Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/unions-and-guilds).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 485 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we make good on our promise to explain Hollywood’s guilds and unions. Then we’ll tackle the problem of good and evil, law and chaos, as it relates to character alignment and whether it’s helpful for writers to be thinking along these axes. And in our bonus segment for Premium members we will talk about the screenwriting guru/QAnon connection which is as obvious and obnoxious as you’d think.

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, I can’t wait. Can’t wait.

**John:** Yeah. But before we get into any of this, Craig, I know you are a person who loves puzzles.

**Craig:** I do.

**John:** I suspect you also love mysteries.

**Craig:** I love mysteries.

**John:** I could see you in another life becoming a detective.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** So, I have a mystery for you to help me solve. And there is an answer. I promise.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** Since about Thanksgiving a thing I’ve noticed is when I wake up in the mornings my fingers smell sweet. Not like maple syrup, but kind of like an agave syrup. Just they smell genuinely sweet. And this was incredibly puzzling to me. I wondered what could be going on.

I found what the answer was. But I’m curious what your process might be towards figuring out what was going on.

**Craig:** OK. Well, I suppose the first thing I would do is to try and determine when the crime occurred. So, before I would go to bed I would very carefully smell and taste my own fingers to make sure that they weren’t already sweet.

**John:** And, yes, I smelled my fingers before going to bed and they did not smell sweet. It’s only when I woke up in the morning that they smelled sweet.

**Craig:** Interesting. So then the next thing I would do would be to figure out if there was something where maybe inside of my pillowcase or something that there was some sort of – maybe there was something in there that was rubbing off on my fingers. So I would check the bedding, for instance.

**John:** Yeah. And so I did check that. And I noticed nothing – like my pillowcases did not smell like it. My pillow didn’t smell like it. I couldn’t find that smell anywhere else. It was only on specifically my fingers.

**Craig:** Fingers. Next thing I would ask is are you wearing any sort of mouth appliance at night.

**John:** I am. I wear a mouth guard at night.

**Craig:** Ah-ha.

**John:** I could not imagine sleeping without a mouth guard.

**Craig:** OK. So now what I’m wondering is when you wake up in the morning and you’re smelling the sweetness on your fingers is it after you’ve removed your mouth guard or before?

**John:** It is both.

**Craig:** Oh.

**John:** So before I’ve taken it off I do smell it and I still smell it after I take it out.

**Craig:** OK, so it’s not for instance perhaps you’ve done a good job scrubbing and cleaning your mouth guard and gotten some residual toothpaste on it or something like that.

**John:** Yeah. That would be a natural thought, but no.

**Craig:** Right. And it’s not for instance that you’ve left any sort of toothpaste residue around.

**John:** No. Nothing. And I would say it’s not minty. I don’t want to – it smells more like kind of like a syrup. I don’t want to go typically maple syrup, but it’s that kind of sweet. Or sort of like baked goods sweet.

**Craig:** Hmm. Mm. OK. All right. I’m now engaging my literal gray cells. My little gray cells.

**John:** How about this. Why don’t we keep talking about the mystery as we go through this episode, so we can actually get to some of the screenwriting stuff? But we’ll come back to this mystery, because there will be answer by the end, I promise.

**Craig:** Great. Like in between–

**John:** You won’t have to flip to the back of the book.

**Craig:** Right. Like in between our topics. OK, great.

**John:** All right. So some follow up. In a previous episode we talked about, or I sort of brought up that I never see female characters grappling with ethical concerns. And some people wrote in with some suggestions. But one of the best ones I thought was Joshua who writes, “In Contact the character of Dr. Ellie Arroway, played by Jodie Foster, is ultimately forced to reconcile her atheism with a transcendent experience she cannot prove, culminating in a memorable congressional hearing where we see her struggling mightily to make sense of what she’s gone through and what it means for how she sees the world and herself.” Let’s listen to a clip.

**Male Voice:** Then why don’t you simply withdraw your testimony and concede that this journey to the center of the galaxy in fact never took place?

**Jodie Foster:** Because I can’t. I had an experience I can’t prove, I can’t even explain it. But everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real. I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever, a vision of the universe, that tells us undeniably how tiny and insignificant and how rare and precious we all are. A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater than ourselves. That we are not – that none of us are alone. I wish I could share that. I wish that everyone, if even for one moment, could feel that awe and humility and that hope…but…that continues to be my wish.

**John:** So that’s not quite what I’m talking about in terms of an ethical concern. It’s a revelation that I don’t often see female characters have, but it’s not the ethical concern that I’m thinking about in terms of like 12 Angry Men.

**Craig:** Right. I love that movie, but that’s the part of the movie that I don’t particularly love because it seemed kind of forced in there. There was a slight sense of an engineered ethical conflict when in fact because we were sort of on the journey with her we kind of got it. There actually really isn’t – she’s not struggling mightily to make sense of what she’s gone through because there’s a pretty clear explanation. Aliens did stuff. [laughs] You know? How they did it and why they did it that way they kind of explain. So, there’s not really a question of did I see a ghost or was it something else. So, I agree with you, not quite what we’re getting at.

**John:** Yeah. But what I do like about that example is that is a character who is encountering a moment and her being male or female is not relevant to this. And that we more often see a male character in that spot. So I do want to give it some partial credit for that reason.

**Craig:** Partial credit.

**John:** Let’s also give partial credit to the eight sequence structure. So we talked about this in Episode 483 and we were very dismissive of this idea of an eight sequence structure. A colleague and classmate, Scott Murphy, he went through USC at the same time I did, we were in different programs. He was in the graduate screenwriting program and I was in the Stark producing program. But he said that at USC they actually taught that. And that’s how they taught that. And so he felt it was a little unfair that we were dismissing it based on kind of the first Google result I got, which I guess that is kind of true. I hadn’t done any deep research.

