licensing deals is really complicated. And it does seem like backroom shenanigans magic to get all this stuff to happen. And in making this you’re not really kind of seeing the final film, or the promise of making this movie is so far off in the distance that it is all kind of a wild west market feel to it.

And so people who are not especially savvy who could get into it could say like, oh, well this is just how it works. And I could see people being gullible up to a point. But ultimately you’re going to be asking for your money and you’re going to be asking to see the finished movie. And you’re going to know that something is wrong.

**Craig:** Yeah. Eventually you will get caught. He has to know. I assume all these guys have to know they’re going to get caught. I mean, do these guys sit around going I know that every Ponzi scheme perpetrator in history has been caught, because the whole point of a Ponzi scheme is that it is untenable and will collapse. But I will be the first. I will be the first to get away with it. Is that what he thinks? Or is he just like this is going to be a wild ride for a couple years and then I’m going to prison?

**John:** My hunch is that you start small and it just sort of escalates and escalates. The avalanche sort of keeps building on itself. That’s my guess.

Because reading through the Bernie Madoff things it seems like he didn’t enter into it with the intention of sort of it getting as big as it did. He basically had to cover a float or something and then it just ratcheted up and up and up. So once you’re in you can’t get out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Once you’re in you can’t get out. I guess that’s true. So it’s a little bit like the non-business version is that movie Shattered Glass that Billy Ray did about–

**John:** Exactly. A small lie.

**Craig:** It just rolls.

**John:** And it escalates. Like if you’re faking one source. I actually tried to get a different set of rights for Shattered Glass and I wasn’t able to get it, so Billy Ray was able to make that movie.

**Craig:** He did a good job.

**John:** He did a good job. Good job, Billy Ray. Last week we talked about titles and we singled out some bad ones. Josh in Chicago writes in, “Quantum of Solace was actually the only remaining unused title of the Ian Fleming James Bond story titles. The other two are Bond in New York, which probably won’t be a great movie title, and the other is Property of a Lady which would have actually been kind of perfect for that movie, although I don’t hate Quantum of Solace. And it’s better than No Time to Die which sounds pretty lazy.”

**Craig:** Did Josh just “actually” us?

**John:** Yeah. And so I cut out the part of it – he did have a sentence in front of that question that says like “I hate to be the guy to ‘well actually’ you.”

**Craig:** OK, well he sees–

**John:** He recognized “well actually.”

**Craig:** I’m not sure that saying “I’m about to well actually you” gets you off the “well actually” hook. Although, it is interesting. I didn’t know that Quantum of Solace was an actual Fleming story. I will say that Quantum of Solace, that was a tough production because it happened during the writers’ strike, so there wasn’t really much of a script. There had been a script but it needed a lot of work. And then the writers’ strike happened and so Marc Forster was sort of forced to make that movie without a finished script and they kind of did the best they could.

If you don’t like Quantum of Solace, Marc Forster has made some terrific movies. He’s a really good guy, too. So if you don’t like that movie I think it’s probably just good evidence that writers are important. I think he would probably be the first person to tell you that as well. But No Time to Die is – I just refuse to call anything in the movie business lazy, even titles.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Everything is exhausting in movies. Everything. Everything just takes sweat and energy and time and thought, even the stuff that you think is lazy or looks lazy as far as I can tell. Even Zachary J. Horowitz was working hard.

**John:** He was working hard.

**Craig:** He was working harder than we do.

**John:** Zach Horowitz was working really hard for that $227 million.

**Craig:** That guy was sweating.

**John:** Yeah. I like the title No Time to Die. You don’t have to like that title. It reminds me of A View to a Kill. It reminds of The Spy Who Loved Me. It just feels like, oh, there’s some danger in the title. It’s great. Property of a Lady is not a James Bond title. That is some sort of E.M. Forster adaptation. And Bond in New York is not–

**Craig:** Yeah, Property of a Lady is a very odd title. I agree. I guess that’s why it is the – Bond in New York sounds like a comedy. It just sounds like a goofy film. And then Property of a Lady also sounds like a lesbian romance, or maybe like a bondage film. See, there’s a bondage-ness into it, like property.

**John:** Bound in New York, but Bond in New York. Sure.

**Craig:** Bound in New York. Property of a Lady. This is a good – you know, we should just get E.L. James on it. You’re right.

**John:** So this conversation is making me excited to see the James Bond movie in a theater which I’ll be able to do, which is great.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I’m sorry that movie got pushed back more than a year, but I’ll get to see that movie.

**Craig:** You know, I love Bond. I do. I love me some Bond.

**John:** Now several people wrote in about the new entry in the mockable IP category, which is the Peeps Movie.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** They’re making a Peeps Movie. And I’m going to just say I think an animated Peeps Movie is not as terrible of an idea as it could be because Peeps have faces. They don’t have much of a face, but they do have faces and they are animals. So I can imagine a Peeps Movie existing in the same way that an Angry Birds movie was surprisingly successful.

**Craig:** That’s the new bar? It has a face? [laughs]

**John:** Does it have a face? I mean, Slinky had no face.

**Craig:** No. Mr. Clean has a face.

**John:** Mr. Clean has a face. He’s got a handsome face.

**Craig:** Handsome.

**John:** There’s a demographic that will absolutely show up for a Mr. Clean face, Mr. Clean Movie.

**Craig:** That’s right. When you like sort of like pretty well built older daddies.

**John:** Yul Brynner types.

**Craig:** Yeah. With the earring. He’s saucy. Listen, the Peeps Movie, that’s silly. But, you know, if they do a good job and it’s funny, I mean, this is – I think you and I have said this before. This is one of the great plagues that Chris Miller and Phil Lord have visited upon the world is making a brilliant movie about Legos and so everyone is like, see, Legos was good. Well, if you have Chris and Phil it’s pretty great. Otherwise you’ve just got a Peep. You have a very poor grade quasi marshmallow snack that almost no one likes.

**John:** Yeah. No one really cares for–

**Craig:** No one wants a Peep.

**John:** But I have to say I’m impressed by the Peeps Company because they really went out all out this Easter. You got that Peep Pepsi promo. You got this happening. Whoever is doing their marketing and sort of their brand management just really deserves some money. I hope it’s not Zachary Horowitz.

**Craig:** Well now I am rooting for Zachary Horowitz. I want Zachary Horowitz to go into business with Scott Rudin.

**John:** Oh my god.

**Craig:** Like Scott Rudin, there’s only one guy that’s willing to work with him and it’s Zachary Horowitz.

**John:** I mean, it’s just like you want to see Kong vs. Godzilla but it would just be Kong versus a paper bag.

**Craig:** Jerk vs. Dickzilla. I’m down. Let’s do it.

**John:** So good. All right, let’s move onto our main topic today which is that project you’re not writing. It came to me because this week I’m nearly finished, I’m surprisingly nearly finished, with this script I’ve been working on for a very long time. And I’ve said before on the podcast because I write out of sequence the ending has been done for a while and so I’ve been working on these middle parts and this week I realized, oh wow, I only have like four scenes left to write. And it’s like that’s exciting.

But it got me thinking about all the other things I’m kind of working on, or that might be the next thing I start to write. And we haven’t talked very much about how you think about the things that are sort of on your maybe to write plate and sort of how you work through those.

And, Craig, I’m curious right now obviously you’re so focused on The Last of Us, but in the constellation of Craig Mazin how many little planets are spinning around, other things you could be writing?

**Craig:** Great question. Let’s take a look at my folder called Scripts in Progress. That’s the folder where it’s like stuff that is in progress or should be in progress or will be in progress. I have very clearly two other things that I’m thinking about for – sorry, three, three – three things that I’m thinking about for the immediate post-The Last of Us future.

**John:** Great.

**Craig:** And I guess one of them would also be The Last of Us if we earn our way to more seasons of The Last of Us.

**John:** And are those features, are they TV? What are they?

**Craig:** Oh, my friend, it’s all television now.

**John:** It’s all television now.

**Craig:** Oh yes.

**John:** Now, in addition to those I’m certain you have other projects that are sort of like they’re little fireflies in your brain that are sort of like, oh, at some point I could write that. Do you have a system for keeping track of those other things that are sort of like, oh, you know what about a movie like this? Do you have a way to track those?

**Craig:** My system generally is at some point I will mention something to someone, whether it’s an actor, or an executive, or somebody and they’ll say, oh, yeah, let’s do that. And I say, great, I’m really sorry I mentioned that because I actually have this other show I have to do right now. And they’re like that’s OK. When you’re ready let’s talk about it. And I say great. And then every now and then they’re like…and I go thank you. You’re right.

And I want to do it. So the reminder system is oddly other people. If I mention something and nobody else wants to remind me about it, nah, maybe it’s not that good.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Maybe it’s just like, meh, nobody seems to care about that. So, other people bug me about it which is good. And then I have a couple of things that I’m bugging myself about just because I know I really want to do them but they’re very ambitious, they’re very long, large aircraft carriers. And so I need to kind of know that I have the time for that. And it’s hard to contemplate those things right now just because I am in the middle of building an aircraft carrier.

**John:** You’ve got to launch that aircraft carrier soon.

**Craig:** I’ve got to launch it. Yeah, it’s like that thing from The Avengers. It’s like an aircraft carrier that also flies.

**John:** Flies, yeah, exactly. Really under-addressed in The Avengers universe is like, wait, how does that thing work? It’s like these giant fans that somehow keep the whole thing? If we have the technology to do that then there’s more things we should be able to do.

**Craig:** There’s so many problems with physics in the – like there’s a moment, I think it’s the first Avengers movie where Robert Downey Jr. gets thrown out of the top floor of his building by Loki. And he’s falling from a skyscraper and his suit catches up to him and links itself onto him. And he blasts his arm blasters at the ground to stop from falling. And there are people right under it.

**John:** Yeah. [laughs]

**Craig:** Now straight up they should be destroyed. Just simple equal and opposite reaction. They should be destroyed. But they’re fine. It’s outrageous.

**John:** I mean, Tony Stark’s suit, we get a lot of discretion for it because obviously he’s still a human being inside the suit, so if it’s traveling at these remarkable speeds he would just be jelly at a certain point. It would crush him.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, inertia would be such that it’s the acceleration that kills him.

**John:** Yeah. Acceleration.

**Craig:** So, yes, some of the accelerations are so fast that, correct, he would absolutely – well, first, he would pass out completely. But, yeah, there would be compression of his spinal cord. It would be horrible.

**John:** But no one wants to see that movie.

**Craig:** No. I mean, he stops on a dime and you’re absolutely right. The inside of that suit, everything should be liquefied.

**John:** Just pouring out of the bottom.

**Craig:** Right. And then they open it up, they crack it open, and it’s just goo drips out. Oh god.

**John:** Yeah. Like one of those mummy sarcophagi.

**Craig:** Yeah. We need a physically correct Avengers, which would be about three or four minutes long, because almost all of them would die immediately.

**John:** Yeah. So that will not be on my maybe to write list, but it could be. So, I was looking through what’s in my head of things that could be the next thing to write. And it’s a long list. What I do is, I’ve talked before about my daily lists, my little sort of daily cheat sheets. Which is every day I sort of fill out this is what I need to do today. And on those preprinted sheets I do have a list of like these are the other things that are sort of kind of in development in my head.

So they include one picture book, which could also become an animated movie. Two middle grade novels, but not the size of an Arlo Finch, so not another trilogy. One biography. A movie adaptation of an off-Broadway show. A new Broadway show based on existing songs. The Shadows, which is that movie that I still hope to direct at some point, but it needs some rewriting. A rewrite of an old screenplay that Craig has read that has a great title but needs a lot of work. A series adaptation of a short story I wrote.

**Craig:** Jesus.

**John:** An animated series based on rights I control. The adaptation of Arlo Finch.

**Craig:** God.

**John:** A moderately budgeted sci-fi thing that sort of feels like a Charlie Kaufman movie.

**Craig:** What the?

**John:** And an expensive, really expensive monster movie. Sort of like a Legendary kind of movie.

**Craig:** Wow, Megana,

**John:** Megana.

**Craig:** Megana, I think you might need to start buying John cocaine. [laughs] He needs cocaine. He’s not going to make it through without cocaine.

**John:** And what’s crazy is I actually had to give up caffeine, so I don’t even have caffeine in my body anymore to do this.

**Craig:** Oh good lord. Well you’re not doing any of that.

**John:** I’m not doing any of that.

**Craig:** I don’t know who you’re fooling. You just read a list.

**John:** But if I could clone myself I would assign one of me to each of these projects and it would be great. And I would be just so productive. But I’m only one person.

**Craig:** You know, you are only one person. And I’m struggling with this all the time. As we get older and older you start to realize that the time that you have is limited. The time that you have just in total is limited. And then also how much time am I going to spend on this as opposed to on things I like.

**John:** Yeah. The opportunity cost.

**Craig:** Right. There are opportunity costs. And I do remind myself sometimes that one of the reasons I was ambitious was to get to a place where I could enjoy things in life that I didn’t have an opportunity to enjoy when I was younger. Well, OK, then if you get there and you don’t actually enjoy any of them then, you know, it’s not as much fun. You’ve got to give yourself a little bit of celebration.

**John:** Absolutely. So, let’s talk through the framework of thinking about these ideas, these projects, and helping to decide which ones you’re going to write. Because obviously we’re in a certain place in our careers where we could do a lot of these things, but really any writer probably has a constellation of ideas and they’re picking sort of which one I’m going to do next.

And so let’s talk through some ways of thinking about which one to write next. So, my first and obvious question I ask all the time, is this a project you would actually pay money to see or to buy? Is this a thing that if you were just a consumer you would say like, oh yes, I want this thing? Because if it’s not it’s not worth your time.

**Craig:** It is not worth your time. You have to be very, well, you kind of got to be weirdly judgy with yourself.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You can’t do all of it. You just can’t. And there are things that I think are tempting because they seem like they would be super fun, or super cool. And then you have to just go through the process in your mind. Imagine yourself on page 63. Or imagine yourself on episode four of seven. How do you feel?

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And if you don’t feel good with that thought experiment…

**John:** Yeah. Some projects I regretted writing, I’m thinking back to an ABC pilot I did. It was called The Circle when we shot it and Alaska when they sort of put it up. And I wrote the pilot. We shot the pilot. It was all really quick and easy. And I never sort of stopped to think, wait, would I actually want to write this show every week? Do I actually run this show?

And it was just kind of a waste of time. I think I was doing it because I had the opportunity to do it. And it was clear I could sell a show, I could set up a show, I could write a show, I could shoot a show. I was sort of doing it to prove that I could do it, or that I could do something that was kind of down the middle and sort of like a straight procedural. And it was the wrong thing for me to be spending my time on. And so I wish I would have asked that kind of question ahead of time. Because it wasn’t the kind of show that I would have tuned in to watch honestly.

**Craig:** Well that’s an important thing. And there are times when you take a little bit of a leap of faith. You think I don’t know if I’m going to like this or not until I do it, so let’s just do it and see.

**John:** Of course.

**Craig:** But definitely if you think to yourself I don’t actually want to watch this, then – I mean, listen, I got put through the ringer making spoof movies.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But I love spoof movies. And I really enjoyed the stuff that worked that was the stuff that we wanted to do that Bob didn’t ruin. I love that. And so even though it was miserable, at least I could go but this made me laugh so much. Just sitting there watching Regina Hall and Anna Faris doing what they do. I would laugh so hard. So there was a joy there.

And then there are things I’ve worked on where everyone was super nice, very pleasant, and I was bored to death.

**John:** Yeah. I have been there as well.

So, in that introspection asking why you’re doing this thing, two questions have come up. If what’s inspiring me to do it is sort of the question why has no one made this movie before, that’s not enough of a reason. So that is trying to complete the universe and have this movie exist because it doesn’t exist yet, that’s not enough of a thing. I’ve also found myself of sort of grudge writing. Where like someone will piss me off and say that I couldn’t write a certain thing and therefore I will decide like well therefore I have to write this thing.

There’s a movie I wrote called Fury which never sold as a spec. And it was really just because I was so angry at what had happened on the second Charlie’s Angels that I really wanted to write something that was dark, and mean, and really wasn’t me, but just sort of reflected this mood I was having. And it was the wrong thing to write and just a waste of time.

**Craig:** Yeah. When somebody tells me I can’t write something my general response is you’re probably right. [laughs] And then I don’t write it. So, I think that’s probably less healthy than your instinct which is to say I’ll show you. Because I think oftentimes you can show people.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** But your point is well taken. Revenge is really just another kind of – it’s another side of the pride coin. And preserving pride or making somebody – because the other person who said that you can’t write a thing, and then you go write a thing, they forgot already. They forgot three seconds after they said it.

**John:** McG wasn’t sort of like the one, oh, I’ll really get him when I say this. Like, no, that wasn’t what was happening there.

**Craig:** Yeah. So, it’s like you spend all this time doing it and then the movie comes out and then you find that person at the premiere and you’re like, yeah, how about me now? And they’re like, yeah, that was great. I loved it. Terrific. And you’re like, wait, what?

**John:** What?

**Craig:** You said I couldn’t do it. What? I did. Oh, Jesus, I don’t know, I must have been having a weird day.

Anyway, you just spent three years trying to prove me wrong. That’s a weird move.

**John:** Yeah, self-own there.

Ask yourself what is interesting about the idea. Is it the world situation or is it the character? And if it’s the world situation and not the character you’re going to really struggle. It has to be about that character and sort of unique situations that they find themselves in that story. Because you can’t write a space, a cinematic space. You have to write characters. And make sure you’re really doing that.

What Craig said about you may discover while you’re doing it sort of how stuff fits together. Great. But then maybe that means you need to spend a couple days working on a little part of it and seeing what it actually feels like under your fingers. Because nothing will reveal the problems in an idea more than actually trying to write it.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a great line from a very early article that Dennis Palumbo wrote, he of our Episode 99, when he used to write a column for Written By, the Writers Guild Magazine. He said that a lot of times there are these lines of dialogue that we are so desperate to keep not because they’re good but because they meant something to us when we wrote them. They were evidence to ourselves that were a certain kind of writer. And that syndrome can spread to even the choice of what to write. I want to be a certain kind of writer. I want to be seen a certain kind of way. Or I don’t want to be seen a certain way.

All of that stuff is actually quite artificial to what’s good. And if you can ask yourself among the various things you want to do which feels true to me, that has nothing to do with what anybody else would think or feel, but rather what I want, what I truly want, you kind of need that. And if you have that you can maybe get rid of the other ones.

And then the ones that you have that you feel are true and not about making a point or anything, then give yourself the opportunity to fail. Because you might. You might get halfway through and go, oh man, you know what? I wanted so hard to do this. Truly and honestly. I just can’t. No problem. You tried. No big deal.

**John:** You tried.

**Craig:** Right. But, you know, you’ll only find out if you try.

**John:** One last thing about this list of projects that are sort of in your head is that it’s important to remember that Craig was checking in a folder to see what those things were, but our brains don’t work like folders or like shelves. The only way ideas sort of stay in our heads is by rehearsal. And so every once and a while they have to come up and they take up some brain cycles to do a thing. And that can be good and sometimes when you’re sort of rethinking through an idea it can mutate and morph and become a bigger thing. And so doing a periodic review of them can be useful because you may think like, oh, I didn’t know how to do that before but I do know how to do this now.

A situation I encountered when I did The Nines is I had these three different ideas that were competing for attention in my head. One was about an actor under house arrest. One was about what happened when I was on the first TV show I did with Dick Wolf. And the third was sort of this forest mystery. And they sort of combined and ganged up on me and said like, wait, wait, wait, we’re all the same idea. And they found a way to sort of take up more brain cycles by stitching themselves together to be one idea. So, I think it is important to just occasionally go back through your list and see what is it about those things that were interesting to you. Is there something that’s interesting to you about them now that you have the ability to do them that you didn’t have before?

**Craig:** And don’t be afraid to let it go. It’s not quitting.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s maybe a sense of shame like am I just not doing this because I’m, and here’s that word again, lazy. Or am I not doing it because I’m afraid? That may be true. Or it may be true that you’ve changed. Or you’ve just lost interest. That happens.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, in some ways it’s analogous to our situation in the US with vaccines. We have so many vaccines that it’s like, wow, it’s so great that we have three vaccines that work. And I see people who are panicking trying to decide between the three vaccines. You don’t have to decide between the three vaccines. Get a vaccine. They’re all good.

**Craig:** First one they can put in your arm. Take that one.

**John:** Take that one. All right. Let’s get to some listener questions.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Megana Rao, our producer, could you come onboard and talk to us about the questions we got in the mailbag this week?

**Megana Rao:** Hey guys. OK, great. So Tanner asks, “I have a question about something I read in a Hollywood Reporter article. They said a project was shut down indefinitely with a source saying that it ‘suffered from script issues.’ Mind you, this is the only time the actual person responsible for the existence of this project is even referred to. So my real question is what is really happening behind the scenes that results in a ‘source’ saying that a movie ‘suffers from script issues?’”

**John:** Oh Tanner. Thank you for asking this question.

**Craig:** Great question Tanner.

**John:** And it really is a good question.

**Craig:** Lies. Lies, Tanner.

**John:** Lies. OK, so here’s what happened. At some point there was a script that most people agreed on. Like OK we’re going into production with this. Maybe we’re going to make some tweaks. And then something went wrong and people involved in the movie have a different idea about what the movie should be. And it is not the screenwriter’s fault. The screenwriter didn’t do a bad job. It is that the people who are making the movie, including the stars, the actors, the studio can’t agree what the movie is and they’re calling it “script problems” but it’s really “we don’t know what this movie is problems.”

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a little odd that a movie studio would agree to make a movie to the point that it would have to be shut down if that movie was based on a script that had script issues that were sufferable. It is so easy to blame a document. It’s hard to blame people, right? The director has a drug problem. The director and the actor started having sex. There was an actor that quit in the middle. Somebody got fired and then a new person was hired and said, “I don’t want to make this movie.”

There’s a billion human reasons why suddenly something just stops. It may be that everybody sat around and said we want to make this movie, but we know that – we all love the idea, we just don’t like the script. Let’s see if we can fix the script, and then we can’t, and then it gets shut down. That can happen.

But a lot of times when you read this it’s just somebody blaming a document for a human problem that occurred.

**John:** Yeah. It could be a bunch of problems as well. They couldn’t get this movie to be made at a certain price and so they’re saying the script was too expensive. Well, it’s not the script. It’s that you couldn’t find a way to do this. And sometimes movies kind of get put on a track to production when there’s the assumption that like we’re going to figure it out when the time comes, and you don’t really figure it out. Or people don’t come to the same point and same place. And it’s blamed on the script, but it’s really not the script’s problem.

And Craig and I have both been in situations where we’re doing emergency rewriting on projects we’re just being thrown into and when you come in as a new writer on those projects you say, oh, this is not about the script. This is about people’s visions for what this is supposed to be. And I am just – you’re paying me a lot of money not really just for my words but for my ability to withstand the pressure in this room.