And he says that the first thing that I brought up was the most extreme version of sort of a labeling of what all those sequences would be. And that really the point in teaching eight sequence structure is to get people thinking about sequences rather than 30-page acts. And to really be thinking about sequences having a beginning, a middle, and an end, which sounds more like the kinds of things that you and I would say. There’s a notion of scenes, there’s a notion of sequences, and they build out to become bigger things.

So I want to give some partial credit to this idea of sequences rather than capital-S Structure.

**Craig:** I still don’t quite know what the value is in terms of teaching people how to create something, because while it is true that you can break these things down into sequences, I mean, you could also break it into sub-sequences and have a 16 sequence structure. But the real question is well what do I write in the sequence. So there’s supposed to be a sequence here but what am I supposed to do? And what if it doesn’t fit inside of this? And what if it’s just a simple moment? It feels pedantic.

**John:** And pedantic also in the sense of like I can understand why it is maybe a useful teaching way to get people to think about smaller blocks of story rather than 30 pages, you know, thinking about something that’s achievable, and beginning, middle, and end. But it’s also really clear to me how a way of teaching something can quickly morph into becoming a prescribed formula for how things have to work. And it feels like maybe that’s the mistake I was making at looking at this one sheet, but also what I worry about sort of over-generalizing this eight sequence structure is that this may be a useful way to teach people how to build up blocks that sort of become a bigger thing and understand what sequences are. But it’s not the magical formula.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I think when you mistake the formula for the actual reality of the script that’s the problem.

**Craig:** I could definitely see myself teaching a class, something that would arrive at an eight sequence structure. But I would kind of want to begin with one sequence structure. Meaning let’s just talk about what your story is from beginning to end in a very big sort of bird’s eye view. So that we understand the rough movement of it. That’s one sequence.

Now let’s divide that into two sequences. So, halves of that big thing. Let’s talk about what happens in this first half. Now, great, we’ve done that. Now let’s divide each one of those again. And lo and behold, just like that, you’ve got yourself–

**John:** You’re getting there.

**Craig:** You’re getting there. You get yourself four and you do it again. And off you go.

**John:** Yeah. And we’ve often talked about there’s a fractal quality to storytelling is that like there should be movement within a scene. There needs to be movement within a sequence. Movement within whatever you want to call an act to get to this whole story. And so every scene is like its own little movie. Every sequence is like its own little movie. So I can understand, again, why it is helpful to be thinking that way as you’re teaching. I just worry then coming back and trying to impose that as capital-S Structure. And any time somebody brings up structure my [unintelligible] just immediately come up because I feel like that’s, you know, you’re giving us a formula and that’s not going to work.

**Craig:** Yes. It’s not going to help me make a thing.

**John:** So, one revelation of this past week is Megana has gotten in a bunch of emails about IP stuff and we now have an umbrella term for it. We’re going to call this Mockable IP.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** So the things like the Slinky Movie, mockable IP. Josh who is pitching sort of a packing peanuts or plywood thing, he said the criteria for a mockable IP is the product should be something real that a company sells. It should be something that makes zero sense as a movie but you can still see someone from the company pitching it to a studio executive’s office. And, third, that it will never, ever be a movie no matter what. Those feel like useful criteria for us to be thinking about with these kinds of IP.

**Craig:** Well, that’s where I disagree with Josh. It was number three.

**John:** You think some of these things will happen?

**Craig:** I think in fact they must be possibly a movie. For us to consider it, because otherwise again we can come down to things like gravel. For us to consider it it has to be something that you know what they might make this. If we talk about, like Slinky, we would do that all the time, and they did it. And we were scooped and they did it. And, yeah. So it has to be something that can be a movie.

**John:** Maybe this number three is like they could make it, but it would immediately be mocked. The mockability, I guess that is begging the question literally. But that’s a crucial part of this.

**Craig:** Right. And good use of begging the question. Thank you.

**John:** Really, I was so excited when I realized I could use that term properly for once. But I also want to, as we talk about this mockable IP, call out a clip that was on the Stephen Colbert show, the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, by a listener who directed it, Ballard C. Boyd. It’s a great – got to combine two things we love in Scriptnotes which is Queen’s Gambit, the Scott Frank show, and Rubik’s Cube. So this was The Queen’s Gambit Rubik’s Cube limited series they were pitching. Let’s take a listen to a clip.

**Female Voice:** I wasn’t just handed my seat. I had to overcome so much. Sexism. A sprained wrist. Temporary color-blindness.

**Male Voice:** You may be the greatest natural talent I’ve ever seen. But you must master the opening move known only to distinguished players. It’s called “turn the left bottom middle forward to the front-facing part. It’s not like chess.” We don’t get to have cool names for things.

**Female Voice:** It may be just a block covered in little stickers to you, but to me it’s the entire world. Oh, also drugs. I do tons of drugs. You don’t know me.

**John:** So we’ll put a link in the show notes to the full trailer for that, but I thought it was a delightful way to combine two things we love in Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** That’s one way to do it. We got some other suggestions in here I see.

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** Erica suggests Scrub Daddy. Now, I got to say, that’s possible because it has a face. It’s the goofy sponge that has eyes and a mouth. And I think there’s like a Scrub Mommy and a Scrub Baby. So, I could see a scrub family.

**John:** Yeah, little Scrubbing Bubbles. I love them.

**Craig:** Yeah. Chuck says Fidget Spinner. No.

**John:** No. Because one company doesn’t own it.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s not a thing. It’s a thing, but it’s not.