**Craig:** Yeah. And oftentimes there’s a lot of Hollywood politics at play that make it easiest to just say “script problems.” If you’re running a studio and you’ve agreed to make a movie with a big super star actress. And then as you’re walking through this thing you decide, you know what, I just actually don’t want to make this movie with her. I don’t like her. And I don’t like her in this process. But I can’t fire her. And the reason why is because she’s represented by this massive agent at this huge agency that is also representing four other people that I’m currently in business with and I really don’t want to screw that stuff up.

So let me just kill this movie and blame it on the script. That sort of thing happens all the time. So, when they say that it suffered from script issues all you can know for sure is that the screenwriter was the least powerful person involved.

**John:** Yeah. So right now they’re in production on the movie version of Uncharted, the great videogame. That movie has been in development for ten years. I know so many people who worked on that thing.

**Craig:** Longer I think.

**John:** Yeah. And I guarantee you there are many terrific, terrific Uncharted scripts. So, it was never the scripts that were the problem. It was just they couldn’t get all the elements together. And so at any point you say, oh, we could never get the script right. But it’s like, no, you could never get all the things together and you’re going to blame the script.

So I hope that movie is great. But they could have made that movie a zillion times if they had the right combination of elements.

**Craig:** It’s the combination of things, right? Because sometimes you have a script that you love and then you have a director that you love and an actor you love, except none of them agree. And so you go, all right, what do you agree on? Well, we want it to be more like this. All right. Well let’s move that script aside and let’s bring a new script in. OK, well that script they like but now the studio is like but we don’t really like this script. So, OK, let’s get rid of this actor. The actor is gone anyway. They had an availability issue. We need a new actor. And now the director is gone. They’re going to do different things. We need a new director.

And this dance begins again. And I would argue that part of the problem with film development and these projects being shut down and this sort of endless development cycle is simply this. The writer is not in charge. And when the writer is in charge this doesn’t happen. They don’t have television shows that are developed over the course of 12 years. It just doesn’t happen. They either make it or they don’t.

Because the writer writes it and that’s the vision that matters. And then everybody else comes onboard or doesn’t. But it doesn’t matter. Somebody is going to come onboard and they will make the show. I don’t understand why – I don’t understand why the feature business is the way it is. And I was in it forever.

We need another question. Yeah, Megana.

**John:** Please, another question.

**Craig:** Another question, Megana.

**John:** Let’s get Craig out of his funk.

**Craig:** Megana, bring us another question.

**Megana:** OK, well this one comes from David from Vancouver, British Columbia, and he asks, “When you’re outlining a movie when do you zero in on what the tone will be? Or is the tone something you discover while writing the screenplay? You’ve talked about clichés that trap writers before on the podcast. But how do writers get unstuck from tonal clichés? For example, the heist movie where everyone is witty and cool, or the gritty thriller where the deaths are raw and shocking.”

**John:** Hmm.

**Craig:** You have done Vancouver proud, sir. That’s an excellent question.

**John:** To me, the tone of what it’s going to feel like comes before I’ve written anything down. The initial vision of what kind of movie it is we’re making, that tone is just really baked in from the start there. It’s what it’s going to feel like. And that comes really, really early on.

I’ve said this on the podcast many times before, but with the first Charlie’s Angels it was just – we got tone first, which is basically in a meeting with me and Drew and Amy Pascal, describing what the movie felt like and who the girls were and sort of what the spirit of it was well before we got into plot or outline of story.

**Craig:** I’m the same way. Because so much of what needs to happen precedentially before I can start writing is the determination of character and point or purpose of show or movie. Tone seems to me to be essential to that. I don’t know how I can determine who the character is and what this thing is about if I don’t understand the tone. And it’s just as important to know what the tone isn’t.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** A lot of times I feel like part of my job is being able to explain to other people what I am not going to do. Because everybody’s mind goes in interesting squirrelly directions. And people are constantly drawing on the things that they are familiar with to try and help to find something that they are not yet familiar with.

So, there’s no way I can go forward until I know basically what the tone is. It can evolve. Just as the outline of the story can evolve as you’re writing. And you will find some things. And you will be able to go backwards and change some things here and there. And you will never be able to be tonally perfectly consistent on a first draft.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** As you go forward you will be able to then go back to those early pages and say, ah, I know more now than I did then. Let me adjust. This line is too broad. This is too indicative. This is too subtle. This is the space where this is supposed to be much funnier and that just feels very dramatic.

But, you sort of need to know beforehand. And, David, you’re saying a great thing which is how do I not do for instance the heist movie where everyone is witty or cool. Here’s how. By saying I’m not doing the heist movie where everyone is witty or cool. I know what it is, so I’m not going to do it. At all. There you go. You’ve done it.

**John:** Yeah. And I would say it’s a cliché to do the it’s this movie meets this movie, but one thing that’s useful about, you know, it’s Ocean’s 11 meets Mrs. Doubtfire. That gives you a sense of what tone you’re sort of headed for. And so even if you can’t perfectly articulate in a sentence this is what the tone of the movie is, you have to have a feel inside. This is how the characters are going to be acting. This is sort of the colors of this world. And so being able to think that way is really important.

And if you don’t have the ability to describe that tone you’re probably not really ready to write anything quite yet.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** All right, now Megana, I see this question on the Workflowy. I’m excited to get to it, but it’s also long. So I would just say do your breathing exercises because it’s a long one to read. But I’m excited to hear it.

**Craig:** And do it all in one breath. [laughs]

**Megana:** Oops wrote in and she’s asked, “I think I’ve got a crush on one of my producers. I really, really don’t want this to be a thing, but dammit I think it is. We’ve been working on a film together these past couple of years and have gotten along like a house on fire. I should point out that he’s not my big boss, just part of the team. The film has just been green lit and the mutual appreciation of each other has just kind of grown, a lot, and quickly.

“Like other folks have started to notice. We’re both professionals with credits and what not, but we’re also both in the earlier stages of our careers. I suspect the last thing anyone wants is to put a foot out of line, especially given the power imbalance and the fact that, you know, we have to work together. I want to add nothing untoward or inappropriate has happened or been said. It’s all so wonderfully respectful, which obviously makes me like him more.

“You know when you just know someone feels the same way? But is this like a thing? I was in a long term relationship up until 18 months ago, so I’ve never really dealt with anything like this in my career before. I’ve heard all about the on-set romances of friends and colleagues, so is this just the hype of getting a film set up? Is it my ego being inflated by the fact that he seems to be really into my brain? Or am I just being a dumb teenage girl with a crush again after some heartbreak? Could it be something real?

“And more to the point, what do we do about it? If we decide to shag like bunnies we have to wait until after the wrap, right? Please help.”

**John:** Oh.

**Craig:** Let’s tell Oops exactly what to do. You know who needs to help here?

**John:** Oh god no. Sexy Craig cannot make an appearance here.

**Craig:** Oops, I did it again.

**John:** Before Sexy Craig weighs in here I will say, I’m going to be Rational John. And Rational John is going to say I Googled it, I looked it up. So one-third of married couples meet online in 2021. But of those who do not meet online, nearly 22% met through work. 19% through friends. 9% at a bar or club. And just 4% at church. So, you know, this could be your soulmate. This could be the person you’re supposed to be with and don’t discount that. Don’t run away from love.

Your correct in trying to put some limits on it at least while you’re in production, because you are going in to do this big job and it is going to be awkward if you are trying to date while you’re doing this thing. But you know what? I think you’re in love. And I don’t think it’s necessarily a problem.

**Craig:** Well, you don’t know if you’re in love yet.

**John:** No. And I should say that. You have pre-love right now anyway right here. You have possible love. And don’t run away from possible love.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’ve got hormones. You’ve got the madness swirling in your brain. We’ve all had the madness swirling in our brain. It’s wonderful.

**John:** I love the madness swirling in the brain. It’s good stuff.

**Craig:** It’s great. It’s also dangerous. But I agree with John. Look, you’re an adult. And the producer is an adult. You mentioned that there is a power imbalance, but you also point out that he’s not your “big boss, just part of the team.” So I would argue that the power imbalance is not massive. This isn’t somebody that theoretically is going to be able to hire you/fire you in that moment. They’re not your direct supervisor per se. And I think that adults are allowed to get into each other. And adults are allowed to have relationships. And like John said when you work together that’s going to happen. I would hate to think that we have become so terrified of violating that we don’t take advantage of mutual affection. That’s what keeps the world going.

It can also, listen, as we all know it can also collapse. And sometimes people reveal themselves to be horrible once you get to know them. But I want to be optimistic here. Because, you know, I met somebody, John met somebody, people meet people, and then you fall in love and it works. You might be having – first of all, when you say “am I just being a dumb teenage girl with a crush again after some heartbreak,” I don’t know how old you are now, Oops, but that actually never changes. Like I’m still a dumb teenage girl with a crush again after some heartbreak. We all are. It never changes.

We’re all just – our bodies get older, but we are all in our minds always a child. So, yeah, that may be part of it. Or, he may be the guy. And my advice is to maybe tiptoe up toward it, because you want to avoid is going, OK, I know that we both feel this week, but let’s just wait until after wrap. And then he goes, “I’m sorry, we feel what way?” [laughs] “Oh no, no, no, I don’t feel that way about you at all.”

And then that would be awkward. And you can kind of tiptoe up to it.

**John:** Yeah. Or you can say like, hey, how about when we wrap we go out for a dinner, just the two of us.

**Craig:** Right. Or if that feels a little formal given what’s going on, you can be like, OK, can we just talk about what’s up? What’s up? What are we doing? Help me out here because I’m trying to figure out what we’re doing. And then you can put a boundary down and say, listen, here’s the story. Let’s make it through this production and then, you know, then yeah, let’s see what happens. And then that will only make things – by the way, I guarantee you, side note, if he’s like, “Yes, I am into you. You’re into me. I agree we should wait until after wrap,” you guys will be in bed within three days.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s just going to happen. Because once you both agree that you’re eventually going to sleep together–

**John:** Yeah, once you set the limits you’re going to both blow your limits together.

**Craig:** It’s like, OK, John, you and I are going to order a pizza.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But we’re going to order a pizza like next week. And then you’re like, uh-huh. And then the two of us are just like pizza, pizza, pizza, pizza, pizza. So, I think, Oops, that you should remind yourself that even though you might feel like a teenage girl you are an adult. You are an adult. You are your own human being who deserves to love and be loved. And you should not be afraid. You should just be aware and alert. And it seems like you certainly are.

**John:** Yeah. I would also say the fact that she’s known him over a course of years of development and liked him over this time is a good sign, too. Because when I see on-set romances that are doomed it’s because it’s happened in this hot house of production where people work these crazy hours and they basically see no one else.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It’s like you’re trapped on Survivor and you have like a showmance.

**Craig:** A showmance.

**John:** It’s a showmance really. And this doesn’t feel like a showmance. First off, you’re being fully rational in what you’re writing here. And it’s happened outside of production. So, I have hope here. I think you’re making the right choices. I would encourage you to just note all your feelings, because these are great feelings and you’re going to use them in your writing.

And also just congratulations on your movie going into production.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is exciting. I hope something wonderful happens here.

**John:** And if wonderful things happen, Oops, please do write back in with an update.

**Craig:** Megana, how did we do there? What do you think?

**Megana:** OK, because I do have a follow up question because I feel like some of the advice was–

**Craig:** Wrong.

**Megana:** Well, no. But just to be clear we’re telling Oops to not have this conversation until production wraps, right?

**John:** No. I think we’re saying – my pitch was to have the conversation now is like, hey, how about when we wrap we go out and have a dinner, you and me.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I’m saying a similar thing. Like now she should say, listen, I feel like something is going on here. I don’t know if there is. But if there is let’s just talk about it and let’s maybe if this is something that feels like – like if you feel the way I feel, let’s just agree to hit pause until we wrap. And then, you know, let’s go have a drink and see where it goes.

**Megana:** Hmm.

**Craig:** Megana is like, no, no, no.

**John:** I want to know what Megana is thinking. Tell us.

**Craig:** Megana is like I hate both of you. I quit.

**Megana:** No, not at all. I’m just – like a part of this is the forbidden aspect. And I wonder like – I don’t know if she should just continue – it’s just so fun like reading this whole question was super fun. And I’m pitching that she should just let this tension ride out.

**Craig:** Oh my god. You’re a sicko. I love it.

**John:** I get, so in some ways it’s that sense of like the thrill of the tension and the thrill of the possibility might be more enticing than the actual what could happen there.

**Megana:** Right. I feel like having an adult conversation, I just wonder if that’s going to like suck all of the air out of this crush.

**Craig:** Ruin it. OK. I like where Megana is going with this. See, you know what? It’s a good point, because you don’t want to clinical this thing, right? You don’t want to be an HR person about it.

**John:** No. No.

**Craig:** Right? So, I get what you’re saying. Maybe, ok, so then the other possibility, this is so much fun, the other possibility is just go for it. Just go for it. Because like honestly, again, we’re adults.

**Megana:** No, I think my advice is more like, you know, that sort of like Victorian romance–

**John:** Don’t say a thing.

**Megana:** Yeah, like did he look at me?

**Craig:** But then nothing ever happens.

**Megana:** Well, until after production.

**Craig:** Oh, you mean like so just keep the flirty, thinky like maybe/maybe not/maybe/maybe not. How long is the production? That’s what I want to know. [laughs]

**John:** Indeed. Craig, it’s The Last of Us, and so it’s going to be a long–

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** It’s going to be another eight months.

**Craig:** Oh my god.

**John:** So I’m thinking back to college and I started flirting the woman who was the student body president. And we would sort of exchange notes in each other’s mailboxes, like literal physical mailboxes in the office. And it was so exciting to sort of be in that space.

**Craig:** Oh my god. True.

**John:** That’s so fun.

**Craig:** It’s true.

**John:** Yeah. And I don’t think Oops is going to be able to resist how compelling that is.

**Craig:** Oh, but you know what? Now I want to tell a story about a crush that I had. So, there was a girl named Sima, I won’t say her last name, because now she’s a lady and lives somewhere I assume and has a life. I don’t want to blow her up on a podcast. But it was like a summer thing. And I met her, we were in a summer academic program. Because nerds.

**John:** Nerds.

**Craig:** And this was in the ‘80s and we were on a college campus and they had like a little computer lab where you could type messages to each other on this computer using Unix commands. This was like pre-AOL and pre-everything. And we would just send each other messages. And I could, I mean, I was so head over heels for Sima. It was unbelievable.

And she professed that she was the same for me. But very like the most chaste relationship I think I’ve ever had in my life. She was very proper and very we’re not going to do stuff because I’m a lady. And I was like I respect that.

And it was very Victorian. It was. And it was very much like I will send you letter through the future. And it was wonderful. And then, you know, you go your separate ways because that program ends and I wonder where she is today. Anyway, oh my god, boy, she was, oh. She was beautiful.

And, I don’t know if my wife is going to listen to this podcast.

**John:** Does your wife usually listen to Scriptnotes?

**Craig:** I don’t think so. But you know what? Literally I was 16 years old. I was 16.

**John:** You’re forgiven.

**Craig:** I’m forgiven.

**John:** And you got married just shortly thereafter.

**Craig:** I got married like nine years later actually. Or ten years later. But, man, Sima. Boy, am I just like, I couldn’t have been more in love. But, I was a child. We were children. Oops is not a child.

**John:** Oops is not a child. Megana, so let’s say Oops were a friend of yours. What advice would you give her?

**Megana:** I would say enjoy the flirt. Have fun. I wouldn’t, I don’t know, I wouldn’t have this conversation until after production. I just think it’s such a gift. I don’t know, to me this feels like the most fun part of a relationship, this period where you don’t know what the other person is thinking and that excitement. Why wouldn’t you prolong that?

**Craig:** Because you got to get somewhere, man.

**John:** Yeah.

**Megana:** Maybe I’m just revealing my own personal character.

**John:** But also I think maybe – the age difference may be a part of this, too. Because Craig and I are at a place where we can’t wait forever. And you’re in your 20s. You can wait a little longer.

**Craig:** We’re almost dead. [laughs]

**John:** We’re nearly dead, so everything has to happen right now. That meeting can’t be pushed off till Friday because I might not be alive on Friday.

**Craig:** My god, I’m running out of time. That’s true. Megana, you’re younger. You can be like, you know what, I just want to flirt for a year. And we’re like a year? I won’t be here.

**Megana:** I do think no matter what we say it seems like there’s enough momentum here that her relationship is just going to move forward in one of these directions.

**Craig:** I hope so. I mean, I root for love.

**John:** I would urge Oops to take any of our three pieces of advice and please to write in with an update when it goes so well. Because we’re all rooting for you.

**Craig:** Send wedding pictures.

**John:** Ooh, that would be so nice.

**Craig:** I love a wedding.

**John:** Megana, thank you for your questions and for your epic reading a very long question there. So thank you for that.

**Megana:** Thank you guys.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Yay.

**John:** My One Cool Thing is an article by Peter S. Ungar called Why We Have So Many Problems with Our Teeth from Scientific American. And, Craig, what were teeth originally? On evolutionary terms where did teeth come from?

**Craig:** Oh, well, where did they come from? Like why did they happen in the first place?

**John:** Why did they happen? Fish originally did not have teeth.

**Craig:** Yeah. Because teeth were soft. I assume because animals evolved exoskeletons to prevent from being eaten and so in a competitive fashion other animals evolved bits of bone that would crush through those exoskeletons.

**John:** Yeah. But teeth are not actually bits of bone. Teeth are modified scales, which is interesting. And so basically they’re scales on the outside of fish that gravitated into their mouths.

**Craig:** Gross.

**John:** And became useful.

**Craig:** Gross.

**John:** And so what you have in your mouth right now are a bunch of modified scales and they’re really strange inside. So it’s just a good article talking through sort of what we know about teeth and why teeth are really complicated and so different than all the other parts of our body. And so I just like it. I respect our teeth more knowing the stuff I learned in this article.

**Craig:** In a strange bit of serendipity I went to the dentist yesterday.

**John:** Nicely done, Craig. And had you been putting off going to the dentist during these Covid times.

**Craig:** I sure had. But nothing went wrong. So, I have a lot of ways in which I lost the genetic lottery. I don’t have a well-regulated appetite system. I’m prone to overeat. There’s also I get headaches. My eyes were crappy. But my teeth are spectacular. I’ve never had a cavity. Not one.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** Not one. And they look at the X-rays and they’re like, geesh, I mean, those are really good teeth.

**John:** So that could be the microbiome of your mouth or something.

**Craig:** Something. And he said, flat out, this is definitely genetic. It’s not like you get a special blue ribbon for how well you brush because I’m not the best brusher/flosser in the world. Although I did just get this cool new, I’m not going to make it my One Cool Thing, I have something else, but this new Oral B electric brush. Because I’m an idiot, it has an app. But it shows you on the app like, oh, you’ve done enough on the upper left of your teeth. Move along.

You have to brush so much longer than I thought you did.

**John:** It’s a full two minutes. I have the Ultrasonic toothbrush, the same kind of thing where it buzzes when it’s time to move on to the next thing.

**Craig:** Right. Yeah, so I assume that a good seven seconds of brushing was basically the idea. No. Incorrect.

Well that’s fascinating. I will read more about our teeth. My One Cool Thing is a bit sad. No, it’s rather a lot sad. But Paul Ritter was an incredible actor. I got to know him because he played Dyatlov in Chernobyl. But he had been around for so long in England acting both on stage and in films and on television.

And unfortunately we lost him early this week. He had a brain tumor. I don’t know if it was something that was sudden, or if he had been sick for a long time. He certainly never let on anything to us. But he was not only terrific on screen, but off-screen just the most lovely guy. The most unassuming, humble person. He just – whatever the opposite of difficult is. I don’t want to say easy. It’s got weird connotations. He was so agreeable and amenable and generous and lovely.

And we put him through all sorts of torture, because his character was one of the only ones that was exposed to radiation and then lived.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So we had to have him shave his head before he ever showed up, which he was like done, no problem. Shaving my head. And then we had five or six different stages of radiation sickness, or health. And he just never made a peep. Just did his job and did it beautifully.

And there was an outpouring of love and affection for him this week from all of the people that worked with him primarily in the UK. He was just beloved. I hope he knew that. And I hope that his family, I’m sure they know. But it was such a shock. He was so young. He was 54 years old. And I just was, well it was a rough day. He was a wonderful guy. And so we will miss Paul Ritter in all sorts of ways. And I hope his family and loved ones have an easy path through their mourning.

**John:** He was remarkably talented. I only knew him from your show, and then to see the obituary that sort of talked through his whole career ahead of time you recognize that no one gets to his place and just appears. It was a huge body of work leading up there.

**Craig:** Incredible stuff. And he was so funny. I mean, people who know him from Chernobyl will not know how funny he was. He was hysterical. And was the star of this long-running sitcom in the UK called Friday Night Dinner. And he just was awesome. He was a great guy.

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

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Nora Beyer. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions I’m on Twitter. I’m @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing. You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record talking about which words we’re willing to get rid of.

Craig and Megana, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thanks guys.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, so Craig this last week on Twitter I asked the question if you had to give up one common English word what would it be? Mine is “sure.” I don’t need it. And it got a huge number of replies and people had their choices like which words they’re excited to get rid of. Craig, which word leaps to mind for you? What word would you want to get rid of? Or be willing to get rid of. You don’t have to hate a word. You just have to say like I just don’t need that word.

**Craig:** I’m happy to discard “spiritual” and “spiritually.” Those all connect, the two of them. I can get rid of those. I don’t know what they mean. I’ve never known what they meant. And I feel like everybody that uses them doesn’t know what they mean either. They are simply placeholders for things that we don’t understand.

We might as well just say something that I don’t understand. [laughs] That’s what spiritual means to me. I’m sure everybody else is like are you insane and they’re going to write letters. And I understand that and I acknowledge that.

**John:** It’s a very different answer than a lot of people gave. But what I like about that is you’re arguing to get rid of the word just because there’s no agreement of what we’re actually meaning by this word, so we should just not have it because everyone is putting their own meaning on it and we can’t know what that meaning is supposed to be.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it does offer a potential for abuse, because I think a lot of people will just trot that word out, gain some unearned credibility, and then take your money.

**John:** Yeah. I get that. So, a common word that came up was “very.” People wanted to get rid of very. And I–

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I want to defend very.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** So I think there’s a high school English teacher had an idea of like the word “very” is never needed. You should just use a different word.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** I don’t get it. There’s times where you need an intensifier.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** And everyone language has intensifiers and they do serve a meaningful purpose. And I can’t imagine, especially writing dialogue, without a character’s ability to use very.

**Craig:** Yeah. Is he unhappy or is he very unhappy?

**John:** We know what that means.

**Craig:** Right. It’s a discriminator. It gives us a difference between one thing or another. It’s important.

**John:** Yeah. So is he angry or is he irate? Well, I guess irate could be very unhappy, but that’s not useful in the same way. You’re trying to measure a scale. So I think we need very.

**Craig:** Yeah. That music is loud. Oh, well, you know, deal with it. No, no, it’s very loud. Very is probably connected to verily, right? I wonder, is it?

**John:** It is. Yeah. That’s the origin of it in anthropology. So it’s a truthfully. It’s vrai in French.

**Craig:** There you go. It’s vraiment loud.

**John:** Vraiment. People argued for getting rid of “just.” And I can see it. I think just is overused.

**Craig:** No, it’s essential. It’s an essential word.

**John:** I think just is useful. It’s a connector.

**Craig:** I just got here. That is so much different than I got here. It is really – why, oh, now I want to get rid of those people. Can I get rid of people?

**John:** French has a whole way of doing just in like having very recently accomplished a thing. And so we need just for what we’re doing here. People want to get rid of like. Yes, is like overused? But you need to have – I think it’s really useful to have a term that is less than love and indicates an affection for. Also you need the word for similes. It’s so useful to form similes.

**Craig:** I think if people said, look, we don’t mind keeping like to show affection, I like it. It’s nice. But we’re willing to get rid of it as the useless filler which is a substitute for as or similar. You know what? We could actually live with just “similar to.” Akin, or similar.

**John:** Yeah. We’re not improving the language to get rid of it, but if we had to get rid of something.

**Craig:** If we waved a wand and eliminated that usage of like we would also then eliminate like people who were like talking like this. Like.

**John:** But there would be another filler word that would take its place.

**Craig:** There would. It would probably be the Swedish, liksom.

**John:** Liksom.

**Craig:** Liksom.

**John:** “Fine.” Can we get rid of fine?

**Craig:** Lots of different definitions of fine.

**John:** Well that’s the problem. I’m being the most expansive. So if we get rid of fine you can’t use those four letters in any version.

**Craig:** God, well, I mean, no. Because there’s such wonderful uses of fine, like the tiny particulate matter. It’s fine grit. Or I have levied a penalty against you. It’s a fine. Yeah, no, fine is – or fine as in beautifully made and crafted. A fine silken tie or whatever. But I think people are probably, what they don’t like is “fine.” Yeah, cool.

**John:** And sure.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Interesting. Emma Pressman writes, “I want to get rid of interesting.” I take that as a personal front.

**Craig:** Yeah, they’re coming at you now. That’s right at you. Interesting is overused, but not as overused as amazing. Amazing is – people are constantly saying they’re amazed. I’m amazed, like really? You stopped and you just stared? Amazing.

**John:** And sometimes words drift. Like awesome and awful used to be synonyms and they drifted different ways.

**Craig:** I mean, I love that. I love that awful is bad. It’s full of awe. Awesome and awful mean the same thing.

**John:** Yeah. Another frequent suggestion is literally.

**Craig:** Well.

**John:** And literally is a case, it’s misused so often that maybe we would be better off if we didn’t try to use it.

**Craig:** Well, at this point what literally has become is another intensifier. And to that extent I don’t mind it. I’m not going to be such a prescriptivist that I say, OK, well yes we understand that when we say literally what we mean is figuratively. But because we all understand it, it works fine.

**John:** Yeah. We get it. The only ambiguity comes up in places where we don’t have enough information to know whether we are talking literally or are we talking figuratively. And then we just need to make better choices about how we’re saying this.

Beth Schacter, our friend, writes, “Nice.”

**Craig:** Well, yeah, I’m thinking–

**John:** You’re thinking of Into the Woods?

**Craig:** Yes. Exactly. How did you know?

**John:** Well, I’ve known you for all these years.

**Craig:** Because you know me, right? She’s not good, she’s not bad, she’s just nice.

**John:** I don’t want to lose that lyric because it’s so meaningful.

**Craig:** For that lyric alone, just to preserve the Sondheim of it all, I would say we can’t get rid of nice. Also the city of Nice.

**John:** Well, they can rebrand themselves. It’s fine.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** They can do it. Nice is one of those things where if you were to describe a character as nice, like what? It’s not helpful.

**Craig:** It is so mild that it’s almost become an insult. Which is what Sondheim was playing on. That nice is the most bland of commendations. Nice. It’s nice. I think noice has to stay.

**John:** Without noice what is the purpose of living?

**Craig:** What is anything? What about Megana? Megana, what word are you willing to shunt and fire into space?

**Megana:** I guess, well I’m not prepared to answer that question because I’ve been preoccupied with something else.

**Craig:** Oh.

**Megana:** I don’t mean to “well actually” this conversation.

**Craig:** Oh, do it.

**Megana:** But, John, you say “sure” a lot.

**John:** I do. I say “sure” all the time.

**Megana:** I saw your tweet last night. And I was like, huh, am I losing my mind? And then I looked through our Slack and I typed in “sure” and I just have pages of responses from John that are just like, “Sure.”

**John:** Yeah, so I would say–

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** I’m willing to – sure. I’m willing to give up sure. I’m willing to make the sacrifice. A word I use commonly. So, I want to stress, I said commonly used words. So I was looking at the list of the 500 most common words in English as I was making my choice for myself. And so sure would be a big thing for me to give up and I do use it a lot, but I could replace it. Because honestly on Slack I just use that little thumbs up little icon instead of sure for most things.

**Craig:** That’s nice that you would give up something that actually hurt to give up.

**John:** Yeah. If it’s not a little pain, if it’s not a little sacrifice, then what is it worth?

**Megana:** Because I wonder if this is like a Gen-X/Millennial thing, but I remember when I first started working for you and you used “sure-period” a lot, and I was like oh my god John hates me.

**John:** Oh no!

**Craig:** I have heard this. That there’s this thing about like a period on a text means anger. And I’m like, no, it just means grammar.

**Megana:** Well, it’s like why would he go through the effort of putting a period there unless he was feeling very upset at me.

**Craig:** Oh my god, because it’s correct. [laughs] Because the period is correct. It’s like why would he capitalize the first letter of a sentence? It’s correct.

**John:** I do find myself using “yup” a lot instead of other yesses, just because it’s a friendlier yes, or a friendlier OK. Because OK can seem passive-aggressive.

**Craig:** If you ask Bo she’ll tell you–

**Megana:** Oh, do you think that?

**Craig:** That yup is friendlier? Oh, you think yup is worse?

**Megana:** My communication with John is just taking on a whole other – this is great.

**Craig:** So every time he says “Yup” you just cry and curl up into a ball?

**Megana:** Yeah. I’m like, oh, well I guess he does not think “yup” and he’s actually really upset about this.

**Craig:** So just to be clear you think that when John says “Yup” he means not yup.

**Megana:** Yeah. [laughs]

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** But you know that he’s not an organic creature, right? Like you know that he is circuits. Of course he means yup.

**Megana:** Sometimes I get a cool exclamation mark, and to me that means yup.

**Craig:** Whereas if I got that from John I would start worrying that something was up.

**John:** Yeah. So Scott Rudin doesn’t use – how does Scott Rudin end his texts? Does he say, “Yup.”

**Craig:** Yup, period.

**John:** Period. There’s going to be a whole exposé on me that’s really about, “Yeah, he’ll send these really passive-aggressive texts like, Yup.”

**Craig:** That’s amazing. There’s a whole study of John interpretation here that needs to be figured out. I’ve been using Yazzzz a lot lately. Yazzzz.

**John:** Yeah?

**Craig:** Yaaazz. And it’s usually if it’s something that I really, hey Craig, I’m going to grab coffee, do you want a coffee? Yazzzz. Like a child screaming for it. Yeah. But I could see like yes-period would be a little possibly cold.

**Megana:** Horrifying.

**Craig:** Well, OK, horrifying is strong. No. Horrifying would be, “You’re fired.”

**John:** I do feel like we need to have a study of the previous Scriptnotes producers and just see how they interpreted all these things to see whether there’s a generational shift or whether I’ve changed.

**Craig:** This is where we discover a trail of tears behind you.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Wow. Man, you’re going to get Rudin’d. You’re on the verge of Rudin-ing. It was just a mild discussion about texting and then suddenly #TheJohnPartyisOver. What did they say? The John is Over Party. That’s what it is. It’s the somebody-somebody-is-over-party.

**Megana:** I’m very grateful that my only conflict at work is what John means by sure-period. I’m very, very grateful.

**Craig:** Just copy me and I’ll tell you. I’ll tell you anytime. I know what it means.

**John:** What Craig though does, Craig basically does not respond in words anymore. He only uses gifs.

**Craig:** Yes. By the way, solves everything.

**John:** Which, by the way, I learned this last week means that you are a Gen-Xer and not a Millennial because only Gen-Xers use reaction gifs anymore.

**Craig:** Cool. I’m good with that. I mean, here’s the deal, I’ve got like you have, we’ve got a Gen-Zer who thinks that Millennials are ancient.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** Their whole thing is just to write a random word back at each other. Someone will say like, hey Jess, do you have the homework from today? And then she’ll write back, “Frog.” And then they’ll write LOL. And they know what this means. I don’t. Whatever. Old. Megana, you’re old, too, now. It’s happened.

**Megana:** Oh, I don’t like where this conversation is going.

**Craig:** It’s happening.

**John:** Really it’s just communicating in Snapchat selfies back and forth. And I don’t understand what’s happening. But that reaction face is what it is.

**Craig:** It’s so weird.

**John:** Basically you have to be your own gif is what I’ve learned for Gen-Z.

**Craig:** I like a nice gif. I like a nice gif because it says, hey, I’m a friendly guy. You know, I’m happy. Look at this funny gif. Look at this fun gif I found of me as Lisa Kudrow saying something silly. That’s me.

**John:** That’s it.

**Craig:** That’s it.

**John:** Thanks guys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**John:** Bye.

**Megana:** Bye.

**Craig:** Yup. [laughs]

Links:

* [“Everyone Just Knows He’s an Absolute Monster”: Scott Rudin’s Ex-Staffers Speak Out on Abusive Behavior](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/everyone-just-knows-hes-an-absolute-monster-scott-rudins-ex-staffers-speak-out-on-abusive-behavior) by Tatiana Siegel for The Hollywood Reporter
* [California Employment Lawyers Association](https://cela.org/)
* [Hollywood actor arrested in alleged $227-million Ponzi scheme](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-04-06/hollywood-actor-zach-avery-ponzi-scheme-arrest)
* [Peeps Movie](https://www.cartoonbrew.com/feature-film/an-animated-feature-based-on-peeps-candy-is-in-the-works-203878.html)
* [Why We Have So Many Problems with Our Teeth](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-we-have-so-many-problems-with-our-teeth/) by Peter S. Ungar
* [Paul Ritter, British Stage, Film and TV Actor, Dies at 54](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/09/theater/paul-ritter-british-stage-film-and-tv-actor-dies-at-54.html)
* [John’s Twitter Thread on Words We’d Lose](https://twitter.com/johnaugust/status/1379584905969950721)
* [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/)
* [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 Nora Beyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/496standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 495: The Title of This Episode, Transcript

April 9, 2021 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for the episode is available [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/the-title-of-this-episode).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 495 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’re talking titles. A rose by any other name might spell a sweet, but a script with a bad title is at a significant disadvantage. Then we’ll answer listener questions on character names, budgets, and residuals.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** And Craig tell us what we’re doing with the bonus segment.

**Craig:** In our bonus segment for premium members only we’re going to be discussing this simple topic: how to behave properly in a restaurant for adults.

**John:** I’ve completely forgotten. I’ve not been in a restaurant for a year.

**Craig:** Well, we’re heading there, so we better spiff up, shape up, and get ready.

**John:** But the way we may get back into those restaurants is by getting vaccinated. And so, Craig, some exciting news. You and I both have some Moderna in us.

**Craig:** Yeah. We’ve got a little bit of the Moderna in there. And, John, have you looked to see how the Moderna and Pfizer MRNA vaccines work?

**John:** I know it only in a very vague sense. I think they take these little protein things and they wrap them in little fat molecules. And they shove them into your body.

**Craig:** That’s right. Once they get them in there, this is why it’s so simple, it’s so brilliant. You know how the coronavirus has those little nubbies on it?

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** And the nubbies are what make it so dangerous. The nubbies or the corona are what they use to get into our cells, so the coronavirus uses the nubs to get into a cell. Then it barfs up all of its DNA. Turns the cell into a coronavirus factory. And that’s how you get sick.

So, what the MRNA is, it’s basically just instructions to make the nubs. So we get infected with this stuff. This stuff gets into our cells. It tells ourselves to make nubs. Now the nubs don’t make you sick. So now there are nubs floating around and our body goes what are these nubs. Everybody attack the nubs. Let’s learn about the nubs. Let’s remember the nubs. And if we see these nubs again let’s kill them.

So when coronavirus shows up the body goes, “Nubs!” It doesn’t even know that there’s coronavirus. It just kills anything with nubs on it now. And I like saying the word nubs.

Anyway, boy what a relief. And thank you to all of the brilliant scientists and technicians and production folks who worked so hard to come up with this technology. It’s amazing. And in fact here’s a question for you John. Let’s say you’re a nervous kind of person.

**John:** All right.

**Craig:** You get the Moderna vaccine and you know that four weeks later you’re supposed to come back and get a second shot. What if you’re the kind of person that worries what if they mix it up and they give me a Pfizer shot instead of a second Moderna shot? What do you think happens?

**John:** Well, first off, on your little vaccination card it will show you what one you’re supposed to have. On the other hand it really doesn’t matter that much. I think the CDC guideline is you should try to get the same shot, the same medication, but the second one will also work. And they’re doing studies about like what if you mix and match the vaccines and they may discover that it’s even better to mix and match them. So, you shouldn’t worry about it.

**Craig:** It’s very possible. Yeah. From what I’ve read, even though of course everybody is going to follow the rules and give you the second shot of the same brand, they are identical except for the delivery methods. So, in theory shouldn’t be a huge problem.

But anyway hooray for Moderna. Woof. People, they’re opening it up all over the place. Get yourself a shot immediately.

**John:** I was able to get my shot in Utah when I was traveling there to visit some family. And I was eligible to go into a grocery store there and get a shot at eight in the morning. I wanted to feel that tremendous relief that people describe. Like oh my god, after a year I finally have this shot in me. I did not feel that emotion because I only had like three hours of sleep, so I was sort of a zombie with the needle stuck in me. I have maybe the worst vaccination selfie ever taken, so I will not be posting that.

But I still feel very good for having had it. I had a sore arm for a day and a half. Well worth it.

**Craig:** Yeah. The sore arm does fade. Everybody reacts it seems slightly differently. Some people get sick. Some people don’t. Some people get a sore arm. Some people don’t. None of the side effects are remotely comparable to what happens when you actually get Covid. So, vaccines, vaccines, vaccines, as fast as you can, as quickly as you can. Get them, get them, get them.

**John:** And more vaccinations across America might mean the return to the box office. This last week Godzilla vs. Kong opened at $16.3 million in its first two days, which would be a very low number in any normal situation, but is a very big number, the biggest number in 12 months, for a movie. So, it feels like there is some pent up demand to go see movies on a big screen.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I am seeing my first movie on a big screen next week. I’m seeing an early screening of a cut. And it’s all with sort of Covid protocols. But it will just be exciting to sit in a dark room and see something on a big screen for the first time in so many months.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re absolutely right. The $16.3 million would normally be an “oh no.”

**John:** Oh no! Catastrophe!

**Craig:** But what’s so fascinating is the way all this stuff sort of weirdly lined up. That there was the rise of these massive streaming services and then suddenly this plague came along that brutalized the theatrical experience. And so there was this streaming experience that kind of went, well, you know what, if we can put – because Godzilla vs. Kong, is that simultaneously running on streaming?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There you go. So, somehow they ran the numbers. The one thing I know about Hollywood, if they put this thing out like that then they did the math. They’re going to make money.

**John:** They’re making some money. It’s doing well overseas and especially in markets where they don’t have the Covid. It’s lovely.

**Craig:** The Covid.

**John:** Some more follow up, this time on screen deals. A listener wrote in. “In the WGA Screen Deal Guide the report briefly notes some consideration of the project’s budget. For example, the median first draft was $50,000 higher for contracts at major studios. When controlling for the experience level in these deals do you think there’s a material correlation to budget? Or what other factors play the biggest roles in increasing compensation?”

**Craig:** Yeah. We do have some budgeting tiers there for our minimums.

**John:** Absolutely. So I think when I saw the early version of that report they were making a bigger deal between major studio deals and all deals. And I think you have to keep in mind studio deals tend to include things for like bigger features and franchises and stuff where they’re hiring experienced writers to work on very big movies at higher budget levels. And those are kind of almost by definition going to be paying those writers some more. Because those are probably bigger name writers going in on those things.

When you look at the whole, like all deals made for writers, that includes a lot of scale deals made for indie features and other things that aren’t major studio pictures.

**Craig:** Yeah. We don’t divide the payment, the minimums, up between studio and non-studio. It’s just high budget/low budget is what they call it. Not that the high budget line is particularly high.

The reason that’s there is because this is one of those Catch 22s for unions. They’ve got to figure out how to allow people who don’t have a lot of money as employers to – they want to encourage them to become union signatories and hire union people, but they don’t necessarily want to hit them with the full payment of union fees, because they won’t have the money for it. So they come up with this other version. It’s a little similar to the independent film contract that Howard Rodman worked so hard on with the WGA to create.

By and large almost all of the budgets are going to fall under what they call high budget. By and large. Very tiny indies won’t.

**John:** I think it’s also important to stress and going back to when we had this first discussion about the Screen Deal Guide is that traditionally you think of the union as enforcing the minimums. Like this is the minimum they can pay you to do things. To make sure, to sort of set a floor on things. And this is an effort by the WGA to make sure that we’re really looking at writer compensation sort of at all levels. And by providing you with information about people in your cohort what are they making, what is the median salary they’re making for writing that script.

And so looking at just the studio writers that is a different cohort than sort of all writers. And it helps to know sort of where you’re falling in that order.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, the specific question about when controlling for experience level across deals, what’s the biggest impact on compensation. There is an implication and a question that maybe it’s connected to the size of the budget and in certain cases it can be. But probably how much they want it. So controlling for experience levels across those deals the question is are you writing a movie where there’s a big star and they really like you and they like your script and so therefore you have leverage. Are they hiring you because you’re rewriting somebody else and this thing starts shooting in three weeks?

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Comes down to these individual leverage factors. Hard to define.

**John:** They’re looking at these individual contracts, but they don’t have the context for sort of why this writer was able to get this deal on this contract. So it’s just numbers that they’re looking at right here.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Do you want to take this follow up on gray areas?

**Craig:** Yeah, Audrey asks, “For the unnamed problematic showrunner,” that’s pretty great. I like the UPSR. The Unnamed Problematic Showrunner. UPSR. “For the UPSR does the guild help by looking at concerns regarding bad behavior? Do they have anonymous or ‘identity-protected’ way to submit these maybe gray area concerns? It seems like there is a conflict there in that the WGA should protect the up and coming writers but the showrunners are the most powerful members.”

**John:** Ding-ding-ding.

**Craig:** Yeah. “As fellow writers hearing things,” I don’t know about you John. I hear way less than people think I hear. But…

**John:** Ah, true.

**Craig:** “As fellow writers hearing things do you ever use this option even just to help document a pattern?” John, what do you think here?

**John:** Oh, Audrey has hit on a lot here. Yes. All right, so in the wake of #MeToo, and I was on the board when #MeToo was happening, a lot of discussion about building an industry-wide whistle-blower hotline. So actors and writers and directors and everyone involved, grips and gaffers, everyone involved in the film and television industry could have a way to report sexual harassment and sexual harassment and also just sort of bad behavior in general.

This idea of an anonymous whistle-blower hotline seems to make a lot of sense, and then it becomes a question of like so what are you actually doing with that. Who is responsible for following up on those things? It becomes really problematic to figure out sort of how you’re going to do it. And to my knowledge really nothing has been built. And so people are left with just going to HR for whatever the employer is. And sort of is the employer’s responsibility.

And if we look at the documented cases over the last couple years of harassment, bad behavior, where showrunners were being a nightmare, it really has generally come through studio HR, network HR, where those things sort of come out to light. And through publicity those people have been losing their jobs.

Unfortunately, you know, studio HRs is not going to be the solution to the problem, the kind of things Craig and I were talking about, which wasn’t a showrunner who was abusive, it was a showrunner who was doing things we considered kind of just shitty and unethical. And that’s going to be resolved by a studio HR department.

**Craig:** Right. So, Audrey, you definitely hit on a ton of really interesting areas and some strange spots where the WGA is a bit handcuffed.

So, first things first. The guild isn’t an employer of the writers in question. So, the first thing I want to point out is that it’s really incumbent upon the employers to be policing their employees when it comes to bad behavior. That said, Audrey is right. It would be great if the WGA could be involved here.

The WGA, however, is controlled by certain fundamental laws, federal laws. And one of them is the duty of fair representation. Which means that the union has to represent all of its members equally. It has to advocate for them all equally. It can’t advocate for some more than others. What that means is if someone comes to the guild and says, “I would like you to lodge this complaint. The showrunner I’m working for is mean.” So we’re going to put this in less of a criminal area. More of a just like John said shitty behavior. He’s mean. He’s verbally abusive. It’s not against the law but people should know that this person is toxic.

The Writers Guild unfortunately, or fortunately depending on the veracity of the person that just made that report, has a duty of fair representation to the showrunner as well. So what they can’t do is just publish a list saying hey everybody avoid one of these, of our own members. Because that’s a lawsuit that will happen instantaneously and it will probably succeed. So the WGA has to be careful to not expose itself to liability. And this is why it’s so important that the studios and networks do better, because they’re the ones who are hiring people. It’s their job to figure this stuff out.

But we do what we can as best we can within the bounds of the law. That’s my sort of defense of the WGA.

**John:** Absolutely. And there have been situations where people have come to the WGA saying like this showrunner is doing a thing and the guild can help represent that writer to the employer, be there as the person who is giving testimony about sort of this is what’s been happening, which is great, but we can’t sort of like throw that member out. We can’t sort of one-sided decide this is the facts here. All we can do is sort of advocate on behalf of our member. And there could be situations in which we have to advocate on sort of both sides just to make sure that both sides are heard.

**Craig:** Which bothers people.

**John:** It’s a tough thing.

**Craig:** And I understand that. Nobody wants to hear – I mean, both sides thing is literally a slur at this point. But the WGA is not equipped nor entitled to judge and jury its members based on workplace behavior like that unless there is evidence of the sort that would, I guess, come to them from an independent third party like a studio.

If a studio says, “We’re firing this Unnamed Problematic Showrunner for their toxic behavior,” the WGA should start looking at their abilities to discipline their own members. We almost never do it. In fact, I think we never do it. But, there is an entire section of the constitution and if somebody is clearly underlined in a provable way to have done this stuff then I think it’s fair that they be disciplined by their own union. Why should we not?

**John:** Yeah. So, we talk about this in the context of the WGA, but similar situations happen of course with the DGA where you have directors who are overseeing other members. You have actors and sort of conflicts between actors. So, WGA is only somewhat special. These things are going to always happen. I just don’t think – the WGA is not going to be the solution to all these problems.

So let’s talk about what some of the better solutions are. We talk about the whisper networks which is ways you get this information out. The challenge of the network is you have to be in the network in order to get that information. And so then it comes down to really vetting. And just really taking the initiative to ask the questions of people who might know information about sort of what’s really going on here. And I do find as we said on the initial episode phone calls are better than emails for this situation because there are a lot of times where people are willing to tell you a thing but they’re not willing to write a thing.