**John:** I guess there was the Emoji Movie which no one actually owns, but still I don’t think fidget spinner is going to happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. But emojis are literally everywhere, all over. The fidget spinner was a fad that’s already gone. I don’t think it’s a thing.

Let’s see, Philip from LA suggests Pogs. No.

**John:** I barely remember Pogs. They were sort of – I was in a gap between Pogs. It was elementary school but I think I’d outgrown them by the time they became a thing.

**Craig:** Pogs came back in the ‘90s. And, no, no. Nope.

Danny from St. Louis suggests Preparation H. Now, Danny, now you’re just being silly. This is real. You have to take this seriously. [laughs]

I like Sophie’s though. Sophie I’m pretty sure is touching on something that has been in development. Chia Pet. Surely that’s been, like scripts have been written right?

**John:** Yeah. There must be scripts written about Chia Pet. Or at least parody scripts for Chia Pet.

**Craig:** Or at least parody scripts. And then finally Matt, we do get this suggestion a lot, Pet Rock. For sure. But Pet Rock–

**John:** Dwayne Johnson is in it. It has a meta quality.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, it would have to be a period piece because pet rocks did exist happily in the ‘70s and never after.

**John:** Yeah. I had a pet rock for like a day and a half maybe. And then I realized that it was just a rock with some googly eyes attached to it. And I stopped paying attention.

**Craig:** I didn’t understand the joke. Because I was too young. I got a pet rock. I was like seven. And everyone was like there you go. And I’m like, OK. But, wait, why? And they’re like, “Well, it’s kind of making fun of the whole idea of toys.” What?

**John:** Why would you make fun of toys?

**Craig:** Right. What do you mean the idea of toys? Let’s just back up to that for a second. So this is my introduction to irony. Pet Rock.

**John:** I think all the things we’re talking about, they have to have eyes. That’s really what it comes down to. If you have to add eyes to it that’s a problem. So, there was an animated Rubik’s Cube cartoon at some point, but it was like Rubik’s Cube and then they added eyes to it. Well that’s disturbing. Versus like Pac-Man, he already had eyes.

**Craig:** Well, the Slinky doesn’t have eyes, but of course Slinky isn’t a character. It’s about the people that made the Slinky. What do you think about – you know what, that movie, the Seth Rogan animated movie that was basically all just food.

**John:** Food. Yeah. And so they added food to it, but I think they got away with it because it was just so–

**Craig:** Dirty.

**John:** It was such an absurd concept. And it was really dirty.

**Craig:** It was dirty.

**John:** It was really, really raunchy.

**Craig:** Yeah. It was dirty.

**John:** Like Towelie is one of my favorite characters in South Park and that’s just a towel with eyes.

**Craig:** A towel with googly eyes.

**John:** Who is really stoned.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** Really red googly stoner eyes.

**Craig:** I remember the paper clip guy from Microsoft that everybody hates. It’s a paper clip with eyes.

**John:** Oh yeah. Clippy. Yeah.

**Craig:** And eyebrows weirdly.

**John:** Yeah. Well it’s important because you can’t get full expression without that.

**Craig:** Right. Yes.

**John:** So, Craig, interstitial here, do you have any more questions here about my sweet, sweet fingers?

**Craig:** Yes. This may be violating HIPAA. Do you have diabetes?

**John:** I do not have diabetes. Happy to report I do not have diabetes.

**Craig:** OK. I have another question for you.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** Does this happen every single morning, or some mornings?

**John:** Every single morning.

**Craig:** Oh, that’s interesting. One possibility was that it was related to a food you were eating.

**John:** That was a thought I had as well. I thought perhaps around Thanksgiving I was baking yeasty things that maybe there was something about the baking or the foods I was eating that were specific to the season. But it continued.

**Craig:** OK. I have another question for you. Even though you like I are in the brotherhood of the bald, do you put any sort of product in your hair or any sort of skincare product that might have an odor to it?

**John:** The answer to your first question is no. I don’t use Rogaine or any sort of topical hair product. So it’s not that. But, I do want to say that you are getting close to the solution there. Yeah.

**Craig:** Interesting. Wait, what about Mike?

**John:** No, it’s not Mike. So it is my own situation here.

**Craig:** Got it.

**John:** The second part of your question was a skincare product. And, yes, I put on a moisturizer. The moisturizer does not smell like that though.

**Craig:** I see. I see. I see. OK. All right. Well we should probably take another break.

**John:** We’ll continue on and we’ll talk about unions and guilds.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** So this was something we promised we were going to do I think last week. And there’s actually two kind of news hooks for it this week because – we’ll put a link of the Deadline article of Hollywood Unions Celebrate the Inauguration of President Joe Biden and VP Kamala Harris. The Most Pro-Union President and Partner in the White House. So all the unions and guilds were very excited and little tweets about that.

And also Biden fired the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. And then the replacement person for that. So there’s going to be a new person there. And I will say that doing guild stuff that the people who have been running NLRB has been a challenge for the WGA. You don’t want to go to them for help because they might side with the other side. So, those were two things in the news just this week that are related to Hollywood guilds and unions.

**Craig:** It’s a big deal. And John is right. You can’t really overestimate the impact that these things have on unions and the way they not only just conduct their week to week business but also how they go into negotiations. Because ultimately when you’re negotiating with companies as a union or when you’re trying to figure out how far to push things with management in between contracts your leverage is that maybe they’re violating the law. Or maybe there is an issue of law that is undecided that could be decided in your favor. Or, maybe there’s an issue in the contract that’s undecided that could be decided by mediators or arbitrators or eventually be heard by the National Labor Relations Board.

And if that government body is skewed to be anti-union you are automatically and reasonably way more gun shy about all sorts of things. The meddling that the government can do to hurt unions is not limited just to how they decide disputes. Sometimes it comes down to just aggravating paperwork.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** When I was on the board way, way back when in the mid-2000s the Bush administration changed the rules. So every union must every year file a financial report that is publicly available. And basically under the Bush administration they changed the rules so you just had to report way more information. It was more burdensome to the unions to put it all together. And also it just was like you had to just open your kimono completely. Everybody should be able to see everything. And it was, you know, designed ultimately to kind of put their thumb in the union’s eye.

Over the decades since the big unionization movements in the early part of the 20th century the government has steadily chipped away. Steadily chipped away at organized labor and their power. And this is a much needed course correction on that part.

**John:** Yeah. So in this conversation we’re talking about unions and guilds as they exist in Hollywood and really only in the US. And so that’s necessarily going to be very limited to this because while there are international Writers Guilds they are more like professional societies because they’re not true unions where they’re representing employees. And we’ll get into some of sort of why the unique way we do it in the US allows for writers’ unions that wouldn’t exist or make sense other places.

And I started to put together a lot of links to the history of organized labor in Hollywood and I realized we are not a history podcast. We are going to mess up way more than we’re going to illuminate, but we’ll have some links in the show notes to that. Important things to understand in terms of background, the film industry is about 100 years old. It’s centered in Los Angeles. Radio and television was originally based out of New York. Even though more production moved to LA, there was still a lot of late night TV and news largely stayed in New York. That still exists. You still see the shadows of that in sort of how the unions are set up.

Interestingly, the first of the Hollywood unions IATSE, created all of this because they were the teamsters who were part of Broadway, sort of vaudeville, Broadway stuff. So it goes even back before there was film there were unions that were involved in the film production.

And, Craig, I remember when you were on Karina’s podcast did you play Louis B. Mayer? I’m trying to remember who you played.

**Craig:** That’s right. I was Louis B. Mayer.

**John:** So, this is a thing I did not know and I’ll put a link in the show notes to this, too, but I hadn’t realized the degree to which Mayer and the birth of the Oscars was really a response and an anticipation of organized labor.

**Craig:** Yup. So Louis B. Mayer, sensing that the artists under this control were starting to organize and come together and talk, and thus threaten his hegemony – and he really was the king of the council of kings – he very brilliantly created the Oscars because his theory was if you are possibly in danger of having to compete for resources with artists hold up a shiny trophy and they’ll forget about you and just fight each other for it. And that’s exactly what happened. [laughs] And continues to happen to this day.

So, the entire awards industry is in and of itself a massive distraction that not only gets artists competing with each other, but gets them competing with each other in a way that allows the entertainment industry to also make money off of their competing with each other. It’s spectacular.

**John:** It really is a remarkable achievement.

**Craig:** Remarkable achievement.

**John:** So a thing that’s important to understand is that when you talk about unions they only make sense really when you talk about the fact that there are employers and there’s somebody that you’re negotiating with and against. And so you can negotiate with the studios individually, with the streamers individually, but you tend to negotiate with them as a group. And that group that you’re negotiating with is the AMPTP, the Association of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which is the Academy, which I got that confused when I first got out here because it seems like they’re two big organizations that run movies and stuff. But AMPTP is the collective body that we negotiate with as unions and guilds for our contract.

And you look at the different kinds of unions and guilds that there are, there’s a wide range. So you have actors, you have writers, you have directors, all of whom are sort of doing kind of intellectual labor, artistic labor. And then you have much more sort of physical crafts and trades peoples. You have grips and electricians and teamsters who are driving trucks. And you have all the other sort of unions that are involved in actual physical production.

And they seem so disparate and yet there are some commonalities, so I wanted to talk through some of the commonalities before we get into sort of why the different unions and guilds are positioned so differently.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** So what are some common threads, Craig?

**Craig:** Well, all of us are working gig work. So, typical union jobs you work at let’s say the Ford plant building trucks. That’s your job. Year in and year out, your job, welder on the line. That’s what you do. And you do it at one place for one employer. In Hollywood everyone is essentially freelancing for their entire careers.

So, you’re getting work from movie to movie, from script to script, from edit job to edit job. Everyone is constantly looking for the next thing because our businesses are organized around shows and movies, not around the steady production of a single product, like for instance a Rubik’s Cube.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So we’re not all together on the same floor, nor do we have longevity in a position or vis-à-vis each other or with one product. We’re constantly moving and swirling around.

**John:** Yeah. And we should say this idea of skilled labor, like welding is a skill and there’s training that goes into it. The same way that somebody who is working as an editor has a certain skillset. A welder has certain skillsets. But that welder is going to probably be working at the Ford plant for years and years and years and years and really has one employer. Versus this editor who is going to be hopping around from various jobs to various jobs. And it’s cobbling together enough money to make a living through many jobs rather than just one job.

There are exceptions, of course. There’s people who have been on TV shows for forever, but in general you’re hopping from place to place to place.

**Craig:** Yeah. Those are pretty rare. And similarly where somebody that is in a union as a nurse will have the potential ability to work at dozens of different hospitals, clinics, healthcare centers, etc., we’re more like professional athletes who can work for a single organization of teams. And our teams are Disney, Warner Bros., Sony, Universal, and Paramount, and their associated television networks and things like that.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s an oligopoly in the sense that there’s a very limited number of buyers. And so the big names, I don’t know if it’s 75% of employment, they represent a huge amount of the actual employment is to and for those people. So they have a lot of power because they are the buyers of note.