**Craig:** Right. You know it might be good for us to reach out to the WGA and have one of their folks come on this show to walk us through what the limitations are and what is the kind of, oh let’s call it the most presumptively effective way to protect your own interests and the interests of your fellow writers who may be subject to problematic behavior.

So, because I’d love to know specifically how it’s best formed and delivered and what the proper order is. So there’s probably somebody there that’s kind of leading up this.

**John:** Oh, I have a really good candidate in my head for someone who would be great to come on.

**Craig:** Perfect. Great.

**John:** So we’ll try to do that.

**Craig:** Perfect.

**John:** Some more follow up. We talked about female character arcs and moral choices. Ted wrote in to say, “I was thinking about films with women who make moral choices and it struck me that a good candidate might be The Bridges of Madison County. Meryl Streep has to put her sense of obligation, duty familial love against her longing to throw it all away and follow the soulmate she never knew she had, the man who makes her heart sing, etc.

“I really love that movie and I do think the movement of the plot rests squarely on Francesca and her choices. I do however admit that it would be a stretch to call it a redemption story because it isn’t. It’s a reawakening story maybe. I would contrast that with Sophie’s Choice to me the choice Sophie has to make is like saying to somebody I’m going to cut off one of your legs, but you get to choose right or left. The moral choice was made by the perpetrator when they chose to put someone in the impossible situation. Sophie’s Choice is about a woman who had no choice.”

Which is an interesting way of framing it, because we talked before about how Sophie’s Choice was like, oh, there’s a woman having to make a choice, but you’re just choosing between two bad options.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think Ted’s point is correct that it’s an ironic title because if you say to somebody I am forcing you to choose between this and thing that choice is not what we think of as a free choice at all. Obviously Sophie did not have a free choice in Sophie’s Choice.

I think the arc of Bridges of Madison County isn’t quite what we were talking about. That’s more just a general character arc. I think we’re trying to distinguish between just changing in general as opposed to struggling with a moral quandary kind of thing, which we would love to see more of with female characters.

So, yeah, I mean, I think reasonable observations Ted. I don’t think I’m there with you on The Bridges of Madison County.

**John:** It did get me thinking though that when we talk about choices if it’s just a choice that only really impacts you, or 90% impacts you that’s not quite what we’re describing. Because that’s just a character growing. That’s just a character having an arc. What I’m struggling to find more examples of are women who have to make moral or ethical choices which will have consequences well beyond their own immediate purview.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I’m not seeing so many examples of that. So, I would love to see more and people can write in with examples of more. But I think they probably also need to write more examples of female characters making these kind of choices.

**Craig:** Or just play The Last of Us Part 2.

**John:** Ah-ha.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm.

**John:** Yes. Craig, our main topic today is titles. And so I got thinking about this because there’s been two projects I’ve been involved with recently that have really good stories. These are things that came to me. They have really good stories and really promising elements to them and I don’t love their titles. And I’m having a little bit of a hard time grappling with them because I kind of want to change their titles. In both cases it’s not clear whether they are already too successful for us to change their title. But it just brought home how important a title is for me to be able to really think about a project.

How early in writing Chernobyl for example did you know this was going to be called Chernobyl and not some other title?

**Craig:** Well, I’m not a great title person. I’m always the first to sort of raise my hand there. And maybe that is incredibly obvious because I did a show about Chernobyl and called it Chernobyl. Didn’t go much further than that. But it seemed that I lucked out on that one. That was an easy one. Because the word itself has an enormous amount of stuff built into it. It would have been unnecessary to have done something else oblique.

**John:** The Cost of Lies.

**Craig:** Yeah. That would have just felt generic and off the point and so just thinking about something that cuts through the clutter I think that’s, you know. But I’m not great on titles. And sometimes I think that there’s the quality – there’s a quality to titles, like certain movies, where the initial impact of the title is negative and it hurts the film’s debut. But over the run of it it becomes kind of a beloved, quirky appellation that we like.

**John:** Yeah. I don’t think Star Wars is a great title just by itself.

**Craig:** No. It’s terrible.

**John:** At all.

**Craig:** Star Wars.

**John:** Star Wars. Wait, what is this? Because it’s not really about stars and there’s battles.

**Craig:** And there’s one war. It’s not even wars.

**John:** But then just through repetition well that becomes an iconic title. And Star Trek is not a great title. Just through repetitions some bad titles can become just beloved.

But let’s start by talking about some movies that have I think kind of genuinely bad titles or challenging titles and they may have suffered for it. The Pursuit of Happyness and its word misspelling. I think The Shawshank Redemption is not a great title. Do you like that as a title?

**Craig:** It’s a terrible title. It’s one of the worst titles for a good film ever, maybe the worst title for a good film ever. Because if you don’t know anything about The Shawshank Redemption and you are told that there’s a movie in theaters called The Shawshank Redemption you’re not going. It means nothing. It means truly nothing. It just sounds – Shawshank is a silly word. And Redemption as a known disconnected from a human being is a concept, so who cares?

**John:** Yeah. Cujo is a good title.

**Craig:** Cujo is a great title. Yeah, what’s that? Ooh, Cujo.

**John:** Jaws. Not a good title, Quantum of Solace.

**Craig:** No, that’s just silly.

**John:** So here’s a thing. I think it was this last year that I really stopped to think like what is Quantum – what does it actually mean? Quantum, so the minimal sort of bit of something. And Solace, oh, some relief, some respite. Oh, that’s really what he’s searching for is some bit of relief from this grief of over losing his wife.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** But man is it a terrible title.

**Craig:** I feel like it must have come from a poem or something, right?

**John:** Some Quantum of Solace for the grieving man or something.

**Craig:** Exactly. Quantum of Solace. I’m just looking it up right now because I never actually thought about like why, yeah. If I come up with an answer I’ll let you know.

**John:** You know what’s a good title? A View to a Kill.

**Craig:** A View to a Kill is wonderful. I love that.

**John:** The Spy Who Loved Me. Love it.

**Craig:** Ooh, I mean, how do you do better than that?

**John:** Not a great title, The Nice Guys.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, it’s OK. I mean, it does the job of that comedy, I think.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** You know, but yeah, it’s a little soft. I agree.

**John:** And then sort of legendarily Edge of Tomorrow was originally called All You Need is Kill.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** All You Need is Kill didn’t test well, so Edge of Tomorrow they took. But Edge of Tomorrow did not work either.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So later on they sort of referred to it as Live, Die, Repeat. A really terrific movie. I watched it this last year again. Just really delightfully made and it deserved a better title.

**Craig:** It is really good. I think All You Need is Kill is a cool title, actually. I mean, sometimes testing is stupid. In fact, a lot of times testing is stupid. All You Need is Kill is interesting. And if people don’t like it in the moment that doesn’t mean they won’t like it an hour later. Nor does it mean that they won’t remember it which is the whole point. Edge of Tomorrow just sounds like a bad soap opera. That is the most generic nothing title in history. So, I think that was a mistake, especially because as you point out the movie is really good. So, it did suffer from that. And Live, Die, Repeat just sounds like a bad shampoo instruction. That’s just goofy as hell.

Yeah, so I like All You Need is Kill for that.

**John:** So Hollywood often gets it right though as well. So, the famous examples of like movies that changed titles and they’re iconic because they changed title. I read Pretty Woman back when it was called $3,000. $3,000 is not a good title for that.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Scream was originally titled The Scary Movie.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** When I saw Moana in France it was Vaiana. And Moana and Vaiana are both good titles, it’s just they couldn’t clear Moana as a title in parts of Europe, so they had to retitle the entire movie.

**Craig:** You know why, right? I mean, they could clear it. They didn’t want to.

**John:** Well, because there was a porn company. But there’s also a brand–

**Craig:** Porn star.

**John:** Porn star. But it was also like a Spanish trademark. A Spanish brand trademark. So there were multiple reasons.

**Craig:** Multiple reasons.

**John:** Hancock was originally Tonight He Comes, which is a great joke.

**Craig:** [laughs] I think Tonight He Comes would have been awesome actually. Personally.

**John:** So it went from Tonight He Comes to John Hancock to finally just Hancock. But I didn’t know that Atomic Blonde was originally called Coldest City.

**Craig:** Oh, well, Atomic Blonde is a way better title than The Coldest City.

**John:** Absolutely. Sometimes you see the posters, like well that can’t be called The Coldest City. It has to refer to her hair color.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** There was a Black List script called Move That Body, which ultimately became Rough Night. A better title.

**Craig:** That’s a better title.

**John:** Story of Your Life became Arrival.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Arms and the Dudes. I can’t believe they went into production with that title. But War Dogs.

**Craig:** Well, because the article that that story was based on was called Arms and the Dudes. So, I think that was never actually meant to be the title-title. It was just the article title.

**John:** And of course most famously Teenage Sex Comedy That Can Be Made for Under $10 Million That Your Reader Will Love, But the Executive Will Hate is…?

**Craig:** American Pie.

**John:** American Pie. And I remember talking to somebody at a party when they were shooting this movie and they didn’t – it was before they actually had the title American Pie. And so they had some short version of that long title that they were referring to. And then it became American Pie.

**Craig:** And that does point out that when we’re writing spec scripts the title that we’re putting there we are not actually accountable to. Everybody understands that ultimately the studio can change the title if they so desire which means you can treat that title in an interesting way. The most important thing is to not put a boring title. That’s the key.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s talk about titles from a screenwriter’s point of view, because while ultimately these movies could change title down the road, like the second Charlie’s Angels went through a gazillion titles, and Full Throttle was just something they pulled off a shelf someplace. Having a title on your script is important because it helps frame the reader’s expectation the same way that the title on the movie will help frame a viewer’s expectation. So you want a title that just does something for your script and it certainly doesn’t work against your script.

And when I say frames expectation, hopefully it’s setting expectation about the genre, like what kind of movie this is, and ideally sort of who your central character is. And so Indiana Jones feels like there’s some character in it named Indiana Jones. Hancock feels like it’s going to be about a character named Hancock. That can be useful. Cujo is a dog. Jaws is a shark. It gives you some sense of what this thing is that you’re about to read so you turn to page one with some set up in your head for what it is you think you’re going to experience.

**Craig:** And sometimes that is a mood. Maybe all the title does is imply a certain kind of whimsy or thoughtfulness or sorrow. You want the title to simply offer some nub – let’s go back to the vaccine concept. Your title needs nubs because you want somebody to catch on the nub. And it may have–

**John:** Like Velcro.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. And it may not be the thing that you think it is, but it has to be something. The problem with a title like Edge of Tomorrow is it is nubless. It is smooth. Like a Ken doll downstairs. It has nothing to cling onto. You just glide right over it.

So, that’s what we’re trying to avoid. So you have an interesting example here in our notes. The Talented Mr. Ripley. That could be anything. If you don’t know what it is it could be a musical. It could be a story about an inventor. It could be a Willy Wonka rip-off. Or it could be this strange story of sociopathy in 1950s Italy.

And that doesn’t matter. What matters is there are nubs on it.

**John:** Yeah. So you know that there’s going to be a character named Mr. Ripley and The Talented Mr. Ripley, there’s something interesting about that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** So I’m turning the page to see who this Ripley character is. And I’ll be the judge of whether he’s talented or not.

**Craig:** And what do you mean by talented, sir? So that’s a nub. It’s prompting a question, which is good.

**John:** So, Craig, as you are approaching a project, so Chernobyl we talked through, and The Last of Us obviously has its title. That sort of already comes with it. But sometimes as you’re reading a friend’s script, or as you’re approaching something, like how do you have that conversation about this is not the right title? And what do you do?

**Craig:** Well, you say, listen, the title is – this is how it struck me. I’m only me. So, I can only give you this anecdotal datum. And that is that it made me feel bored, or confused, or just put off.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And the context it put me in was thinking that this script was going to be lame, or homework, or a horror movie, which I don’t want to see, but it turns out it’s not a horror movie at all. So I just basically share with the person my response and then they can go, all right, well Mazin was the one weirdo that didn’t get it. Or, OK, three people have sort of said the same thing to me. It’s probably true.

**John:** Yeah. The last two weeks we’ve been talking about opening scenes and in many ways the title is the scene before the opening scene. It’s that first bit of information that you’re giving the reader about what kind of story this is. And if you can’t find the right combination of words to sort of unlock that thing you’re going to be running uphill a lot. Or worse, looking in the wrong direction and you have to pull them back with those opening scenes to make it clear what it is you’re actually trying to do in the script. And sort of who the central characters are.

So, examples from my own life. So my first movie, Go, when I wrote the short film version of it was just called X. And it was just the first segment of that movie where Ronna is trying to make the drug del. It’s called X. And it makes sense because the ecstasy that she’s trying to sell is just called X in the movie, so that made sense.

In wouldn’t have made sense for the whole movie, because if I had just called the whole movie X it’s either a biography of Malcolm X or it is X-rated. It doesn’t actually track for the whole movie. So, for a while my working title was 24/7, sort of like what you do every day, and that you’re just sort of going through the loop of a day. It’s fine. It’s not great.

Go, which I think serves it really well, was a title for a completely different pitch that I did over at Imagine, which was a vastly different comedy. But I just really liked that title. And so I took Go and it became the title of this script. And it’s really hard for me to envision Go under any other title.

**Craig:** Well, and that’s the sign of a – well, I think a good title plus time.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** And so some of these, like for instance The Shawshank Redemption without time, terrible title. Plus time, well people did catch the movie eventually. It was an absolute bomb in the theaters in part I think because it was entitled The Shawshank Redemption. But once people caught up with it on video it became a beloved classic. And at that point everybody knows the phrase The Shawshank Redemption. So, the movie had to drag the title along.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** But ideally you have a title that doesn’t put people off, but in fact invites them in. And then the movie is well and widely seen and that title and the movie, the experience together, becomes a feeling. And that feeling is what you’re aiming for.

**John:** Yeah. We have no ability to time travel back and do an alternate universe experiment to see what would have happened if we had changed the title, but Big Fish might have been titled Edward Bloom. Because it’s the story of a man and the vision of a man’s life. And a thing we discovered as we did sort of more focus grouping on it is that people thought Big Fish was going to be about fish. That it was going to be a fishing movie.

**Craig:** I mean, that makes sense.

**John:** Yeah. And it was a real thing we ran into. And I think we kind of only discovered that when we were doing the Big Fish musical and as we were coming out of our Chicago tryouts we actually had a good discussion about when we transfer to Broadway do we change the title from Big Fish to Edward Bloom. And we could have. But then we lose any momentum we have in connection to the original movie. And we realized that while people loved the original movie it wasn’t a giant hit like a Pretty Woman kind of hit movie, so there was a real discussion about whether we should change it to Edward Bloom, or Big Fish: The Story of Edward Bloom. Just somehow better frame what the actual experience was of the musical people were going to be hopefully spending $100 on a ticket for.

**Craig:** And that’s a very common thing. When you are moving from one genre to another sometimes you do want to just change the title.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And that makes total sense. Big Fish is a tricky one. Right? It’s got the word fish in it which is a dominating word. Fish. I am now thinking about fish. And if I don’t know anything about Big Fish it could be about a restaurant, but probably if somebody said guess what Big Fish is about I’d be like it’s a competition about fishing. Because that absolutely makes sense.

**John:** And because second to your thought is like, oh a big fish in a small pond, but it takes you a while to get to that level, that metaphorical level. You’re thinking more literally at the start.

**Craig:** Always. Always. And, yeah, so that’s a tricky one. And I think, yeah, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall of that discussion about whether or not to change its name. That’s interesting.

**John:** So, some practical advice for screenwriters. I would say if a title hits you, and you like the title, write it down. Put it in your notes document on your phone. Because titles are really important and if that title gets you excited about writing that idea and you can write an idea that fits that title really well that’s great. It’s great when you have that synergy of this feels like the right name for this thing that I’m describing.

But, don’t stop yourself from writing the thing you really want to write because you can’t think of a title for it. Because I see too many people who will burn weeks trying to think of a title for a thing when they should actually just be sitting their butt in the chair and writing the script. A title will not sell. A script will sell.

**Craig:** Yes. Of course, we sit there thinking about the title because it beats writing.

Hey, John, have you ever seen the Fellini film Nights of Cabiria?

**John:** I’ve never seen Nights of Cabiria.

**Craig:** It’s great. Do you know there’s a musical based on Nights of Cabiria?

**John:** I don’t. It has a different title. What is the title?

**Craig:** It sure does. Sweet Charity.

**John:** Ah! Yeah. And so let’s think about why Sweet Charity is a phenomenal title.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** You’re going to meet a character named Charity.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** And Sweet Charity feels like it has a sassy, sexual quality to it. It feels a little old timey, but not too old timey. It feels right to me.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s very welcoming. It’s warm. Nights of Cabiria doesn’t mean anything to an American audience. Some of them are going to hear Nights of Cabiria and think it’s Knights.

**John:** That’s what I thought you were saying.

**Craig:** So Neil Simon did the book and then Bob Fosse directed it and, of course, no surprise starred Gwen Verdon. And I think they together, combined, I don’t know if it was Neil Simon who was kind of title genius, or not, but kudos on that name change. That was huge. Well done.

**John:** Yeah. And so, again, if you were the writer who like Craig you’re hearing from three different people saying I don’t think that’s the right title for your thing, take that seriously. And do some work and it may be worth swapping stuff out because you don’t want to let your name for a thing keep it from finding the audience it needs to find.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** Cool. All right. Let’s go to some listener questions because we have related things about character names. Hey Megana Rao, would you join us here and ask some questions our listeners have sent in to you?

**Megana Rao:** Great. So Esteban from Puerto Rico wrote in and he asked, “I’m having a hard time choosing names in my script because I get caught up trying to find names that add some sort of mystique or flavor to the character. Shaun from Shaun of the Dead must have been chosen for the play on Dawn of the Dead. Maximus literally means greatest. And Hannibal rhymes with cannibal.

“Is it pretentious of me to try to choose names like this? Should I just pick any name and think about naming later in the writing process?”

**Craig:** There’s another, well, beats writing, doesn’t it? I’ll sit here and whack off to theories about names.

I mean, so yes, Esteban, no question that this is a trap. 100% there are some really interesting names out there. Some of them movies only get away with because they were in books prior. Like Hannibal Lector, if that didn’t exist in the book before I question strongly whether that would have happened. And Shaun of the Dead is obviously just because it rhymes.

You can get wrapped up in that mystique or flavor of the character. Just know that ultimately no one cares. God’s honest truth, no one cares. If you’re chasing somebody writing an article and pointing out how brilliant your name choice is because did anybody realize that Darth Vader meant Dark Father. Eh, who cares? It doesn’t matter. You know, think about it for a bit and if nothing is compelling you immediately just pick a name and start writing and you can always go back and change it, no problem.

Names matter. I want my names to matter for that character’s truth. Who are they? Where do they live? Who brought them up? Are they upper class, lower class? What is their background? That’s the sort of thing that I’m looking for from a name. Like, you know, in real life instead of meeting somebody and hearing that their name is Louis Cypher. Oh, Lucifer, I get it.

**John:** I get it now. So, yes, and it’s not a waste of time to be thinking about your main characters’ names. Your protagonist should have a distinct, interesting name that really suits the character that you are excited to write every time it’s underneath your fingers. It feels like the right person.

And so a project I’m working on with somebody else we spent like a good half hour batting back and forth these two character’s names and trying to make sure that they felt right together but they also felt distinct. Just that they had the right quality to them. And it’s just – it’s got to feel right. And so if you pick a name that feels right, great.

General rules for sort of screenwriters is try to avoid using the same first letter in character’s names because that just becomes confusing on the page. You don’t want your reader to have to do any extra work to sort of keep people separated. I also try to avoid having too many names that clump together in sort of one category. And so if I have a Bob I don’t also want a Tom, a George, a Phil, a Ron. Things that sort of all sound like white guy names all in a bunch and have about the same number of letters. You want to try to space those things out. So just make it easier for your reader to keep these characters separated.

But, yes, it can be a trap to be spending too long thinking about a character’s name and also trying to be too clever and too metaphorical with what that character’s name really represents.

**Craig:** I think your 30 minutes certainly perfectly acceptable. You start heading into hour two, move on.

**John:** Yeah. You should start writing and then find and replace later on if you come up with a better idea.

**Craig:** All right. Megana, what else do we have?

**Megana:** Cool. So Raychel asks, “I’m a BIPOC writer and it’s important to me to write characters that reflect the world around me in terms of ethnicity. Some of my white friends say I should specify ethnicities either through characters’ first names or through the description in the action lines. I want to avoid using ethnic names because I think it just feeds into the stereotype that all minorities have different names. 80% of my minority friends have middle class middle-American names, mine included, because that’s what we are.

“Another reason I got this note is because my script is heavily based in nerd culture. There’s the assumption made that most nerd culture is held by white people so I should specify ethnicities because it would make my script more interesting and add context on the characters’ perspectives. I’m open to my characters being any ethnicity, so I hesitate to specify. When I read the script I see it as a multi-ethnic cast, but I know that we tend to see things through the lens of our world and if a white exec is reading this script the likelihood of them reading it as an all-white cast is probably pretty high.

“I’m curious to know your perspective on this as two white men. Is there a way to encourage a view of multi-ethnic characters without actually specifying writing specific things that point to it? Or is this a burden of specificity I must take on?”

**Craig:** Well, that’s an interesting run there. I have some things to say to Raychel’s white friends. I will say it to them in white. Ladies in gentleman, what are you doing? I think that certainly there is no need to specify ethnicities through names because I agree with Raychel that people have all sorts of names, whether they are ethnic minorities or not, whether they’re BIPOC or white. There’s probably an Emily of every kind of possible ethnicity. And so there’s no need to use names as some sort of signifier.

And similarly if you don’t want to specifically signify that certain characters are a particular kind of ethnicity then there is no reason to do that either. However, you do have a desire to make sure that this cast does reflect the world around you and that it is multi-ethnic. So what I would recommend, Raychel, is that you insert a page before the script begins. I have done this.

And in it you simply write in as concise and clean and short as you can a paragraph that says this cast should look like the world around it. It is a multi-ethnic cast. I have not specified individual characters’ ethnicity, but presume that it is a mix of white, BIPOC…whatever/however you want to describe it. And just sort of lay that out there as a very short purpose statement. And then you’re good.

**John:** I think Raychel has more opportunities here and I think she’s maybe scared of some of her opportunities, so I want to really focus in on things she can do. And not that she needs to do it, but things that she can do. So, this is a mild defense of some of what her friends are saying.

I think when they’re bringing up the idea that by choosing names for characters that point us toward specific ethnicity you’re anchoring something in the reader’s head. That’s a valid way to do things. We’ve talked about this on the show before that it is a way of signifying that, hey, don’t default white this character. And that’s really what I think Raychel is asking in that last paragraph is as she knows that the person reading this script might have a default-white bias. And Craig’s dedication page might be helpful, but Raychel as a writer can also do specific things on the page to break that bias and sort of challenge that bias. And so picking names for characters, first names, last names, whatever, can do it.

Maybe what her friends are trying to encourage her to see is if there is some interesting dynamic between a person who is in nerd culture who is of a specific ethnic or racial background that could be explored, that could be interesting to explore. She doesn’t have to do it, but that’s the process of getting notes and having a conversation with people about your work is that hopefully it is sparking some new ideas. And so maybe there is something that she’s not exploring yet that she could explore. She may not want to explore it, but there’s an opportunity here.

So, again, none of this is stuff that she needs to do, but these are things that she could be doing and it’s worth asking if I do this will I succeed in making these characters more specific and less of a type that we’ve seen before.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s all true. I’m kind of looking at this last thing she said which is a “burden of specificity I must take on” and I respect the thought there which is what white people get to do is write scripts that aren’t about race. And so I think it’s fair and reasonable and just that BIPOC writers should also be allowed to write scripts that aren’t about race.

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** And similarly there’s no reason why including a well sampled representation of ethnicities necessitates a discussion about race or a movie about race. So, I think that you’re right there are absolutely opportunities. And I think she’s got a pretty good grasp on the ways in. But also I think we have to let writers of color off the hook in terms of having to advocate for a representative cast only if yoked to content. You know what I mean?

**John:** 100%.

**Craig:** So I would say, Raychel, you know what you want and hopefully we’ve given you a couple of ideas of how to get to what you want. But the most important thing is you are in absolute control here and you are able to get the end goal of what you want without having to do other things. You don’t have to like John said. But you can.

**John:** The other thing that Raychel says is that all of her friends have sort of Middle America middleclass names, which is great, but even in that there is specificity. So Raychel herself, her name is spelled Raychel. Great. There’s a little texture there that’s not the way that 90% of Rachels are spelled. Those little things also matter. And so we’re always looking for what is it that’s going to help me – what is the thing about that name that is going to help me remember that character in the script. And that’s a small thing, but it does still matter.

**Craig:** That’s a good point. Every name is spelled 400 different ways. And so when we were hearing from Esteban about this name concentration, one thing that he can consider in his toolbox is just screwing with the spelling. My sister is, you ready for this? Do you know what my sister’s name is?

**John:** No, tell me.

**Craig:** Karen. Ha. But, she spells is Caryn. So she’s always been that poor kid that had to like correct everybody’s spelling. I mean, she didn’t spell it. My parents did it for her obviously. She was a baby. But I always like that. I like that she had that kind of kooky spelling and I think it’s gotten her a little bit off of the Karen hook with her own kids, but not by much. [laughs] They still call her a Karen all the time, which is pretty funny.

**John:** Well, a thing about interesting spellings of names in a script that does not help the movie at all. It doesn’t help the movie because as an audience we’re never going to hear the interesting spelling of that name. But it helps for the reader because we don’t get a face to put to that name, but if you have a slightly interesting spelling of that name that is useful. And I get some little bit of information about a Karen spelling a normal way with a K versus how your sister spells it just because it’s different. I get a sense of where she grew up or choices her parents are making. What generation she’s in. It does matter some.

**Craig:** It evokes things.

**John:** Yes! That’s what it is.

**Craig:** And it will be helpful for the actors, too. I think it’s the kind of little – it’s a nub. It’s another nub.

**John:** It’s all about nubs this week.

**Craig:** You got to add the nubs.

**John:** Megana, what else do we have?

**Megana:** Great. Danielle asks, “I was hoping you could go over budgets in relation to being a writer. I would love to know a few of the elements that sneakily add dollar signs to a film or TV show’s budget so I can keep that in mind while writing. For example, I’ve got to assume that my limited location, small cast script is low budget, but because it’s 90% at night, has a scene in a pool, and involves monsters it’s actually not as low as I thought.”

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about some budget stuff. And this is going to be a very quick general overview and we can do a more in-depth episode at some point. But the most important thing you need to remember about in terms of budget is that time is money. And the more time it takes to film a thing that’s generally the higher budget you’re going to be going into.

And time is in some ways reflected by the number of pages you’re trying to shoot in a day. So, feature film might shoot half a page a day, or two pages a day. A TV show might have to shoot eight pages a day, because their schedules are shorter, their budgets are tighter. Time is money in ways that sort of can’t be overstated.

But the other things you’re pointing out here, Danielle, are factors as well. So, how many locations you’re going to. Because each location you’re going to have to pay for that location and move from one location to another location. That’s expensive. There’s a reason why so many of the Blumhouse movies take place in a single location. It tends to be cheaper.

The more actors you have. That’s an expense. You’re paying those individual actors and the hair and makeup and wardrobe and all the things for those actors.

Visual effects, both practical effects and digital effects, they cost money. You have to really budget those carefully and not just assume what things are going to be expensive because it could be wrong. Like a little bit of rain, not expensive. A big downpour in a big wide open shot? That can be expensive. So, how you’re doing it matters a lot.

And so when you’re putting together a budget for a show the first AD and production manager they’re going to be asking a lot of very specific questions about what do you actually need to see on screen, because that’s going to impact the budget.

**Craig:** Yeah. All of that is absolutely true. I’m thinking about some of the sneaky things. Elaborate costuming.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Will have to be created specifically and tailored specifically. And that will add money, especially because they can never make just one. They have to make multiples. Any kind of stunt adds money. Stunt actors/stunt people/stunt performers cost more, obviously, than say just regular background people. So if you have a scene where someone gets thrown through a plate glass window and lands in a diner next to another table they’re not able to put just regular old extras in there. There’s glass breaking. You need stunt people in there.

So, that costs money for sure. Background in general. Amounts of extras. Extras in quantity, which is how we often think of them, cost money. You aren’t necessarily going to take on a lot of extra expense by shooting mostly at night. Sometimes it actually saves you because there are certain locations that you can get that are cheaper that you can only do at night because during the day it involves other things.

So sometimes you actually get a break. And technically I don’t believe there’s a night penalty. You work 12 hours, whether it’s at night or during the day, the payment is the same for everybody.

Scenes in pools, the reason why pools, food fights, any kind of dirt or gunk is expensive is because of resetting. So people get thrown into a pool. OK, they’re in the pool. They’re wet. Get them out of the pool. We have to do another take. Get them out of the clothes. Put the new clothes on. Dry their hair. We do their hair. We do their makeup. Get back. Well, 45 minutes just went by. And like John said, time is money.

So if you start thinking about things like that you will be able to ward off some of the easier pitfalls to avoid, if you want to, Danielle.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** If you want to.

**John:** That’s really the question. What are you trying to optimize for? Are you trying to optimize for this production that you’re trying to make yourself? Then you’re going to make certain choices. Like The Nines was a movie I was going to make myself and so I was deliberate in sort of how I was constructing things so that it would be possible for me to shoot it. Like a lot of it was set here at my house at a location I could control. And then we could spend a lot of money on certain things that would add a lot of production value. But I could really contain it in a way.

But if you’re writing a script that you’re hoping to sell, the expense of it should not be even on your top ten list in terms of your priorities.

**Craig:** Yes. And it is also important, Danielle, to safeguard the things that you love and care about. What I try and do, I mean, we did it on every movie I’ve ever done, and on Chernobyl, and again we’ll do it on The Last of Us, where you go through with the producer and you kind of go what’s costing us more money than you would hope. And sometimes you hear things and you’re like, oh that? Oh geez, no, I can just change it to this. I don’t care about that.

And then there are other things and you’re like, well, we’ll be spending the money on that because it matters. And you have to occasionally say it’s actually important that they go into the pool and so that’s going to be a longer day and we just have to bake it in. And if we can trim somewhere else or revise a little bit to save some money somewhere else, you know, so be it.

So just be smart, be practical, but also protect your creative desires.

**John:** Great. Megana, can you give us one last question?

**Craig:** Yeah, one more.

**Megana:** Of course. So, Mary asks, “Quick question. I received a check from the WGA and I am Canadian and not in any unions. They had asked for my info which I gave months ago. The two scripts I wrote were made into TV movies. Does my agent get 10% of my residuals? The amount is around $3,000. Or, is that all mine?”

**John:** Yeah, so the simple question is does your agent get commission on residuals. And there’s an answer that I can point you to, I can give you a link to. The answer is no. So in general agents don’t get commissions on residuals unless they were able to negotiate a specific residual for you that was higher than what the WGA standard residuals would be. And so your agent did not do that. You’re just getting the standard WGA residuals for having written these two TV movies. Congratulations. Those residuals are yours. Your agent did not get you those residuals. The guild got you those residuals.

**Craig:** I’m still going to say I think this is a foreign levy just because of the amount and because she’s not in the union and the things that she wrote were not union signatory. So that wouldn’t generate residuals. It would potentially generate foreign levies which would come from the WGA. But regardless, both of them work the same. The WGA has negotiated the residual rates for its members. And the WGA, DGA, and MPAA have negotiated how the foreign levies come from other countries and are then distributed. Your agent didn’t negotiate any of it. Your agent gets 10% of what they negotiate and zero percent of what they do not.

**John:** Yeah. I just want to underline what Craig said there again. Your agent gets a commission on the things that they got you. The things that they negotiated for you. And they did not get you those things, whether these really are foreign levies, or they are residuals. They didn’t do it. So they don’t get the commission on that.

**Craig:** I had an argument with an agent about this once years ago. He’s not an agent anymore, he’s a producer. And I said, you know, it’s pretty rare that I have an argument about something and I have zero percent concern that I’m wrong. I’ve never been in this situation. Even at my most strident there’s still room for one percent of like, oh geez, I hope I’m not wrong about this. But in this one? Zero percent.

You didn’t negotiate it. You get none of it. Period. The end.

**John:** Megana, thank you for these questions.

**Megana:** Thank you guys.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**John:** All right, it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a performance by Sarah Smallwood Parsons. I think it was from UCB.

**Craig:** I know this one.

**John:** It’s just so good. And so it’s a song that she sings called The Song in Every Musical that No One Likes. I just love when someone identifies a trope, points it out, and performs the trope so brilliantly and she does that here.

And so it’s talking about in most stage musicals there’s like an older man who sings this song that is just kind of filler and it’s while it’s going on you’re like it’s fine, but then you go on to the next thing. She very hilariously talks through why this song exists and it’s just so great. So, let me play you a clip.

[Clip plays – Sarah Smallwood Parsons]

Also I want to commend the YouTube algorithm for pointing me towards this thing because I was not looking for it at all. It showed up in the little sidebar and I’m like, well, that was good. And it was delightful.

**Craig:** You know what I love is that in the lyrics she cites two kind of prototypical the song in every musical that no one likes roles, Sentimental Man from Wicked, and Mr. Cellophane from Chicago. And both of those performed by Joel Grey. So poor Joel Grey.

**John:** Poor Joel Grey.

**Craig:** He finally gets trotted out to do these songs where he’s like I can only do this. And this is how it goes. I mean, he’s an amazing performer. It’s just that those two songs – in Cabaret you could hardly accuse him of being that character. But it’s pretty funny that those are the two.

**John:** I really like Mr. Cellophane.

**Craig:** I love Mr. Cellophane.

**John:** I totally get what Mr. Cellophane does, but honestly you could skip that track and your life would actually be fine.

**Craig:** I also love Sentimental Man. I do. It’s one of my favorite songs from that show. But, you know what? I’m a weirdo.

Here are my One Cool Things of the week that I’m using in conjunction. I realized after staring at my Apple Watch for the 4,000th day in a row that I’m like why is it one watch face? I feel like I’m not using this thing right. So I went to look for a different watch face and I found there’s a site called Facer. There’s a subscription version of it where you get a billion watch faces, but I think the free one seemed to chuck up enough for me.

And so I pulled an interesting Apple Watch face off of Facer and I also subscribed to a weather service called Carrot which has various amusing options, but is very full-featured. And what I love now is I can look at my watch and I can see on my watch in a very easy way what the daily low and what the daily high is going to be. And the humidity. And then I can see also what’s coming up on my schedule and blah-blah and all the little watch complication stupid thingies.

But it was nice. I spiffed up my watch. The whole point is you can have a new watch every day if you want and I hadn’t changed it in forever. So Facer and Carrot together. Yeah.

**John:** Yeah, you’ve inspired me Craig. So I’ve been using, it’s called Modular Face, for most of this time. And it’s great. I really have no complaints about it. But it’s not super exciting.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** I may switch it up a bit.

**Craig:** Take a look at Facer.

**John:** Cool. That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced, as always, by Megana Rao.

**Craig:** Damn straight.

**John:** And edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** You know it.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Chester Howe. 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 show questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts and they are great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all of the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on restaurant behavior. Craig, thank you for a fun show.

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

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Craig, what do I do when I go back to a restaurant? Please talk me through it because I just have no idea what a person should do in a restaurant.

**Craig:** First of all, pants. Incredibly important.

**John:** Oh my god, pants. Yes.

**Craig:** Shoes. Shirt. We are on the cusp of returning to indoor dining, depending on where you live it’s probably already happening to some extent. And I have been going to restaurants in Los Angeles for nearly 30 years and I have seen some pretty bad behavior.

**John:** So pre-pandemic bad behavior. So, maybe it’s a chance for a reset. A fresh start and we’re going to start behaving better in restaurants. What are some things you would like to see from your fellow restaurant patrons?

**Craig:** So the easiest one, just as a blanket rule, be incredibly kind to your server. They are not cooking the food. They are also not responsible for you not getting the food on time. They are literally doing nothing except asking you what you want and making recommendations, telling the kitchen, and then bringing it to you when it’s ready. That’s what they’re doing. And so there’s no reason to make them the brunt of your ire.

There are times where you get hangry. And there are times where things go terribly wrong. And, yes, of course there are times when a server may be rude or just bad at their job. It’s possible. I like to remind myself that they have been on their feet for hours, days, weeks, months, years. They’re doing the best they can at a job that doesn’t even pay minimum wage. It’s a tipped job.

Which leads me to my next thing. Tips.

**John:** So, you should tip these people who are bringing you your food, and cooking your food, and making it so you can enjoy your food prepared.

**Craig:** I mean, our system requires tips. Because they’re not paid what they should be paid. They will not make it if they don’t get tips. So, everybody has different tipping philosophies and different tipping percentages. And what I like to say is make your tip roughly aligned with the amount of money you have. If you go out to dinner and it’s some crazy dinner and it’s a $400 bill, some super fancy restaurant, well percentage wise, percentage makes that worth their time, which is great. And I think if that was kind of a once-a-year splurge for you because you are on a budget I don’t think there’s a problem tipping 15%. I think that’s a good baseline. 15% feels like the baseline to me. I wouldn’t go below it.

20% I think if you can. And you know what? If you’re flush, 25%. Because you are their employer, whether you know it or not. You’re the ones that are actually paying them their salaries. So try as best you can to be generous when you can when it’s warranted.

**John:** So, my husband and I are known for just befriending waiters. And so we will go to a breakfast place regularly and just become friends with waiters. And we have a list of friends who are waiters now. And so everything you’re saying about treating folks who are bringing you your food like human beings who are doing a job is absolutely valid.

My second sort of question though is how should people behave with other people dining in that restaurant at the same time?

**Craig:** Great question.

**John:** It’s not a simple relationship in like it’s me and my server. It’s also everyone around you. And I think when I have frustrations at restaurants it’s generally not with the people who work at the restaurant, it’s with the people who have chosen to come into this restaurant.

**Craig:** Right. So, the easiest one that I think everyone can agree on is get off your goddamn phone. I don’t mean to say stop staring at your phone. If you’re staring at your phone quietly because you and your spouse are in a chilly moment at dinner, so be it. But if you get a phone call and you need to talk to somebody, get up and walk out.

**John:** Step outside.

**Craig:** Go outside. And you may think, why? I’m not talking any louder than I would to the person across from me. And you know what? I don’t know why. I don’t know why it’s so much more annoying, but it is.

**John:** It’s so, so much more annoying.

**Craig:** It’s so much more annoying.

**John:** You use a different kind of voice when you’re talking on the phone. It’s the worst.

**Craig:** Get up and get out. No one wants to hear your crap. So, that’s the easy one right off the bat. Second one. This is a real weird one. And it’s not going to be an issue for a while because the restaurants are mostly spacing everybody out. But when you are back in the normal time and you’re in some, usually it’s in a city, so there’s not a lot of space, so the tables are really close together. Please be aware of your own ass as you are getting up and moving between tables.

Because if you’re not, and you’re just not paying attention, you can be rubbing your butt on someone else’s table. They don’t want that. I don’t want that.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** If you are of a size where it’s inevitable, just as you stand up just say excuse me I need to make way through so that you’re acknowledging to somebody I’m coming through now, so I don’t want to put my butt on you. I am paying attention. And then they can help sort of move out of the way and then you can go. But don’t just casually rub your butt on people’s tables. It drives me crazy.

**John:** Yeah, so New York restaurants are notoriously very tightly packed. LA restaurants are not quite as packed in terms of how many tables they’re trying to stick together. But certainly much more so than the Midwest. And I think sometimes you come from the Midwest where there’s 10-feet between tables and giant booths and all these things. And you come here and you’re like oh my god these two-top tables are so tight and so close to each other.

Yeah, they are. That’s just how it is. You have to sort of get used to it. And you have to find your own little zone of privacy even though you are six inches from the next person.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think also if you can say thank you.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** And say please. You don’t have to, right, you’re buying it. But there’s something that rubs me wrong about somebody who comes up, hey folks how are you doing, what can I help you with? Yeah, give me this. Oh, OK. I will gimme it to you. And then you bring it to them and you put it down and they’re like, eh. OK, well enjoy. Mm-hmm. Or people that don’t acknowledge the waiter. Like literally just won’t acknowledge them.

So just try to remember these are people. Be polite. Say please. Say thank you. And if you need to get their attention try if you can to do it silently. Just the yelling across the restaurant for Miss or Sir is also kind of disruptive.

**John:** You have to make eye contact, do the little hand gesture that indicates hey there’s a thing when you get a chance to come over to the table and there’s a thing.

And it’s a skill you have to learn how to do that, but you can do it. It’s like getting a drink at a bar. You have to be present but not obnoxious to get them to come over.

**Craig:** That’s a great way of putting it.

**John:** Let’s talk about children in restaurants.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Because I think most of my experience really has been breakfast – we go out to breakfast much more than we go out to dinner. And so I see a wide range of sort of how children are present at restaurants. And I want to sort of both defend parents and also put some edges on what’s acceptable behavior both for a kid in a restaurant and for other people being annoyed by kids in restaurants.

I think kids exist and kids need to be able to go out to restaurants as well. And if you’re going to a restaurant where there are going to be kids, you’re going to a restaurant where there are going to be kids and you cannot just be annoyed by their existence.

**Craig:** I like to stand up in the middle of a Chuck-E-Cheese and demand silence!

**John:** Silence! I cannot hear the band! [laughs]

**Craig:** [laughs] Please would you sit down! I am enjoying a pizza.

**John:** So, if you’re going to a restaurant with your kids you’re going to figure out hopefully strategies for keeping your kid entertained during the time in which you sit down, they have food in them, and they’re getting out. So you bring stuff for them to do at that table.

But all kids are different and they’re going to be going around a little bit. And stop treating other people’s children like they are a burden upon you, because they are not. It’s just the future of humanity.

**Craig:** They are the future of humanity. Of course, there is the other perspective which I think is reasonable. And that is if you are there with your kid and there’s two of you, whether it’s partners or friends, whatever it is, and a kid has a meltdown which they can sometimes have.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** Pick them up. Walk them outside. Because that’s a very simple thing you can do to make everyone’s life around you easier and also I think make your life easier.

**John:** And it’s better – also it’s better for the kid as well. To make it clear that there’s a range of what you can do inside a restaurant and if you can’t do those things we’re going to go outside until you can–

**Craig:** Until you calm down. Exactly. The parents that infuriate me are the ones that don’t seem to notice that their child is on the floor screaming and crawling toward me. And this is not Chuck-E-Cheese. At that point I want to say like do you not care about – I mean, I get that your choice is, eh, screw it, let Braden scream and crawl. I don’t care. I’m having lunch. But we’re also here, too.

**John:** Yeah. So that parent was probably making the right choice for when Braden has a meltdown at home.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** There’s a whole valid approach to sort of just let them have their meltdown and they get through it.

**Craig:** Right. Ignore it.

**John:** Ignore it. Great. No, not when you’re in a restaurant and you’re putting that burden on everybody else around you.

**Craig:** Correct. Every single one of these things that we’re saying comes down to simply being considerate. Being considerate.

**John:** What are you looking forward to most eating in a restaurant when you can eat in a restaurant? Have you and Melissa already talked about where you want to go first?

**Craig:** Well we’ve been to some outside restaurant experiences which were very nice, but not quite the same as the old ways. I think, you know, having a good old fashioned noisy loud restaurant, you know one of those two-hour dinners with friends in some sort of packed place will be fun. I like the energy. I like the bustle.

**John:** Yeah. I’m looking forward to something a little bit more like that. Because, yeah, you can do that outdoors but it’s challenging. It’s not quite the same experience. And I’m looking forward to getting back to breakfast. That was always the thing that we used to do on Saturday morning is to get up and let the kid sleep and go to breakfast. And so I want to do that again.

**Craig:** I think it’s right around the corner. That actually reminds me of one other thing I would suggest to people is be aware of time. Because the restaurant needs to keep moving you in and out. Some restaurants are fancy and when you sit down you realize you’ve bought a chunk of time there. And they are really reluctant to kick you out. But just be aware of how much time you’re chit-chatting before you’ve ordered.

Everybody has that moment. At some moment somebody at the table has to go, hold on, hold on, everybody stop talking. Let’s figure it out. And then we can get back to our conversation. And also at the end of the meal you’ve had your dinner, maybe you’ve had dessert, and now you’re just yacking away which is fun, because you’re catching up with people, but still be aware that there may be other people waiting for a table. There may be a reservation that you’re cutting into. And by holding that off you may also be reducing the amount of tip money that your server can get. So just be aware of it.

**John:** Yeah. Definitely. May be time to move that conversation from this restaurant to the bar next door.

**Craig:** Yeah. And definitely if you look around and you’re like oh lord we’re the last one – don’t be the last ones there.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Just don’t.

**John:** Don’t.

**Craig:** Don’t. Don’t do it.

**John:** Craig, thanks. I’m looking forward to a meal at some point.

**Craig:** Thanks John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [12 Great Movies with Terrible Titles](https://screenrant.com/best-movies-worst-titles/) by Margaret Maurer
* [That Song In Every Musical That No One Likes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXKUgjYh7lo) by Sarah Smallwood Parsons
* [Facer](https://www.facer.io/featured) for smart watch faces and [Carrot](http://www.meetcarrot.com/weather/applewatch.html) a weather app for the Apple Watch.
* [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/)
* [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 Chester Howie ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/495standard.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 494: Screenwriting in Color, Transcript

April 6, 2021 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/screenwriting-in-color).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 494 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Movies are written in black and white but filmed in color, except for Mank which is about the writing of a screenplay for a black and white movie, so the general point still stands that screenwriters must think about color. And today on the show that is exactly what we’ll do.