What is interesting about us as writers and which we should get into this is that we are doing work-for-hire. So intellectual property is commissioned from us. The people who are hiring us to do the thing, they ultimately own the copyright. And therefore as writers, as artists, we are an employee of the commissioner. So same with like an artist who is working at Disney animation, they’re drawing stuff but Disney owns everything that they’re drawing for Disney.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this works against us and it works for us. I mean, the only good part of this and we are unique in this regard here in the United States is that we can be a proper employer, therefore we can have a proper union. And as a result of our proper union we do have certain benefits that are better than some of the benefits that other similar artists receive elsewhere even as they retain copyright in their country. Because these large corporations here are exceptionally good at exploiting reuse. They’re really, really good at it.

Do we get enough of the share of that reuse? As sufficient amount as we should? No. Is the insufficient amount that we get typically more than what other people get in royalties elsewhere? Yeah, it is. So, it’s an interesting thing. We have a tiny piece of a very large pie which sometimes adds up to more than the entire piece of a very tiny, tiny pie. A little miniature molecular pie.

**John:** And so we talk about residuals and we talk about back-ends on things and that is an important part, especially for writers to maintain a career, but there’s other kind of fundamental union things which are also important. So things like worker safety and safety on a set. These are things that come about because of unions. Minimum hours/maximum hours. Just other sort of quality of life issues that are only possible because we have unions. So, it’s very easy to be myopic and only think about this in terms of how this works for a writer, but unions help everyone in all these different trades.

So let’s talk about the different unions.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, in Europe a lot of these other things that unions do like enforcing safety and things like that the government does.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** Our government is less interested in mandating things and so you do find situations where in order to attract production and employment people will just sort of look the other way. I mean, very famously we have a massive problem in our industry with lack of sleep. We know that. There should be a statutory cap on how much you can work, how many hours in a row. And that’s it. No more. We don’t have it. I don’t know what the number is. I don’t know if there is a number.

I’ve worked 20 hour days. I’ve done it.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** On set. It was terrible. Because you didn’t have a choice. So, that’s the kind of thing where our unions have to sort of step in where our government has failed.

**John:** Absolutely. So, things like – that kind of worker safety, but also it’s through unions that we have healthcare. In other countries the healthcare would be a national priority.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And we don’t have that here. Pensions are also through a union. So these are crucial things that were one sort of strike after strike over the course of time for the different unions.

So let’s talk about what the unions are. There’s SAG/AFTRA, which used to be two separate actor’s unions which then got combined together. They represent actors, but both in film and television and in radio. Other performers under AFTRA, I always get confused sort of what the boundaries were between this. I would say my general impression, and I think Craig alluded to this last episode, is that SAG/AFTRA is often fighting with itself more than it’s fighting the town.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well, SAG in particular has a long history of kind of the bitter internal feud between I guess you could call them the more militant folks and the more pragmatic folks. Pick your adjective. But they’ve been struggling with that for a long, long time. And that all came to a head when they merged with AFTRA which was something the pragmatists really wanted to do. AFTRA definitely covered things like voiceover work for radio. I could never quite tell exactly how the division worked. But they are combined now.

They are definitely a much larger union than the Writers Guild or the Directors Guild. That said, they don’t have the kind of employment requirements that we do. You don’t become a Writers Guild member for life. I mean, technically you do, but what happens is if you don’t work after a while you become post-current. So you’re still a member of the union but you don’t get any of the benefits. You’re not voting.

**John:** You’re not going to vote.

**Craig:** You’re not voting. That’s the big one. You don’t have a say on whether or not for instance a new contract gets approved. You need to have some employment skin in the game for that. Not so with SAG. I believe once you’re a member you’re a member.

**John:** And that really does change things a lot. SAG has not gone on strike, at least during the time that I’ve been working for here. If SAG were to go on strike it would shut down everything because we have not just actors in dramatic stuff, but all of our hosts in late night. Those are all going to be SAG people. And so it would be a big deal if it happened. It hasn’t happened. Could it happen? Sure. You never know.

Let’s talk about the DGA. So DGA represents directors the same way that the WGA represents writers, but the DGA also represents assistant directors, so the folks who are running – keeping the sets running properly. UPMs, that class of sort of folks who are making sets function is covered by the DGA, which is odd to me. It’s very different from what we’re used to in the WGA.

**Craig:** Yes. Well in particular because certainly the UPM job and the AD job are not primarily creative positions. They primarily are positions involved with the management of a production. Scheduling. Coordination. Budget. The employment of others. Management. This is going to come up again very quickly when we talk about the WGA and the reason we need to talk about it is because there’s a rule, it’s not a secret, it’s a rule – management is not allowed to be in a union. That’s just a rule. Which makes sense. You know, because if your boss could be in the union then you just get out-voted by a bunch of bosses and then what’s the point of the union?

So what is a manager roughly speaking the way the government defines it is somebody who is directly in charge of the hiring or firing of other employees, or the management of their time and how they do their job. That’s management. Well…

**John:** You definitely see that in the DGA. You see that in the WGA as we’re going to get to. But you also see it in this next, the biggest of the unions I think, we’re going to talk about which is IATSE. So IATSE is everything else you can imagine that is probably a Hollywood job follows under IATSE. And there are a tremendous number of smaller guilds within IATSE, locals, who specialize in one area of it. So there’s classically the Editors Guild, which is underneath IATSE, and over the last year has had real frustrations with sort of the lack of attention being paid to their specific specialty within there.