We will also have a new round of the Three Page Challenge with a special focus on how opening scenes are setting up the reader for the movie that follows. And, of course, we’ll answer some listener questions. Then in our bonus segment for premium members Craig and I will discuss our Olympic ambitions.

**Craig:** Oh, we have those?

**John:** Or maybe you had those at one point.

**Craig:** Oh yes.

**John:** Like our sort of fantasy. If you could be good at one Olympic sport in winter and summer games which sport would it be and why?

**Craig:** Oh, OK. That’s fun.

**John:** We might also talk about sort of whether we should have the Olympics and sort of the international implications thereof.

**Craig:** I think that’s also a pretty good – that will get us in trouble. And I want trouble.

**John:** No troubles at all there. But Craig I don’t know if you heard. The WGA is on strike.

**Craig:** What?

**John:** As we record this the WGA is on strike against the ABC quiz show called The Chase.

**Craig:** Oh god. No. No!

**John:** Not your episode of The Chase. So The Chase is this quiz show that opponents in it are big Jeopardy! winners. Like Ken Jennings and folks. And so it is a show that is going into its second season of filming in theory and the WGA has not been able to reach a contract with this show. And we talk about on our podcast how the WGA covers things made for big screens and for small screens, including game shows. The WGA covers shows like Jeopardy! and Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and The Weakest Link. This is a show that should be covered by that same kind of deal.

So, the writers on that show are currently on strike.

**Craig:** Hmm. See, I’m looking at the information here. It seems like ITV America, which is the company that produces The Chase, does have an agreement with the Writers Guild of America East, which is kind of the necessary substrate for a strike. You can’t have a strike if you don’t actually have a relationship I think with the company, or if you voted for a contract, or whatever. Anyway, the point being they have a deal with the WGA-E, and they’re apparently just not abiding by it.

**John:** Well, it sounds like there are things that are in that deal that are not up to the level of what a deal needs to be. And so those writers need pension and health benefits. They need residuals. They need the basic protections and they don’t have those yet. So that’s sort of what is at issue right now.

This is being handled by the East because East handles more sort of this kind of show, even though the show actually films out here. So, we hope this is resolved by the time you are listening to this podcast, but just to know that there was a WGA strike that very few people are participating in.

**Craig:** Yeah. And a lot of people may not understand that game shows require writers, particularly these kinds of trivia shows.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** The questions are writing. And people have to do the research and write them and put them in a script and stick them on a teleprompter.

**John:** I remember a campaign at some point called Somebody Wrote That.

**Craig:** The worst campaign the guild ever did.

**John:** Billboard, “Somebody Wrote That.”

**Craig:** I’m so glad you brought that up. It was my least favorite – the best thing about that, like we’re driving around LA and there’s this huge billboard and it has a quote from a movie and then a picture of a screenwriter and then it says, “Somebody Wrote That.” And I guess the point was like, see, actors don’t come up with these lines on their own, but my point was like who is that? Can you put their name on the billboard you idiots?

So, that was the worst campaign we ever did.

**John:** Yeah. But anyway so we will see what happens with this WGA strike action.

**Craig:** Well good luck to them.

**John:** In happier, more local news, so listeners likely know that my company makes Highland which is the screenwriting app for the Mac, which I use to write everything that I write. It is a free download on the Mac App Store and will remain a free download on the Mac App Store. It’s $49 to upgrade to the full version.

But for the past 18 months we’ve also done a student version which is the full pro version but just for people who are in university writing and film programs. And so we partnered up with individual schools to do that to make sure it all works right for them. And now we’re opening it up to everybody. So, if you are a student in a college level writing or film program and would like to get the full version of Highland free for a year there’s a whole new way to do that.

So you apply, you send in a photo of your student ID, and we send you the code to unlock it free for a year. So, if you’re a listener who would like this and you are in a university writing program or film program you go to Quote-Unquote Apps and click on For Students and we will get you set up.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s lovely of you. Well done.

**John:** Yeah, we do try.

Finally, we’ve been talking a lot about scheduling of movies. And this week a whole bunch of movies came sort of smashing around like little broken up iceberg pieces in the summer season. So Black Widow and Cruella are both in theaters and on streaming. It feels like everyone is just trying to figure out how big the summer box office is going to be and when things get back to normal.

**Craig:** Yeah, this one is another whack at the piñata of the theatrical movie business. Specifically because Cruella and Black Widow, they’re big movies, right? So they’re on par with what Warner Bros recently did. And they’re also doing this premier access thing. So you pay for Disney+ and then if you want to see Cruella or Black Widow when they come out that’s another $30.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And is that $30 for the year and then you kind of get everything in that premier access? Or is $30–?

**John:** No, it’s just for that title.

**Craig:** Holy cajole.

**John:** I say that with such confidence. I cannot promise you with that confidence. But I really do believe that it’s for that title.

**Craig:** That’s my move. OK, well, I’m interested to know. But either way that is pretty huge. Because on the one hand you think, well, geez, $30 to see one thing streaming when you’re already paying for Disney+ is a lot, but I think a lot of parents remember that not too long ago, like two years ago, if you wanted to take your two kids and one of their friends to a movie it was going to be way more than $30 because of all the food and everything. So, it’s still kind of a deal.

This is one more shot at the sustainability of the theatrical business. I have no idea where this is going to go. This is nuts.

**John:** It is nuts. So two things. First off, one of the things we need to remember about parents with young kids is you are just desperate to get out of the house. So, going out of the house to see a movie with your kids is a totally viable way to burn some hours on a weekend, as opposed to watching at home. Makes sense.

But I also say like I’m not vaccinated yet but I feel like when I am vaccinated this summer I am excited to see Black Widow and Cruella on the big screen. So I’m increasingly saying what about my own possible movie-going experience in the future here.

**Craig:** Yeah. One of the things that is in play here is the secret, not so secret, but the silent economic killer of the theatrical business which has always been marketing costs.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** And you and I both know that the marketing costs as they went up were also starting to, I’m going to use the word corrupt, I don’t care, corrupt the creative process of making films, because where it used to be that creative people would say here are the movies that we as a studio want to make, and then marketing people said, “OK, well, let’s figure out how to sell that.” Once you were spending more on marketing than on the movie naturally that flipped.

So the marketing people were telling the creative people what kinds of movies they should pay for. Now, with streaming you don’t have anywhere near the costs involved, because you’re not asking people to leave their house and go anywhere. In fact, every single show on Disney+ will serve as an advertisement for Black Widow or for Cruella.

Furthermore, social media has kind of taking over the job of advertising for you. People just talk about it with each other. So, if a movie like Cruella, I don’t know what Cruella cost, but it looks pretty expensive. A movie like Cruella before in the old days they probably would have spent $150 million marketing that thing.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Well, if they only spend $30 million marketing that is a massive difference in how the profitability line is on that kind of movie. It’s enormous. I cannot overstate how big of a deal that would be if the big marketing buy of theatrical movies went away. That more than anything will change everything. And I have to argue probably for the better. Probably for the better.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, the big marketing spends really anchor a movie in people’s heads. And so you don’t get sort of the giant change everything franchises unless you sort of have that marketing push behind them I would argue. But, yes, when Netflix makes a movie that costs $100 million it really kind of just costs $100 million because they’re not spending a fortune on marketing that movie because it’s just they’re pushing it through their own channels. They’re putting up some billboards in the city where the actor lives but that’s it. And they’re not sort of doing the big nationwide campaign for it otherwise. So it’s going to be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

I’m making a movie for Netflix now and it feels like the right thing to be making for that platform and that service, but it’s going to be weird not to see commercials for it and sort of a push for it.

**Craig:** I get that. I just think that if television has taught movies anything about the way streaming works it’s there is value in being unique and good. And that that is more important than kind of putting an advertisement for your movie on every carton of milk in the world because people will find it and talk about it with each other and watch it. And you do save a ton of money. And hopefully this leads to movies returning to a more adventurous mindset and not just a kind of franchise-obsessed, navel-gazing, big, big event movie for PG-13 audiences only.

**John:** Yeah. We’ll see what happens.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** All right. Some follow up. Last week we talked about foreign levies and our own Stuart Friedel wrote in to say that foreign levies can be paid to your S-Corp but the WGA just needs a W-9 on file. So, if you are a loan-out corporation you can just register that with the WGA and they will pay it to your S-Corp rather than paying it to you as an individual person.

**Craig:** I did not know that.

**John:** Yeah, so things we learn ourselves. We have another foreign levies follow up here. Do you want to take that?

**Craig:** Sure. Bea asks, “Yesterday I got a WGA foreign levy for a project that was never made. It was a feature writer’s room, single day, major studio. Definitely hasn’t been made yet, if ever, but somehow the WGA is sending checks in its name. How’d that happen?”

**John:** So we won’t say what the name of this movie is, but Craig and I can both see it on the outline. I have absolutely no idea why you are getting this check for this movie that has not been made yet. Cash that check because the only reason the WGA got that check is because the studio wrote that check. And so it’s the studio’s fault. It’s not your fault. It’s not the WGA’s fault. Cash that check. I have no idea why you would be getting this check.

**Craig:** Yeah. I wonder if sometimes out of ease what happens is the countries will say like to Warner Bros, “Here’s a bunch of money that we have for your projects that are kind of…” Because remember they’re not collecting money off of the movies and shows that air. They’re collecting money off of the sale of blank tapes, disk drives, thumb drive, etc.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** So it may be that the studio kind of aggregates all of its expenses and says here’s how we will distribute that money, or here is how it should be distributed. They send a big list of information to the country. The country goes, got it, got it, got it, got it, got it, let’s send out that money to the WGA for these things. That’s my guess.

**John:** That’s probably the best guess we can make for this. Basically they had a list of what writers did you employ during this year.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And Bea’s name was on that list and that’s what happened.

**Craig:** Yup.

**John:** Well, cash that check. Whenever I got sort of like small checks for not a lot of money I always treated it as like Panda Express money. Ooh, I can get some eggrolls at Panda Express. That was a treat for me when I got those small checks.

**Craig:** Orange Chicken, man.

**John:** Oh, I love the Orange Chicken.

**Craig:** Everyone loves Orange Chicken. They figured something out. I remember when in the mall I noticed for the first time Panda Express had smartened up and did the double tray of the Orange Chicken. Because remember it used to be the same size tray as everything.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** And then they were like, OK, fine, we give in, you people. You love sugar and fat. Here we go. Fine.

**John:** So good.

**Craig:** Yup. It’s delicious.

**John:** Some follow up on Episode 491, the deal with deals. Danielle asks, “Following up on your conversation about writer deals, can you cover if-come deals? Specifically how they may or may not be hurting newer writers.”

Craig, have you ever had an if-come deal?

**Craig:** I was offered one many, many, many, many years ago and I said no. But I understood the general wisdom of it. I understood that.

**John:** So if-come deals are really common in TV. And so what will happen in TV is you are a writer with an idea for a series. And so you go and pitch to a studio or to a production company and they say this is fantastic, we really love that idea. We are going to make a deal with you that’s pending us getting a successful setup at a network. And so basically I’ve pitched to Sony and Sony says, yes, we love it, we’ll make you a deal. If it’s if-come on getting a network, so an ABC, or CBS, or somebody else to do it.

Super, super common in TV. And you can sort of get why they do it because that studio is going to be paying you but they’re only going to be paying you if they actually have a home for that project. And so it’s just sort of a given way of doing business in TV.

In features it’s weird and I don’t hear about it in features I think mostly because if you wrote a spec script and somebody wanted to buy it but not really buy it, or sort of have the option to buy it that’s just called an option purchase agreement where they’re paying you some money now and a promise for a lot more money down the road. That’s standard in features. What I’m guessing may be happening here in features would be let’s say, what did we decide it was, it was not the Slinky Movie, not the Uno Movie, what are we–?

**Craig:** Oh, what are we up to now? Oh, Mister Clean?

**John:** Mister Clean. So let’s say the Mister Clean Movie. So the Procter & Gamble or whoever owns Mister Clean says, OK, we love your take on the Mister Clean Movie and we want to be the producer of record on this, so we are going to make a deal for you, but it’s going to be if-come based on whether we can actually get a studio partner to actually release the thing.

I would not be excited about that deal.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Because they are basically locking you up for a lot of time and they’re not paying you everything. There’s just no guaranteed money.

**Craig:** Well, even worse, what they’re doing is they’re purchasing insurance against an auction. And this is why I said no. And also I should say if-come was more common during the network dominance era, because now many streaming channels are their own studio, of course. But what they’re saying is like, OK, that’s a really cool idea. We can go and sell that to any one of 12 different places. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to lock you into what we’re going to pay you now and we’re only going to pay it to you once it lands at a place. That means is if there’s a huge competitive situation where everybody wants it the studio will benefit because the rights are going to go through the roof, the licensing fees will be massive. You won’t.

So, much better for you to be like, Nah. If I’m willing to bet on myself here I’d rather just see if a couple places want it and then they can fight over me and then I will also benefit from the competitive situation.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So, you know, one of those.

**John:** It’s also important to understand that even if you have an if-come deal if they can’t find the buyer at the level that they were expecting, or the kind of situation they were expecting, they might come back to you and say like, OK, we couldn’t actually get that deal so we need to figure out a new deal that’s actually makeable for the thing we’re trying to do.

And so I’ve encountered that in my career where I got like a pretty sweet ass deal, on paper, but then we went out to the market. The one place that wanted it wasn’t going to pay the amount that would actually pay out the other places. So they were going to renegotiate your deal anyway. That also happens.

Having that quote, a good quote, could be helpful for future deals. So there’s some valid, some reason why you might want to do it. But I would say if you’re a newer writer being offered an if-come deal especially for a feature or for a TV project that feels like it already is kind of set up at one place, that just doesn’t make sense to me.

Like an if-come waiting for an actor to be attached, that makes me really nervous.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’ll also get if-comes a lot when you’re dealing with a producer that has an exclusivity issue. So you go to a particular company and they’re like well we have a deal with Netflix and we are exclusive to them. So we’re going to make you an if-come deal because there’s nowhere else to go. That’s it. We’re going to go there or we’re going nowhere. At that point maybe makes a little bit more sense.

**John:** Yeah. But it also may make more sense to actually just pitch to the one place that you can go and try to make a deal.

**Craig:** Well, correct. And so then you’re gambling, right? And the interesting things about those arrangements is they can be a little incestuous. So these people have a relationship already with the streamer and they can make a kind of deal where you get screwed and so do you want to lock something in earlier? It’s complicated. Your agent or lawyer will have the best advice. But Danielle that’s basically the long and short of it.

**John:** Yeah. Craig, what is your favorite color?

**Craig:** Red.

**John:** My favorite color is blue. How long has red been your favorite color?

**Craig:** Since the first time someone asked me what’s your favorite color. I don’t know why. I don’t know why it’s always been red. There’s never been a question. And it’s not like, oh, I’ve got to wear red or I’ve got to paint my house red. I don’t do that. That’s stupid. I just like it.

**John:** Yeah. I’m that way with blue. It was always the first answer and I just like blue. And when I say blue I have a very specific blue. It’s like a Crayola Blue. The basic blue crayon.

**Craig:** Standard blue.

**John:** Is the kind of blue that defines my favorite color. But of course like all things as you grow up you develop maturity and you horizons expand and you come to appreciate many other colors that are wonderful out there. And so you get past the sort of like very rainbow colors of your youth.

But I want to talk about color because I’m reading this book, The Secret Lives of Color, by Kassia St Clair. It’s a couple years old but I’m just now reading it. Which goes through the history of how humans sort of came to be able to make the colors that we see and use. Like how dyes and pigments and sort of all these things actually came to be. Because dyes were incredibly expensive, and so it was so hard to find the things that actually got you to that color. And worth more than gold, ounce for ounce, over the annals of history. And it’s only through modern science that we sort of have the ability to reproduce all the colors that are out there.

And I’m reading this book but I’m also thinking about the script I’m writing and I feel like partly because I’m reading this book I’m just very aware of the colors of the scenes that I’m writing and sort of what is what color in what space. And even though I’m not writing those colors necessarily into scenes they’re definitely informing my choices. So I thought we might talk first about sort of how color works on screen and some of the iconic moments that we sort of think about where you couldn’t pull color out them.

**Craig:** That’s interesting. All right.

**John:** So I think of movies with amazing color palettes. Amelie. The greens of Amelie. The pink in Grand Budapest Hotel. 2001 is mostly white. And then there’s some sequences that are all red. So in the movie Knives Out Chris Evans is wearing a sweater. Craig, what color is that sweater?

**Craig:** It was an off-white.

**John:** Yeah. It was on off-white.

**Craig:** It was a bone.

**John:** American Beauty has the red flowers and she’s in the red flowers. Midsommar has a really limited color palette and it’s just the explosive colors of the flower headdresses. So color is such a part of our movies and yet we don’t think about it that much on the page. So, let’s spend some moments thinking about it on the page.

**Craig:** Well it’s hard to do because it is purely visual. Sound I think occupies maybe – well, it depends on your mind. I think everybody’s brain functions differently. For me I find the ability to hear sound from a page much easier than to visualize color so much of what’s on page is dialogue. We’ve been trained since childhood to read books where people are talking to each other and so we are trained to hear words. And therefore we can hear sound effects. And sound effects are also very onomatopoeia-able.

So, well, I made a word. I can describe with words what a smash is. Describing colors turns basically into a simile fist. So it’s tricky to do. And it’s something that I think one of the first things that happens when a director reads a script is that can start to fill in more. The director who is going to be doing the first few episodes of The Last of Us, made this movie, Kantemir Balagov made this movie called Beanpole and color is an intense part of it and so much of our conversation already has been about color and specific color choices and what it means and why they pop up.

You’re actually putting your finger on something that I think is lacking probably in my toolbox. And I don’t think of enough. And maybe I should think of more.

**John:** Yeah. Something I’m trying to be more aware of as I’m writing, but you’re also right that a lot of times our color conversation becomes part of the conversation, becomes our discussion with the director and ultimately a production designer and an art director about how things are going to look beyond what’s just happening on the page.

And so when a filmmaker is thinking about how to shoot something there’s a discussion of color palette. And color palette not just like here’s all the colors, it’s like, no, no, we are being deliberate about what colors we’re using and what colors we’re not using. And really it’s that omission of colors that becomes even the stronger statement. So, in my movie The Nines it has three different segments. The first segment is really leaning towards reds and yellows. And so that informs the color of the light, but also just the wardrobe. We really go into yellows and reds. You will not see any blue or green anywhere in that section.

When we get to section three it’s all blues and greens. And we’re outdoors in the forest and it’s wet. And the light is whiter and bluer and colder. And you will not see any reds and yellows. That is a very common set of choices that filmmakers are going to make about how they’re going to shoot a thing just to make something feel deliberate and not random.

**Craig:** Correct. And I think you’re right that a lot of times it’s the subtractive aspect of it that strikes us. It’s a subconscious thing. We don’t really know that we’re not seeing something. Just like we don’t know we’re not hearing something. But it does create a subconscious, psychological impact which is something of course everybody wants. As opposed to just, oh wow, that’s a red movie.

So, removing things is a really interesting choice. The other aspect of color that I do think about when I’m writing, it’s not specifically a color choice, but overall is a question of saturation

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So saturation is just how – I guess it’s how vivid the colors are. So when you think about, like for instance you did Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Very vivid, right. Candy colors, which is no surprise.

**John:** Once we’re inside the factory. But outside the factory it’s very desaturated.

**Craig:** Exactly. So you make these choices and generally speaking we think of very saturated color as heightened reality and desaturated, particularly very desaturated as verité. So, the opening sequence in almost all of Saving Private Ryan is really desaturated to the point where you’re like, wait, is this black and white? It’s that desaturated. And it makes us feel like we are in something that’s super grounded. And there’s no right or wrong, obviously. It’s a question of tone.

So, with the stuff that I’m writing now I tend to want to write towards desaturation.

**John:** Yeah. There’s a scene I was working on this past week where I wanted that desaturated feel and I was thinking about well how am I going to get that. What is the natural way to do that? And I decided it’s two sides of a FaceTime call. And so I decided on the side I wanted desaturated. Oh, it’s going to be raining on that side and it’s going to be a guy outdoors standing under extra covering, but it’s raining. And that is sort of naturally god’s desaturation. It’s like you’re pulling the color out of things.

**Craig:** God’s desaturation.

**John:** And let’s talk about how color is created, because you can’t talk about color without talking about light. So, what color is the light? Basically what time of year is it? What time of day is it? Sort of where are you at geographically and sort of emotionally at that time?

I just watched Another Round, which I really loved, and it’s set in Denmark. And most of it takes place in sort of summery months, and so it never really fully gets dark. And so the colors are really strange. And it’s sort of always at most like a twilight. And that really affects sort of how you feel about the things you’re seeing and the choice to set those scenes at those times of day versus bright sunlight really does impact how those scenes play out.

**Craig:** Yeah. The impact of light on things, it’s a little scary for me to write it because when you start to get into how the light changes, the color of something as something moves through it, you do risk that kind of purple dialogue that we want to shy away from.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** A lot of new writers are talking about the golden hue as it turns–

**John:** The crimson sky.

**Craig:** And yada-yada-yada. And, of course, when cinematographers read that stuff they kind of roll their eyes and they’re like, OK kid, but this is not actually how light works. But there is a feeling, and I always feel that the goal is rather than to be technical – I like to just be honest, you know, the way the light hits you it makes you sad. Just say that. I think cinematographers vastly prefer that because they know how to achieve that. Just like actors are just like tell me I’m supposed to be sad. I know I can do that. So, I do think about light that way.

And then there are gags, which is our all-purpose moviemaking, television-making term for special things. So there’s a gag where a particular beam of light is coming down through a shaft and it’s combining with something else. Well that you can always call out and describe because that’s really specific.

**John:** Yeah. Well one thing you may choose to call out and describe is the colors that we’re seeing on screen, especially if they’re impacting characters. So characters are making choices about what clothes they put on, how they do their makeup, and that will have an impact. And so I’m definitely not arguing that you’re going to label the colors for every single thing a character is doing or wearing, but it’s important to highlight some things.

Like in the thing I’m working on right now it’s basically a two-hander and one of the characters has sort of a uniform that he wears every day. He just doesn’t want to think about the clothes he’s wearing. And so I’m able to describe what that is that he’s wearing. And the other character I describe as being unafraid of color and pattern. And that just tells you, like, it was a signal to the costume designer you can push this guy a little bit. This guy lives in a heightened space. And so I’m not really calling out color so much as sort of like the range of choices that should be open as we’re visualizing this character.

**Craig:** It’s such a good point. And it’s why I wish that movies would function more like television shows in the sense of how a writer interacts with key department heads, like costume. Because, you know, I’m writing a scene, or I wrote it, in an episode and there’s a crowd of people. Who they are is not important. I just want people to notice one particular woman because something is going to connect through to later. She’s not going to have a name. She doesn’t have dialogue or anything like that.