Within each of these places, though, you know, you’ll see that there are people who are responsible for hiring for other people. It’s just a thing that necessarily happens where you’re looking at, OK, I’m going to be in charge of this department so I need to fill my ranks. There’s a management function there. So it’s complicated.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think if you’re talking about sort of foreman type position, that’s acceptable. Some employees have a higher position of authority than others. So, I get that. You know, a pit boss that works for a casino is still an employee. And the dealer is an employee. And the pit boss is looking. But the pit boss is not hiring or firing the dealer.

And in IATSE there’s probably not a ton of situations where there’s specifically – I mean, technically it’s always the producer who is hiring or firing. Sometimes it’s the UPM in the DGA. IATSE is a great example of too much of a good thing. It is – you want a union to be sizable enough that you have collective strength. That’s the value of collective bargaining. If you have a union that represents six people at one Subway, it’s not that great. If you had a union that represents all Subway employees, I mean the sandwich, not the metro, then they can get something done.

IATSE, what they’ve done is conglomerate a lot of unions together because individually there may not be enough say onset painters to have collective strength. But then they create locals and they get bundled together. And then IATSE is the meta bundle of all the bundles. But the problem is that if you’re in one of these smaller locals, like for instance the Animation Guild. You’re just not going to be able to convince IATSE, all 100-and – I don’t know how many people are in it, 100,000? You’re not going to be able to convince all of them to go on strike so that your 30 members can get a slightly better deal. So you’re stuck. And that is not a great arrangement.

**John:** It is not a great arrangement. And something you’ve often brought up on the show, a somewhat analogous situation, is screenwriters, feature writers, within the WGA. And that folks who primarily write features in the WGA can feel like their issues are not getting as much attention as TV writers who are the bulk of the membership of the WGA. That’s changing now and there’s – obviously people do a lot more of both. You are now a TV writer. But it’s a genuine concern. And so you’re always having these conflicting instincts to broaden your base so that you can represent more kinds of people and sort of protect yourself. And to specialize so you can really focus on your core constituencies.

And there’s not going to be a great answer for that. You know, we often will talk about videogame writing is very much like screenwriting. There’s clear analogs between how those work. And maybe we should represent and protect videogame writing because that is clearly going to become something that is like animation. We want to make sure we don’t miss out on that.

But, are we going to do the best job representing those videogame writers? Is it pulling focus away? There’s a lot of writing that happens in reality shows. Not just where you aim the camera, but also all the narration. Shouldn’t all that writing be covered by the WGA? Sure. Maybe. But are we going to lose focus in trying to organize that work? So it’s always tough. It’s always going to be decisions and conflicts.

**Craig:** Yeah. And we’re hamstrung a bit by the law, again. For instance, we can’t necessarily compel union membership for people that are working in Canada. In fact, we can’t at all because they’re not here and jurisdiction sort of stops at the border. So, in videogames there are a lot of people, a lot of companies, that are foreign, international, and they’re not American. And there are a lot of writers that are working overseas. Also the entire videogame industry is vigilantly anti-union. So, one of the tricky things is to try and crack into those places is you’ve got a company where there are 400 people, all of whom would love to be in the union and they’ve all been told you can’t be. And they can’t. And then somebody else comes along and says, “We’re going to successfully unionize four of you.” That becomes hard to do.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then there’s suddenly a ton of resentments and difficulties and problems. So, they just cracked down on all of it. They are brutally anti-union. And this, again, is why the more strength and pro-union impact you can have at the governmental level, and it has to be the federal level. They’re the only ones. This is all federal. If you get that federal level then some of these things start to tilt your way. If you don’t, running up hill in shoes made of ice.

**John:** The last sort of evergreen issue I want to make sure we talk about is that we usually think of unions representing the minimums. Basically trying to raise the minimums and protect the people at the bottom. Basically to set a floor on things. And that they’re not especially focused on what we’ll call above scale. So scale being the minimum you could pay somebody. Above scale being whatever beyond that. So much of the work that happens in the WGA is above scale. It’s beyond sort of scale payments. And Craig mentioned earlier in professional sports the player’s unions are sort of similar in position to us in that they are going to set minimums, but most of the members are working way above that and are going to have issues that are not the same as the lowest members. And there’s a natural conflict there. I mean, the degree to which you’re focusing on those bottom line issues for people making scale versus people above scale. And it’s challenging to balance those two demands.

**Craig:** It’s made more difficult by the fact that a number of the people in the Writers Guild who are making a lot of money are management. They just are. Showrunners who are hiring and firing other writers. They’re management. And so the Writers Guild is engaged in kind of an interesting dance. It comes more powerful vis-à-vis the companies by representing those powerful members of management, showrunners. And in theory that increased leverage helps them get more stuff for everyone. I don’t know if that’s true though. [laughs] So, it’s an interesting thing. And it does create kind of weird situations where you’ve got very wealthy people coming out there and saying things like, “Everybody needs to strike.” And you look at them and go, “That’s not a problem for you. You could strike for the rest of your life. You’re fine.”

There are tensions within our union because of the vast disparity of income which is even wider – well, I don’t know if it’s wider than the overall income disparity in our country, but it’s up there. I mean, we have writers that are scratching by and barely earning the right to have healthcare and making maybe $40,000 in a year gross. And then we have writers who are making $70 million in a year. So hard to hold that ship together perfectly, or even well.

**John:** Yeah. It’s an ongoing challenge. And it’s kind of always been this challenge. And it’s probably only accelerating. But let’s talk about the WGA because it’s also important to remind everybody that there’s actually two WGAs. So there’s the Writers Guild of America West and then there’s the Writers Guild of America East. They’re technically separate unions. They are sister unions. And luckily, thank god, we get along really, really well. We haven’t always gotten along really well.

I’ve been lucky to be on two negotiating committees within this last year and honestly Zoom makes it so much easier for everybody to be on the same conversation. Because traditionally what would happen is the WGA West handles all of the negotiations for the film and TV contracts. So we deal with the AMPTP and the WGA East basically takes that deal and their members vote yes on the deal.

Usually what would happen is that several representatives from the WGA East would come out and sit in on all these negotiation sessions and say, yes, great, and that would be it. Or raise their concerns about specific things that are of concerns to the East members. In these last negotiations we had a full contingent of East folks who were in all of those Zooms and were participating and that was great. So I think things are closer than they’ve ever been. But it’s important to understand they are different unions and they are kind of representing different priorities.

Theoretically any member of the West could also be a member of the East. But the East also represents. They’ve done a lot more organizing in online writing. So, organizing websites that have writers and they’re going through and representing those writers, which is great but also very different and I don’t know on the West side whether we’d want – it becomes an issue of how broad do you go. Would they be a good fit in the West? I don’t know.

**Craig:** I don’t understand this anymore. [laughs] It’s pointless. This exists literally because it exists. It’s just – it started–

**John:** It’s just because of history.

**Craig:** Yeah. Because of history. But it has long outlived its actual practical purpose. To the point where the Writers Guild West processes residuals for all Writers Guild West and East members, mails the checks to the Writers Guild East for them to just put in Writers Guild East envelopes and mail to their members. We are done to that amount of silliness. And the arcane nature of how the council and the board vote, it all is an unnecessary – what do you call it? Cruft? If that what it is in code? It’s organizational cruft. There shouldn’t be a West or an East. There should just be the WGA.

**John:** Yeah. So traditional arguments against it is that what I said in terms of East actually represents some kinds of writers that are not sort of classically West writers. And, yes, West represents some news folks too, but I don’t know that we do an especially good job of that. Traditionally it’s been like, well, how do you have national meetings? How do you actually have somebody – basically you can’t get everyone in a room together. In the age of Zoom it’s become much less important. And so the fact that none of these people have been in rooms for a long time, maybe it’s less important than it’s ever been before.

It’s hard to do that sort of on the ground work and have the meetings and do the stuff with membership when people are spread hither and yon. But it’s probably more possible – it is more possible now than it’s ever been before to conceive of some unification. But to me I would say having been on the board recently and been through this last bit of negotiations, it’s just not a giant priority for me. It’s I think a lower priority for me than it is for you.

**Craig:** It will remain a low priority until there’s a problem. And there have been problems and there will be problems again. And that’s when it will become – this has to be solved. We have writers all over the country. Basically if you’re west of the Mississippi you go to the West. If you’re east you go to the East. You’re right. You can switch. You can’t be in both at the same time. But you could switch. And it’s all just – we have two award ceremonies running simultaneously.

**John:** It’s goofy.

**Craig:** It’s just dumb. It’s dumb. And there’s duplication. We have two executive directors. Why? And sometimes it actually does cause problems when, for instance, in credit administration. If you are in a credit arbitration with a writer from the East there is a chance that the East may handle the arbitration instead of the West. Well what’s the difference? Well, there is I believe one lawyer on the staff of the Writers Guild East. There are about 12 lawyers just in the credits department of the Writers Guild West, all of whom are the ones that essentially take the lead on all of the negotiation, arbitration, and enforcement of credit rules with the companies. You want those guys running the arbitration because that’s what they do.

**John:** You want the cardiac surgeon who has done 100 of them rather than the first one.

**Craig:** And it just – let’s just fold it all together. You can have two. If you need an office over there, like people go to a physical office anymore. I mean, all that stuff is going away. So it would be ideal to solve this before it becomes a problem again. Because the actuality is when you look at the constitutions of the Writers Guild West and East, if the East wanted to cause a major problem it can. It has a way to do that. It hasn’t in a long time, happily. But it would be nice to get rid of it. Pointless.

**John:** Yeah. Last thing I probably should have stressed earlier in this conversation is that a frequent question I get is how do I join the Writers Guild. Or how do I join the Screen Actors Guild or anything.

**Craig:** Fill out this form.

**John:** It’s actually one of those amazing things where you don’t have to do anything.

**Craig:** They’ll find you.

**John:** They will find you. Once you’re hired to work on a project that is union-covered you will be required to join that union. A certain requirement has to be met. But you can’t join until you have to join and then you have to join and then you’re in. That’s really the simple explanation for it.

**Craig:** They will hunt you down. And one of the reasons they hunt you down is because when you become a member of the Writers Guild you are required to become a member of the Writers Guild. And therefore you’re required to send them quite a fat check for initiation. So, believe me, they get you. You’ll know. You’ll know. Congrats. Surprise.

**John:** Yup. All right. So that’s a quick overview. There’s obviously a lot more we could talk about with the guilds and the unions, but I want to make sure that we get some more time to resolve the mystery of the sticky fingers.

**Craig:** Mm, OK.

**John:** Not sticky, I should stress. Sweet, not sticky.

**Craig:** Sweet. Not sticky. Sweet. So, I was sort of getting close when I was talking about potentially some sort of hair product. So my theory is that you’re touching something that has that smell on it and it is transferring, but it’s happening while you’re sleeping. And I’ve already investigated the bedding, the begging material. It’s not that. It’s not your mouth guard. It’s not any sort of skincare product, as far as I can tell.

**John:** Going back, it is a skincare product. That’s the distinction. But none of the skincare products smell like that.

**Craig:** Oh, interesting. So perhaps there is a skincare product that when exposed to the air oxidizes and turns into a different smell.