So, what I’ve done is given her a particular piece of clothing with a particular color. As I’m doing it I’m well aware that this feels very Schindler’s List. There’s the little girl in red where everyone else is in black and white. And so I don’t want to be that. But what I want to be able to say to the costume designer is this is what this means. This is what I’m just trying to achieve. Now tell me how you would go about doing it. Let’s take a look at some choices. I can always go back and revise that. But this was the intention. It is a relationship that should exist in movies and weirdly in features, for whatever reason, everyone feels the need to aggressively sequester the screenwriter from everyone else. And it just, I don’t know why other than directorial insecurity. I don’t know. It’s just bizarre.

**John:** I’m thinking back to go, my first movie, and Sarah Polley’s character, Ronna, where’s this iconic sort of red leather coat. And that’s not scripted in there, but the idea that she would have a sort of signature look, that makes total sense. What is scripted in as a color is that Adam and Zack are driving a yellow Miata. And a yellow Miata is actually just a very specific joke. And I knew it would also photograph well at night and so you could see it in these dark scenes. But them driving a yellow Miata actually does pay off. It’s a recognizable car. It also tells you something about them as characters.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so that becomes important. Again, we’re always arguing for specificity, but as a writer you have to be very deliberate about what things you’re putting in and what things you’re putting out. So we’re not saying to make everything a color but to be thinking about color and thinking about whether color could be helping you tell the story, especially what’s happening in the scene.

**Craig:** 100%. And if you find yourself in a specific moment wondering what you can do to get the awesomeness of your mind’s image across think about color. Because there may be a point in your script where you may want to hammer it and help people see. I think about that moment in The Last Jedi where the one spaceship goes light-speeding through another one and splitting it apart. And it’s so white. But it’s also starlight white. And I don’t know if Rian made that clear on the page, because he’s also directing and he doesn’t have to necessarily communicate it on the page the way we might have to with a different director.

But it was a moment where you go, ah, sound stops, this incredibly bright light shines, and I can see where a signature moment could really use a full attention to color on the page. So, it’s a good choice to make when you’re looking for something special as well.

**John:** And I haven’t gone back through Scott Frank’s scripts for Queen’s Gambit, but that is a series that uses color quite aggressively to establish time period. Because different time periods have different colors that are predominate. And so calling out mustard yellow appliances, that’s not just painting the walls, that’s actually anchoring you into, oh, this is what this kind of kitchen feels like because mustard yellow is a very specific time period.

And so just be aware of that. I think if you’re doing anything period it’s worth looking at sort of what the colors were that were dominant at that time because it may be worth calling those out.

**Craig:** Time and place.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** Because there are places that have colors. The colors of 1980’s Soviet Union, well they’re colors. I mean, you know what they are. We certainly did our research and there’s certain ones that keep popping up and they’re glorious. I mean, they’re not colors we used. I guess on one level you’d go that’s objectively an ugly color, but on another level you go it’s weirdly kind of beautiful and hypnotizing. So think about that in terms of place as well because no question that color is reflected by culture in huge ways. There’s just certain cultures just have a different point of view on color than others.

**John:** So my advice for screenwriters going forward here, listening to this conversation, as you’re watching movies and TV shows be aware of color and be aware of when you think those choices of color were deliberate and sort of how early in the process those choices of color might have been made. Because I suspect you can retroactively write the scenes and decide, oh, they really called out that color quite early on.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And then as you’re going through the outside world just try to be more aware of the colors that you’re seeing. Because imagine yourself in a scene in a space. What would be the predominant color? And so if you’re hiking in the Grand Canyon you’re just going to be overwhelmed by that red color. And so that is going to influence any scene that is being shot there. If you’re in certain forests it’s just going to be overwhelmingly green unless you’re doing something to desaturate it. It’s going to be just super, super green.

So just be thinking about what the impact of color will be if you were to watch this on a screen.

**Craig:** Great advice.

**John:** Cool. All right, let’s get to our Three Page Challenge. So, this time we’re doing things a little bit differently. So let’s establish first what’s normal about the Three Page Challenge is we invite our listeners to send in the first three pages of their movie or their script and we read through them and offer our honest feedback. We’ve been doing this since very early on in the show.

But based on our conversation last week we said like you know what’s interesting about the Three Page Challenge is we’re just reading these pages in a vacuum and we don’t have any sense of what’s happening in the rest of the story, so we don’t know whether these opening scenes are actually setting up the movie that we think they are.

So what we asked our listeners to do is to send in their three pages but also give us a log line or a description of what happens in the rest of the script so we can see whether we were right and whether we set these up right. So let’s welcome on our producer, Megana Rao, to get us set up for this.

**Megana Rao:** Hey guys.

**John:** Hey. So we sent out an email to our premium subscribers on Sunday afternoon saying like, hey, we’re going to try this thing. Send in your script and send in your log line, too. And how many responses did we get?

**Megana:** And we got 190 responses. I read all of those.

**Craig:** Oh wow. Oh man.

**Megana:** By Tuesday night my brain was absolute mush. So I had to ask Bo to help me narrow it down from like the top 10 to 15.

**Craig:** Thank you, Bo. Thanks for helping, Bo. But so you read nearly 600 pages.

**Megana:** Yes. But if I found two typos like pretty early on I was like I’m not going to keep reading this.

**Craig:** Ooh. I like it.

**John:** That was a new thing I asked Megana to put in as a check because I get frustrated when we do a Three Page Challenge and you and I spend time talking about stupid typos on the page. And so going forward if Megana sees typos they go away. We’re not going to consider them anymore. Because you just don’t send in your stuff with typos. Have someone else read this first.

**Craig:** Yeah. If you want us to care about, at the very least you have to care about it.

**John:** Yeah. And also so this episode will have an element of surprise and mystery because Megana has seen the writers’ log lines for these things, the synopses, but you and I haven’t. So we’re going to speculate what we think the script is about and then she will tell us what the writer thinks the script is about.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** All right. Let’s get us started. Megana, can you talk us through Rinky Dink by Stephen Brower. And we’ll have a PDF in the show notes, but if you could give us a quick synopsis.

**Megana:** So Elias, 28, films a promo video for his aunt, Janet Witherbaum, a bronze-level figure skater in her 40s, at a skating rink in Minnesota. Janet is raising money for her trip to the National Championships of Adult Amateur Figure Skating. Elias tries to teach Janet a TikTok dance which she doesn’t get. Through talking head interviews we learn that Elias’s parents have died and that Janet taught him to skate but doesn’t allow him to skate at her gala events.

**John:** Craig Mazin, what was your first read and instinct on Rinky Dink?

**Craig:** Well, I was enjoying. The Minnesota kookiness, like wacky Minnesotans is a well-mined area, you know, from Fargo, and the Fargo show. But I’m a sucker for a good ice skating comedy and it definitely feels like a comedy. And I liked the way it started. Janet was an interesting character. I liked the say she was described and I liked the way she performed. I could see it. I could see the whole thing.

I ran into trouble on page two. So, I was cruising along. But on page two what happens is we go from this POV of an iPhone that is recording her and then there’s a wide shot of her nephew, Elias, shooting her through the iPhone. OK, cool, I get it. We went from an iPhone POV to that. And then it just says, “Elias Talking Head.” And he starts talking and I’m like where is he? I didn’t understand until quite a bit later that what’s happening is Stephen is putting Elias in one of those like Office-style testimonials somewhere else, but that needs to be spelled out really clearly. Because I was baffled for a bit about where the hell he was.

My other issue was I couldn’t quite get a read on Elias’s age. I mean, we are told that he’s 28. And we’re told that he’s kind of sweet and very easily steamrolled, which I liked. But he was interacting with her the way teenagers interact with old people. You know? Like “Come on let me show you the latest TikTok dance or let me say randos.” He didn’t seem like somebody on the edge of 30. So I was a little confused by the character there.

But I like the setup of things. It seemed like there was an interesting concept. Elias was still fun. And I thought there was a really good line when he says, “This year I worked up the courage to ask Janet if she would mind,” you know, to perform. “And she said, ‘yes,’ she would mind.” Which I liked.

This is cold open for presumably a series. It does not end with much of a punchline. I think we talked about last week how important punchlines are, whether they’re dramatic or comic. And this one just sort of ends. So that was an issue.

**John:** Craig, I literally wrote “not quite enough punchline.”

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** So, this feels like Modern Family. This feels like Modern Family, sort of Best in Show kind of space in that – whether or not there’s a documentary conceit like the way there is in The Office, or it’s just like for whatever reason they can talk directly to camera in these confessionals, it has that feel. And I mean that in a really good way. Like if I were to read this whole script and the whole script was to this level I’d be like, oh, this is a person who can write a Modern Family kind of show and shows real finesse with it and the ability to tell a joke and sort of get things going.

I have the same concerns you do about Elias though because I had forgotten that he was 28 so I just kept aging him down and down as I flipped through the pages.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Weirdly I know a lot about his parents dying and stuff like that. I know a lot of backstory, but I don’t get the great sense of who he is individually and specifically. And I’m asking a lot for the first three pages, and so I don’t want to sort of push it too far, but I don’t have a great sense of who he was at the end of these three pages in the way that in a Modern Family or in The Office I felt like I would have in the first three minutes. And so that’s a thing which I think can be worked on.

But let’s talk about some of the things that work really well here.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Page one, “Right now and always she means business.” Great. That scene description on the page it’s working really nicely for me here. Elias says, “Sorry, are you sure though? That’s what it’s called.” “No, I know.” “National Championships for Adult Amateur Skaters.” The just repeating it again to get the extra underline on the joke works really well and has a good sense of it.

On page two, here’s an opportunity to just trim a line but also I think works better as a parenthetical. So, Elias has his talking head. And so the “’whole social media thing, so’… He crosses his fingers. “’Her idea.’” I wouldn’t have broken out to the action line for that. I would have just kept in parentheticals crossing his fingers. It saves you a line and also keeps that thought together because it really should be one thought.

**Craig:** Right. I totally agree with that. I thought that one thing Stephen did pull through these three pages in terms of Elias is that he has got one of those indomitably happy spirits. So even when someone is kind of being insulting to him, or mean, he just keeps on smiling. You know, he’s like okie-dokie. So, he has a little bit of that weeble-wobble, you can tip him over but you can’t knock him down. And so I liked that. I liked him.

And so that’s why I kind of have a suspicion about where this is going, but you know, look, I’m not in possession of a log line.

**John:** What you’re saying about indomitably happy, like if he’d called that out on page one or page two, sort of like shortly after meeting him, that’s a fair thing to note because that colors what we’re seeing of the rest of his lines.

**Craig:** Right. It could contextualize that stuff for people a little bit better. I agree. But I thought that what was working here was that Janet feels like an interesting potential villain and Elias feels like an interesting potential hero. I like that the hero doesn’t quite get that the villain is the villain. And I think mostly other than the kind of simple clerical business like letting me know that we’re dealing with kind of Office testimonial, including where are they when they do it, you just need to kind of give us a good ending there. Because it just sort of petered out.

**John:** So this is the part of this special episode where we speculate about what the rest of this pilot is. And so I’m guessing that while they are central characters to this that there’s actually a pretty – there’s a bigger ensemble at work here. Because it feels like that kind of show. And so we’re going to see more of that family. Meemaw may still be alive there. And I think since Elias is our point of view character it’s going to be sort of centered around him. And so he will be sort of the straight man in – the “straight man” – amid all these sort of crazy, kooky people around him.

And so this first episode will go up through her event to raise money for her going off to this championship. And that things will go awry in trying to do that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Certainly we’ll have lots more characters. I can’t shake the feeling that this is going to turn into Elias versus Janet. And Elias is going to get a chance to skate in the Adult Amateur Figure National Championships. And either Janet is going to become his coach, or Janet will – so Janet has to leave the dream behind and help her nephew achieve his dream. Or, that they actually aggressively compete against each other, which would be fascinating.

But it does seem like ultimately this is going to turn into Elias hopefully in some final showdown a la Strictly Ballroom or something.

**John:** Megana Rao, can you come back and tell us what does Stephen Brower say happens in the rest of this script.

**Megana:** All right, so this is the log line we got from Stephen for Rinky Dink. “A charmingly delusional 40-something figure skater must prove her work among apathetic has-beens, cutthroat mothers, and snotty little children.”

**Craig:** Oh, so Elias is just sort of along for the ride.

**John:** Yeah, so she’s the central character.

**Craig:** That’s interesting.

**John:** That can work, also.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** I mean, we’ve definitely built shows around sort of a delusional central figure before.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that makes total sense, right? So it’s maybe more of an ongoing thing. But, you know, this is the fun part. You kind of guess from these three pages. It’s no surprise that you might think that, OK, the thing that the three pages sort of highlights is what you would imagine everything to be about. But that’s interesting. I hope that Elias does get a chance to perform in that show. Because he’s sweet and he deserves it.

**John:** Nice. All right. Let’s look at Twilight Run by Andrew McDonald and Nick Sanford. Megana, start us off.

**Megana:** Twyla, 30s, wakes up in a 1980s Camaro next to a character titled Dipshit. Dipshit tells her she needs to take the edge off and offers Twyla a pack of cigarettes that she throws out the window. We cut to Twyla, Dipshit, some henchmen, and a French scientist in the pasture outside of the car. The French scientist claims that he has a world-changing technology and will only deal directly with Twist Jackson.

Twyla tells him he’s out of luck. Suddenly, a cowboy figure rides in on horseback. This is Twist Jackson. He exchanges briefcases with the French scientist who tries to warn Twist of the Twilight Run. Twist shrugs off the warning and later opens the box to reveal a swirling green gas.

**Craig:** You know. The usual.

**John:** The things that happen. This is a heightened world. And so one of the reasons why this made the finalist list is because we could talk about tone. We can sort of talk about what universe you’re setting up. And this is a clearly heightened universe. And I think the things that worked in this were about setting up what kind of heightened universe it is.

I don’t sort of really know what the rules of this universe are, but things are a little bit goofy in sort of a Buckaroo Banzai or a Rick and Morty kind of sense. And it’s good to see that by the end of page three. I got a sense that there’s some logic behind this even though I don’t quite understand what’s happening here.

My biggest issue was Twyla who is identified as our hero. I know nothing about her by the end of this. I really have no great insight into sort of who she is and why she’s special, or what her deal is. And instead Twist Jackson is the person who is sort of occupying things. So, by the end of these three pages I wanted a better sense of what makes Twyla interesting other than sort of being kind of grouchy and spacing out. I didn’t get a great sense of that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** What were you seeing Craig?

**Craig:** Definitely Buckaroo Banzai. I mean, this just seems like an ode or an homage to Buckaroo Banzai. We could be totally wrong but that’s surely what it feels like at least through these three pages.

Couple of things. Tonally, there is a little bit of a mismatch because the first page feels tonally rather grounded actually. It’s just a couple of people in a car. They’re talking to each other. I was a little bit confused about, again, where we were. When I see somebody in a car in my mind they are – she’s behind the wheel. And then she looks over at – is she looking over to the right, to the passenger seat? Or is she looking out the window to a car next to her?

**John:** And I would say that the first two-thirds, “a woman’s face through a rearview mirror,” like I just didn’t really quite know what was happening there. And so even the second reading through I didn’t quite know what I was seeing, or why I was seeing it.

**Craig:** Correct. And I think that this underscores a larger issue that I want to talk to Andrew and Nick about. But the one thing I do know for sure is that the French scientist’s dialogue, “This discovery will change the world. I could have sold it to nations the world over. I made a deal with Twist Jackson. I want to deal with Twist Jackson,” even if the tone is heightened that’s just annoying. You have to kind of establish that a character lives in a world of bad dialogue to have him successfully deliver the bad dialogue. But we just met him. It’s literally the second – the first thing he says is, “Where is he?” which is, I don’t know anything, and then the second thing he says is this incredibly arch, villainy plot exposition thing.

So, again, you can get away with it if you know that that’s the world that guy lives in, but until you do harder to get away with.

Here’s the bigger issue, the biggest issue, and it ties directly to into what John is saying about how we don’t know anything about Twyla. There is no sense of perspective in these three pages. None. The perspective is I think a camera.

**John:** I felt like I was in a wide shot for the whole time.

**Craig:** Yes. Exactly. Because nothing is centered on somebody observing. Everything just happens and we’re observing, which is kind of no good. Especially when we’ve established a hero. The reason that we’re so confused about what the hell is going on is because you guys have this visual reveal that you just sort of toss out there. Like they’re in a flat open pasture. Well that is not where we expect a 1981 Z28 Camaro to be, somewhere in the middle of nowhere. So make a reveal out of it. Acknowledge that we’re not quite sure where we are, whatever it is.

And then this conversation, give me a sense that Twyla is having reactions. When Twist Jackson does show up, essentially completely contradicting what Twyla said, what does she think? We know what the French scientist thinks, but what does she think? When he shows up and grabs this thing what is she doing? She’s gone. She literally is gone. But somebody’s perspective has to be the perspective.

And it’s one scene. And in one scene, or one connected scene basically once we reveal where we are, one character has the perspective. One. So who?

I don’t mean POV. I just mean who are we kind of anchoring to?

**John:** Yeah. Like who is our entry point character? We’re sort of standing in their shoes as the scene is happening. And we don’t have that here yet.

**Craig:** We don’t.

**John:** Let’s talk a little bit about the words on the page. “Asleep, her head resting on a plain white pillow.” Well, there’s a color, just white. White pillow. Dipshit has prelap. It’s not really a prelap because it’s not like he’s going into really future stuff.

**Craig:** I circled that also. I was like it’s not prelap.

**John:** Yeah, so that’s just off-screen, or voice over. You can do either one of them. Both of them are acceptable here. But that’s not really prelap.

But that whole first sequence I just didn’t get the point of it. I really had a hard time understanding what that was. So, if you need that, if this really becomes important for your story that you need that, great, but I feel like just that precious time and you need – we talk about sort of the first line of dialogue in a movie, the first image in a movie is so crucial, so precious. Just to be wasting it on something that we can’t understand or really see, it’s not good. So I think starting someplace else will help you.

**Craig:** Yeah. I also want lines to be motivated. We’re going to see this issue come up in our next three pages as well. So in the very beginning, “TWYLA, our hero. 30s, short hair, black bomber jacket. Don’t fuck with her, she won’t fuck with you. Lounging behind the wheel, she looks over at: SOME DIPSHIT…” This is what you’ve described. I’m looking at a woman. She is sitting there. And then she turns for no reason to a guy who then says something. Like he was waiting for her to look at him for him to say what he’s saying which makes no sense. Especially when he’s saying “you keep zoning out.” Why would he say that after she’s turning to look at him?

That’s not what zoning out means. If she’s zoned out and then she hears, “(OS) You keep zoning out,” and then she turns and looks. So you see what I’m saying? And again that helps drive perspective so we understand we’re with her. That’s kind of important.

**John:** Lastly, these three pages had more colons in it than I’ve sort of ever seen in a script. Basically Andrew and Nick have made a choice that colons are going to be there dashes. And it’s fine. I’m not complaining. It’s a way of doing things. And so in places where you or I might use dashes or some other piece of punctuation they’re using colons. It’s fine.

**Craig:** Works.

**John:** Go for it. There’s a whole range of styles of work and at least it’s consistent. There were no other real problems on these pages in terms of like formatting screenwriting stuff, so go for it. If that’s your style knock yourself out.

**Craig:** Exactly. So, you know, perspective guys. Big one.

**John:** All right. So Craig we’ve got to speculate. What happens in this script?

**Craig:** Oh boy. Well you’ve got this really weird thing going on in the very first shot that’s like some sort of dreamy thing. I think it’s Buckaroo Banzai and I think that Twist Jackson is maybe an idiot and I think maybe Twyla is going to have to save the world from Twist Jackson’s arrogance as he seeks to do something with the swirling green stuff that leads to the Twilight Run.

**John:** Yeah. I think the box with the swirling green gas is a MacGuffin and there are going to be a bunch of people after it. And what this deal was and sort of the bigger stakes of it all are going to be important. And that she will be forced to make a choice about which side she’s on. That’s my guess.

**Craig:** Now let’s find out how we did.

**John:** Megana, what’s the truth?

**Megana:** Wait, can I prolong the reveal and ask you guys a question?

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** Yes.

**Megana:** What do you think of the character description that’s “some dipshit who will get blown up by page nine?”

**Craig:** Great question. I personally have no problem with it. I think it’s a tone signifier.

**John:** Yup.

**Craig:** So it’s the first indication that we might be dealing with a bit of a wacky heightened reality. I’m totally cool with that. That page unfortunately didn’t have anything that the movie viewer or TV viewer would detect that would indicate a heightened tone. It only had kind of a very mundane situation between two people. So it’s a little bit of a cheat. If the visuals matched that attitude I’d be totally cool.

**John:** Yeah. I agree. I mean, I should mention that I was never clear who the goons were working for. Sometimes it seemed like Twyla’s goons and sometimes it seemed like the French guy’s goons. So just be aware of that, too.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think there’s two sets of goons.

**John:** Too many goons.

**Megana:** So here is their log line. Five years after a deep undercover operation ended in failure a former ATF agent teams up with a smart but socially awkward tech specialist to infiltrate a deadly cult and stop an arms deal that if successful could alter the very fabric of reality itself.

**Craig:** That’s plot. We don’t quite get what the character stuff is there. It’s so funny, we only think about stuff with character. But again log lines are very plotty, aren’t they?

**John:** They are very plotty. Yeah, I guess I could buy her as a former ATF agent who then discovers this sort of heightened universe world. But I feel like Twist Jackson exists as a semi supernatural character, just sort of appears out of nowhere and rides a horse. So, yeah, it’s not quite what I would guess. But teaming up to stop a thing, sure, you’re setting that up right here on page three.

**Craig:** There’s no sense of tone in that log line which I think actually might be a mistake. I think it’s good to kind of indicate – the way that he’ll get blown up in nine pages. Indicate a little bit of a sense of that heightened-ness because otherwise people are going to read this and go like “What is this?”

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Embrace the Buckaroo.

**John:** That could be Mission: Impossible.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** That could be a whole bunch of different set ups.

**Craig:** It could be a billion things. And it seems like what these guys are going for is Buckaroo Banzai. I mean, the dude is named Twist Jackson for god’s sakes.

**John:** Cool. All right, it’s time for our third and final Three Page Challenge.

**Craig:** By the way, we’re doing poorly. I just want to point out. O for 2.

**Megana:** Great. So South Carthay by Alex Rennie. In the middle of the desert 11-year-old Andy watches the 1988 film Hellraiser 2 with his brother Parker, 13, and their pit bull, Jules. Parker is blind and relies on Andy to narrate the movie to him. Their mother, Maggie, 35, speaks to her agent Karen on the phone in her home office. Karen tries to set up a meeting for Maggie’s new book in Santa Monica but between doctor’s appointments for her sons Maggie doesn’t have any availability. Karen urges Maggie to move from the desert to Los Angeles.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Craig, do you want to start us off.

**Craig:** This, I’m going to talk about a couple things. My first question and I still don’t have an answer for it is what year is this.

**John:** I don’t know.

**Craig:** Because they’re watching a movie from 1988, but I’m not sure if they’re just watching it as an old movie or if this is 1988. And it will become relevant in a little bit.

But there are two instances of a problem in here that I alluded to in the prior pages and that is – I don’t know what else to call it – the movie waiting. It’s like reality waits for something to happen. So here’s what happens at the very, very beginning. We get a description of a two-story house in the center of a barren desert. It’s very, very hot.

“The scene is suddenly interrupted by a demonic voice. Hellraiser, prelap,” once again not prelap, “you solved the puzzle box. You summoned us, we came.” And my question is how does that suddenly happen? The movie is on, right? Like it’s not like somebody suddenly starts up a remote for the movie.

What you can do, Alex, if you want to just not have rando dialogue and then that line have music that we go like what is this weird music. That’s weird music for this. And then the line would go, oh, that was score from a movie. But the point is the movie can’t wait. It can’t just suddenly come in.

Because we then go to a television screen and we realize that these two kids, Parker and Andy, have been watching it. Have been watching. Not just started, right?

I liked the reveal that Parker is blind. I thought that was really well done. Because first I was a little bit like I don’t understand why he’s asking these questions that he’s asking. And then I was like, oh, that’s why. And I love that feeling, right. There’s a joy as a moviegoer or television watcher to think that you got the writer and then you realize they got you. So I like that.

The problem of the world waiting for something to happen occurs again. These guys are watching TV and at the same time I assume their mom is on the phone with her agent. And that scene begins with the agent on the phone saying, “Mags, I sent them your book yesterday.” What were they talking about before? So the phone rings, I answer it, and then I just wait, wait, wait, oh the camera is here. “Mags, I sent them your book yesterday.” That is not how that works.

So you need to pick them up in mid-conversation, or have the phone ring and have her answer. Either way you can’t just suddenly have this line start in. Especially because it’s good news and it just makes no sense to have her waiting.

There’s a story problem here that you’re describing, or a character problem rather, that Maggie is being – she’s a book author and she’s being told she needs to have a meeting in Santa Monica at noon tomorrow and her problem is that Andy has a doctor’s appointment, so maybe they can do Sunday. This sort of like, ah-ha, single mom raising kids trouble. But the issue is this feels old because we’ve just spent a year not having to go to Santa Monica. Like you can Zoom. So that’s why I want to know what year is this.

**John:** Craig, I was also concerned about what year it was based on page two, “Maggie sits in front of a desktop word processor, a house phone pressed to her ear.” And I’m like, wait, what universe is this? First off, what is a desktop word processor?

**Craig:** I don’t know.

**John:** A desktop PC I guess? Her desktop word processor, are they talking about that post-typewriter but before it was a real computer thing?

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And it’s a landline because that’s just what it is? Because that’s conceivable but that’s a very specific time period. And I don’t think that was really what Alex was going for here. So, again, one word choice of saying word processor rather than computer threw me and made me question what year this was happening in.

**Craig:** Or maybe it is happening in 1988 or 1989 and Alex just wants us to suss it out. And I guess what I would say is you need to give us a clearer indication than that. There just needs to be a clear sense, especially because they’re watching a scene from the 1988 horror feature. So they’re watching it on television. It’s either on video tape. The point is they’re not going to see it in theaters, so it’s not 1988. So when is it?

OK, so you’ve got to figure that out. And then finally I would say that the last bit here where Maggie is arguing with Karen about where she lives feels a little soft.

**John:** I didn’t buy it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I just don’t buy it. It just didn’t make any sense. Like it doesn’t matter that she got Road R as opposed to R Road. And she wouldn’t know that that’s where the airplane graveyard is. It doesn’t seem – and also this entire discussion feels very elementary. This is a real problem, but the way they’re discussing it and the way that Karen is responding just feels very elementary. Karen does not feel like a human. She feels like a plot machine.

**John:** So here’s where I liked about the characters, and the setup, and the world. And so I’m going to – and I guess this ties into where I think the story is actually going. I liked the brothers and one brother is blind. I liked the mom, the setup. I like them being out in the desert. I thought there was a promising space for a movie there. And I don’t think they’re actually going to stay out in the desert. I think they’re going to move to South Carthay, which is Los Angeles.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Just my guess about why it’s titled that. So I like that in the setup. And so I dug these pages even though I thought a fair number of things weren’t working.

One thing I want to point out is just right at the top, “EXT. DESERT – DAY 1 A two-story house sits in the center of a barren desert landscape, dotted with patches of scrub brush.” You’re not giving me enough there. First off, there’s not just a desert. What desert? A California desert? Where are we? Anchor us. Because if you say desert I guess I’m thinking of the Sahara until you give me more stuff. So anchor us a little bit more.

And tell us what it feels like. You don’t have to describe every little thing, but is it just barely above a trailer park? Is it a two-story trailer home? Did it have that kind of feel to it? But I just don’t get a sense from this of what kind of space we’re living in.

When we get into her office we do get some more details about what her office is like and I liked that. I got a sense of character making choices that influenced the environment that they were in.

Craig had already pointed out the Hellraiser problems or the voice over that’s happening that becomes the Hellraiser dialogue. My way of handling this in general would be scratch that line “The scene is suddenly interrupted by a demonic voice.” You just hear character name Demonic Voice, “You solved the puzzle box. You summoned us. We came.” New action line. “A man’s voice screams in terror. Cut to…” And then you’re in. And that’s great. So we’re wondering what are we hearing rather than spoiling it by saying Hellraiser right at the start.

**Craig:** Right. I think that’s a great idea.

And I want to point out that Alex does do a really good job of creating perspective because in this first scene it’s not there’s an indication in the action that we’re meant to identify with Parker and understand the scene from his perspective, but we do. It’s just written in that way. We understand we’re with him and his inquisitiveness and his confusion. And that’s good. I mean, there’s good stuff there. But I’m nervous about some of the elementary nature of the drama that’s being created.

**John:** A few other small things to look at. In American screenplays parentheticals get their own line underneath the character’s name. So on page one, that “unsure” right now is tucked into that dialogue line. We don’t do that in American screenplays. On page two, two action lines. “Andy thinks, picking at a set of stitches above his right eye.” That’s great. That can work. Later on, “Andy’s sandwich collapses as he struggles to keep it together.” Those are two completely separate actions that are just too close together. I feel like you’re just throwing too much business at this one character. And it’s distracting from the scene. So either he’s working on the stitches or he’s trying to eat this sandwich like he was falling apart.

Pick one. There’s just too much there.

**Craig:** Absolutely. And if you imagined him picking at the stitches with the hand that was holding the sandwich because they’re itching and then it collapses, that’s fine. But you’ve got to let us know. But absolutely. You don’t want to have him pick-pick, and then line, and then a line, and then he’s doing an entirely other thing that implies some sort of sandwich disaster occurred. So it’s just like time management issues here in terms of continuity of reality.

Guesses, I guess it’s time to guess, huh?

**John:** It’s time to guess. So I was speculating that this family is going to move to the Carthay Circle part of Los Angeles which is close to where I live and that it’s going to be about them adjusting to their new life there. But I don’t have any sense of what the actual plot is of this story. These three characters are centered to it all, and perhaps there’s maybe stretching, reaching that it could be kind of a Lost Boys situation where it’s like the boys have their own adventure and the mother is sort of a secondary character. That’s my best guess at this point.

**Craig:** Yeah. It does feel like, and I don’t like this necessarily, but it does feel like mom is being setup to just be mom from E.T., like problem to be avoided.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And who is having a generic single mom problem like divorce, or balancing job and children, without more flavor to it. It does feel like this is going to be about Parker and Andy and some kind of horror thing, I hope. Because that would be fun. And, yes, moving to LA. But, you know, I have no clue from this which is not, I mean, again, 0 for 2. So let’s see how we did.

**Megana:** OK, so Alex wrote in, “When the MacLaine family inherits their dream home they quickly discover that their new neighborhood hides a sinister secret and must work together to find the truth.”

**Craig:** There we go. Well I like working together.

**John:** I like working together. I think we were closer than I would have guessed.

**Craig:** Oh definitely.

**John:** Yeah. It also has like a Fright Night quality where you move to a new house in this neighborhood. I like that.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, Lost Boys, right? You literally, I mean, that’s exactly what happened. They moved to a house. It harbors a big secret. But I’m really happy to hear that it’s all of them together so that mom isn’t just mom, but mom. Good.

**John:** Yay. Well that was fun. So, as always, we want to thank everyone who submitted their pages, especially Alex, Andrew, Nick, and Stephen for sending in your stuff. Thank you to Megana and to Bo for reading through all of these. You’re remarkable.

**Craig:** Thank you so much guys.

**John:** And again this is not a competition. This is just an exhibition where we all get to take a look at some writing and figure out what’s working well and what could be working better.

If you want to send in your own pages you go to johnaugust.com/threepage. And there’s a form you fill out, including a new field for where you can put in your log line for your script. This is not a log line competition. We don’t really care about log lines. We are just curious what the thing is about. And so just for the reasons we used on the podcast today.

So, Megana, thank you very much for all your hard work and all your reading in making this happen.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana. Great job.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**John:** All right. It’s time for One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is an article by Emily VanDerWerff from this past week that was looking at the way professional critics and fans get drawn into what she calls The Loop of defending positions on a movie or TV show or piece of culture. So talking about the show Girls she writes, “I had tied my own personal opinion of the show to myself and from there it was far too easy to grow more and more defensive with every criticism the series endured because it was like the criticism was criticism of me.” And it just felt so true to a phenomenon I’ve experienced more and more and more over the last decade where I love a thing, someone hates that thing, that person is attacking me. And this weird way that we sort of claim ownership over things and form our identities based on what we like.

And just a really great article detailing her perspective as someone who gets paid doing this as a living and still gets stuck into that loop.

**Craig:** Yeah. You know, I’ve gone off on critics a billion times on the show. I’m not going to bore everybody by doing it again. But I will say that I do personally like Emily. I did a nice interview with her for Chernobyl. It was one of the early interviews I did and I thought this was – I read this, too. And I thought it was very thoughtful. And I just wanted to say you think you grow defensive with criticism of a show you watch, imagine criticism of a show you’ve written.

And what it kind of comes down to is what I’ve always said. I do think that these feelings we have about movies or television shows are a function of the relationship we have with them. And that means it’s not just about the show or the movie. It’s about us, and the show and the movie. Some intersection of who we are and where we are and that. And therefore it makes no sense – it literally makes no sense to explain to people why it is good or bad for them.

You can talk about why it was good for you. And you could talk about why it was bad for you. I wish that critics would just be more subjective. Like literally just say here’s how this made me feel. I don’t know if you’re going to feel the same way. But this is my thing. Instead of just declaring that movies are good, bad, stupid, etc.

But I enjoyed – the introspection here I thought was very valuable.

**John:** And a thing I think has changed over the course of our lifetime in terms of criticism is that it’s one thing to be a critic looking at a movie because that movie is finished. And so while people will come to that movie with new perspectives over time that movie is done. But what Emily was doing with Girls and a lot of other TV series is you’re critiquing something that is still ongoing where it hasn’t been finished yet and your criticism will actually change the thing. And that just becomes an impossible feedback loop as well.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Just everyone to be mindful of the fact that the creative process is influenced by the criticism of it in not always healthy ways. And that if you are criticizing a piece of art to differentiate criticizing that piece of art from the person who made it. Because they really are not the same thing.

**Craig:** Yeah. And just the way that things are completely redeemed or vilified over time. I mean, blech.

I have a much easier One Cool Thing than that.

**John:** All right. Pitch it.

**Craig:** Cake.

**John:** I like cake.

**Craig:** Everyone likes cake. So, we over at the Mazin house have been engaging in a kind of homemade food exchange with another family in our town as we’ve been navigating the pandemic. So occasionally they would make something and bring it over and leave it on our doorstep and then we would make something and bring it over and leave it on their doorstep.

And so we owed them one and I asked what they wanted and they have three girls. And all three girls said chocolate cake. That was what they wanted. Which seems like, oh, OK, well chocolate cake. Who can’t do that? There’s a billion chocolate cake recipes.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** And I’m kind of a recipe nerd. I love the science of it. And so I went through and read all sorts of them and I landed on one, just faith, and it’s a recipe by a woman named Robin Stone. And it’s called The Best Chocolate Cake Recipe Ever. It might be. It’s really, really good. It’s really, really good.

And you might be saying well what’s the big secret in it? I don’t think there is a big secret other than she does have you adding a cup of boiling water into the batter at the very end before you put it into the oven. It makes it much–

**John:** I’ve seen that in other recipes recently.

**Craig:** It’s really interesting.

**John:** It’s a chocolate thing.

**Craig:** Exactly. But overall whatever the balance of ingredients were it just came out beautifully. Same with the frosting. She also has a recipe for chocolate butter cream frosting that goes with it and it came out also beautifully. So if you’re looking to make a chocolate cake.

**John:** I’m looking to make a chocolate cake. Craig, my question for you is this gives a choice between milk, buttermilk, almond milk, coconut milk. What did you use?

**Craig:** In that circumstance – and one of the things that made me a little nervous is that Robin is like whatever. And I’m like, all right, I’m a little more finicky than that. I went with straight up whole milk.

**John:** Whole milk. So super rich.

**Craig:** Well, it’s one cup of it. It’s not exactly half and half or anything. But, yeah, just one cup of regular old whole milk as opposed to any of the other stuff. But if you were lactose intolerant does that still work after you bake something?

**John:** Yeah, it does.

**Craig:** Then you might want to try the almond or the coconut milk. There’s not that much in it so I can’t imagine it would make a massive difference.

**John:** You’ve got a cup of boiling hot water in it to dilute it anyway.

**Craig:** There you go.

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

**Craig:** Damn straight.

**John:** Edited by Matthew Chilelli.

**Craig:** Always.

**John:** Our outro this week is by Ella Grace. 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. But for shorter questions on Twitter I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com which is also where you’ll find the PDFs of for our Three Page Challenges. You’ll find transcripts there and be able to sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and the bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on the Olympics. Craig and Megana, thank you both very, very much.

**Megana:** Thank you.

**Craig:** Thank you guys. Thank you. And I just want to say a quick hello to listener Miranda, because I know she’s a big fan.

**John:** Oh, nice.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Well great. And that outro felt very Winter Olympics to me. I could imagine that being under a Winter Olympics Montage. Which is a good segue to a question from a listener, Adam in Los Angeles, who writes, “If you were an Olympic level athlete what sport/event would you like to compete in?” And so we’ll look at winter and summer. Craig, of the Summer Olympic events if you could be a medal-worthy athlete is there one sport that you’d go for?

**Craig:** Well, I suppose that one way to think about this is a little bit like how fun it is to fly in a dream. Because you’re never going to fly. So one possibility is pick a thing that you would never be able to do. Like in theory I could wrestle some people. I wouldn’t be any good at it, but I could wrestle for a bit at my weight class or something. I could throw a pole.

But the thing that I cannot do, ever, in any circumstance and have never been able to do, even as a child, is run for a long distance. I was not built to run for a long distance. So I would want to be a marathon runner. I just think that would be like flying. That would be so cool.

**John:** So I can run for a long distance. I ran a half marathon. And I assumed I could never run, but now I can run. But I don’t think I would actually want to be a long distance runner for Olympic stuff. I think I would actually prefer to be like a sprinter because that to me feels like you’re The Flash where you’re just so incredibly powerful out of the gate.

But what you were saying about flying made me think like, oh, maybe I should pick pole vaulting because that’s a thing in real life I would never, ever do, but it just seems so cool.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like I don’t even understand how that happened. Why did – who figured that out? Why?

**John:** Yeah, we can pole vault. My guess is there’s a season of The Amazing Race where they were doing these – they were in these canal kind of places, flooded field canals, and you actually do use poles to get from one side to the other. So maybe that was sort of how pole vaulting became a thing. I don’t know. We could have looked it up by the time I–

**Craig:** Could have, but you know what? Nah. I’m tired of learning. I don’t want to learn anything else. I’m done. I’m done.

**John:** But I should clearly choose gymnast, because male gymnasts have the amazing skills, versatile skills. You feel like a real life Rogue. And great bodies.

**Craig:** Yeah, I was waiting. It’s about the body. The male gymnast body is stupid. It’s a stupid body. Yeah, like how? Oh my god. Could you imagine?

**John:** Now the Winter Olympics. Craig, what winter sports would you want to do?

**Craig:** Ooh, I do like the Winter Olympics. They’re fun. I mean, look, like the weirdo one like the biathlete where you ski and then shoot. That’s a silly one.

**John:** That was my top choice. Biathlete.

**Craig:** It’s a pretty silly one so I kind of like sneakily want that. But I think, so the guys who do the skeleton in the luge, and the women, are moving at insane speeds. And it’s terrifying. I think maybe if I could be one of those people. Just the idea of just firing down a shoot like a bullet for like a minute just seems like it would be pretty awesome.

**John:** I said that I was so excited to be a pole vaulter, but I don’t think I would be a ski jumper because that just–

**Craig:** Ooh, god.

**John:** No. That’s just too much terror for me. I’ve bungee jumped. Great. I’m not going to ski jump. That’s, no. That’s not good at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. The ski jump is kind of like you go down the ramp and you catch, just perfect, boom you launch off perfectly and you’re like I’m doing it. I’m going to go further than anybody. And then when you start to go down you’re like, oh, shit.

**John:** Well, Craig, you and I both grew up with ABC’s Wide World of Sports. Of course the agony of defeat. This big intro and then it goes “the agony of defeat” and they show this guy going off the edge of the ski jump and just falling. I still feel pain just thinking about that shot.

**Craig:** Why would anyone be an athlete after that? You’re just watching a human being tumbling down a mountain, breaking I assume everything. And, yeah.

**John:** In reference to our Three Page Challenges, I think figure skating is just remarkably great, and to be able to do that stuff. But I would just get such performance anxiety to actually have to masterfully do all these things, and be artistic, and hit all those jumps. That feels like too much.

**Craig:** Yeah. The artistic part – figure skating, I don’t love it. I’ve got to be honest with you. I don’t love it. Not on the level of ventriloquism which is a ridiculous waste of everyone’s time. Actually, it’s the fact that figure skating is a remarkably demanding athletic pursuit, but they also have to wear these outfits.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, they don’t have to. I think they want to in a sense. But it just gets sillier and sillier. It’s like Vegas kind of. It just becomes so odd. You know what I mean?

**John:** As a young gay child I just loved my figure skating.

**Craig:** I get it. I get it. I do. And maybe it’s also like the performance aspect of it is so outrageously fake. Do you know what I mean? The smiles and the…

But I can also see where, you know – look, my wife loves figure skating. I mean, loves. So I watch it when it’s on. All right.

**John:** I never looked at the contents of my mom’s DVR after she died, but I guarantee you there were at least 16 hours’ worth recorded of figure skating on that. Just to watch at any point, which is great.

**Craig:** I love it. Who was your favorite?

**John:** Growing up it was Torvill and Dean. They were an ice dancing pair.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** They were remarkable. They were the Emma Thompson and Kenneth Branagh of their time, but on ice. And they were just remarkably talented. But then like through the Brian Boitanos, through the Kristi Yamaguchis. Katarina Witt, who I saw at a post office here in Los Angeles. Just remarkable talents.

**Craig:** Torvill and Dean, were they married?

**John:** They were married but I think they ultimately split up, yeah, which was controversial and terrible.

**Craig:** Oh, it was controversial?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** Yeah. If I remember correctly. Chris Schleicher who is a writer who I only know through Twitter, but was a competitive figure skater before he became a writer. And I always find that so fascinating as a second act, you know, get out of figure skating and then become a writer.

**Craig:** Yeah. Interesting.

**John:** So, Craig, should we go to the Olympics in China? So that’s the 2022 Winter Olympics are going to be in China. And China has not done some good things.

**Craig:** You’re asking should you and I personally go?

**John:** [laughs] Oh yes.

**Craig:** Or should America go?

**John:** Should America send a delegation to the Olympics in 2022?

**Craig:** I got to tell you, and this is one of those hot button things. It’s practically designed for people to argue. But I remember as a kid feeling like boycotting the Moscow Olympics wasn’t great. The point of the Olympics was let’s get closer together.

I don’t think the Olympics, going to the Olympics, is any kind of tacit approval of what a government is doing. The United States went to the Olympics in Germany when Hitler was in power and Jesse Owens got to beat everyone in front of him, which is awesome. There’s a little chance to stick it to people at the Olympics also. And the way we kind of did to the Soviets in 1980 in Lake Placid.

But it kind of bummed me out. And then of course the Russians boycotted after. I feel like once you start it’s hard to stop. Because everybody has a reason to boycott everybody. There’s no reason that – if there’s ever an Olympics in Mumbai for instance, well, should the Pakistanis just immediately boycott? Do you know what I mean? You know, over Kashmir.

Everybody has got a problem. So, let’s preserve this one place where we just come together and we do it outside of the bubble of the bad things that we are or are not doing. And hopefully it brings us together and maybe solves a problem. I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. I wonder if we hadn’t had the situation where we boycotted one Olympics and they boycotted us, I wonder when we decided that Olympic athletes a chip that we would use in international trade. Because we’re not talking about like, OK, we’re going to boycott Chinese products or we’re not going to do business with China at all, because clearly we’re doing a ton of business with China.

So, it does feel weird on that level. And yet at the same time you’re dealing with a government that is doing some really bad things. So, I’m sympathetic to both sides and I’m happy to be the one who doesn’t have to make the decision.

**Craig:** Right. Turns out weirdly that they have asked me to make this decision.

**John:** Craig, as your profile grows then so does your responsibility.

**Craig:** Yeah. I don’t know how this ended up in my lap, so I’ve got to really think about this. [laughs] I’ve got to be honest with you. I’m in a whole boatload of trouble over here.

**John:** Yeah. Craig, thanks for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Links:

* [WGA Strike](https://variety.com/2021/tv/news/the-chase-strike-writers-wga-itv-1234936943/) against ABC’s The Chase.
* For current university students and professors: Learn more about the [Highland 2 Student License](https://quoteunquoteapps.com/highland-2/students.php)
* [The Secret Lives of Color](https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Lives-Color-Kassia-Clair/dp/0143131141) by Kassia St Clair
* [Rinky Dink](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F03%2FRinky-Dink-Three-Page-Challenge.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=428197df8aa5744b9773ac3f65f597c5f8419e2fd6e60923f799f6b7e82795bf) by Stephen Brower
* [The Twilight Run](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F03%2FThe-Twilight-Run-Three-Page-Challenge.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=f3e0780b9271811e28acf59ac67b2286357b3148ddf029bb4e12671a3fa558d9) by Andrew McDonald and Nick Sanford
* [South Carthay](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F03%2FSouth-Carthay-Pilot-3_21_21.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=ba275113a62a9a36a5dbf43a1c70442a3d5dd4ac8d303ec137268bbe73da2528) by Alex Rennie
* [The Loop by Emily VanDerWerff](https://emilyvdw.substack.com/p/the-loop)
* [The Best Chocolate Cake Recipe Ever](https://addapinch.com/the-best-chocolate-cake-recipe-ever/) by Robin Stone
* [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/)
* [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 Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))
* Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/494standard.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 (130)
  • 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

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.