**John:** That is essentially what has happened. That is the answer to the mystery. And so it is this facial moisturizer I put on. It’s like the last thing I put on at night. And it doesn’t have any smell at all. But somehow overnight it has like vitamin C in it or something. That changes – basically I don’t wash my hands afterwards because it’s just moisturizer. And the chemical reaction that happens is it smells sweet in the morning.

And so I was able to test this out by – that was my theory – and so what I tried is like, OK, I’m going to put this stuff on but I’m going to put it on with like a Q-Tip and not actually touch it. And so I tried that for two nights and then I went back to using my fingers. And that is exactly what is happening. It’s a chemical reaction to the moisturizer I’m putting on before bedtime.

**Craig:** Right. I have never done that.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** It’s important to moisturize.

**Craig:** Everyone says that. Everyone says it. I’m not going to do it. You know I’m not going to do it.

**John:** You’re not going to do it. You’re just not going to do it.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** I come from a long line of men that just stupidly don’t care about the largest organ in their body. It’s the skin.

**John:** Craig, can I ask you a question about sleeping? Because we played D&D till pretty late last night. And then I know you had to take your puppy out to pee. And yet when I look on Twitter like you were up hours before I was. So I worry are you sleeping enough?

**Craig:** Sometimes I am. And sometimes I’m not. And it’s really weird. So I didn’t have to wake up that early. I had my alarm set for a bit later. And I just happened to wake up that early. Sometimes when I wake up earlier than I should I don’t feel tired. And I’m fine. Right now I don’t feel particularly tired. I’ll probably sleep longer tonight.

There are sometimes where I get like eight hours and the alarm wakes me up at eight hours and I feel like I could sleep another 20 hours and I’m miserable. It’s really weird. I can’t quite explain it. But, yeah, I only slept I would say four hours last night.

**John:** Yeah. That would not be enough for me.

**Craig:** It’s just natural. Yeah, it’s weird. Normally I would be a zombie, but I don’t know. Coasting on adrenaline.

**John:** One of the tweets that I saw recently from you was about D&D alignments as pertaining to crossword puzzles. And so what I saw in your tweet from January 17 was you can imagine like a Tic-Tac-Toe grid and in it was different layouts of crossword puzzles and they’re identified as being lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good. And so it was a meme that you were sharing.

And I want to talk quickly about D&D alignment charts and that idea of the nine kinds of alignments and whether they have any relevance to the work that you and I do as writers.

**Craig:** Sure. So the classic breakdown in Dungeons & Dragons is there are three general axes of goodness. There’s good, there’s neutral, and there’s evil. So that’s kind of your moral approach. You are a person that is – you believe in some sort of moral positivity, you just don’t care, or you’re just actually evil. And then those are divided into kind of ordering mechanisms. There’s lawful, neutral, and chaotic. So, lawful, you tend to follow some sort of rigid code. Neutral, you sort of make decisions on the fly as you need to. And chaotic, you don’t follow any rhyme or reason. You’re all over the place. And you can apply those to any of those. So there’s lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good. Lawful neutral, true neutral, which is neutral-neutral, and chaotic neutral. And then lawful evil, neutral evil, and chaotic evil.

**John:** And so classically you see that arranged as a Tic-Tac-Toe grid where true neutral is the center square.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so my first exposure to I think morality or sort of the concept of regimented morality was in fifth grade playing D&D for the first time and seeing this alignment chart, which I don’t know that it pre-dated Gary Gygax and the original D&D or not, but it was my introduction to this idea of systemic kind of morality and approaches to these things. And we’ll put links in the show notes to a bunch of different memes about Arrested Development or Marvel, Harry Potter, or Star Wars, looking at that grid with classic characters from those mythologies and how they would fit into that grid. And it’s useful to some degree I guess. But I wanted to talk about sort of what’s good about it and sort of the pros and the cons of it.

I guess for me it’s useful to distinguish between approaches to a problem as a hero, so lawful good versus chaotic good. I can see the differences there. And imagining a lawful evil, like a really organized orderly evil versus a pure chaotic evil can be helpful. And so I think as I’m approaching my own writing to some degree I’m aware of that as an approach. I’m never – in no character breakdown have I ever written like somebody is lawful good for a screenplay. But it is somewhat useful as a framing device if you’re thinking of a character’s approach. What would you say?

**Craig:** I probably get – the only use I get out of it other than entertainment when somebody breaks down a show that I love into these characters. It’s the Game of Thrones alignment chart. Who’s in what? But I do think that it’s good if you find yourself feeling like you’re stuck between two easy, obvious polls and you can go, oh, this is just like a good guy or a bad guy. Well, it’s good to think in these terms and think about what would happen if – what does it mean to be chaotic neutral? And what would happen to my character if I took away their sense of morality? I didn’t make them evil. I didn’t make them good. I just made them not care. What would happen if my bad guy didn’t really follow a code, but also wasn’t a lunatic. And these things are interesting.

Look, the classic boring ones are lawful good, which is just like–

**John:** Dudley Do-Right.

**Craig:** Yeah. Superman. Lawful good. And then chaotic evil is just a monster like a wolf-man running around and biting people. It’s chaotic evil. But then you have these really interesting ones like chaotic good. And lawful evil. And true neutral, which is very rare. So it’s fun to kind of challenge yourself a little bit if you feel like you’re stuck. But, I mean, it’s a pretty blunt tool. I wouldn’t go too far.

**John:** It’s a pretty blunt tool. We’ve talked before about the Myers-Briggs personality assessment. And this is really kind of a version of that. Because like the Myers-Briggs you’re looking at two polls and sort of putting people on a spectrum between these two polls. And grouping them together in ways that sort of feel like, OK, if someone were lawful but they’re also good this is what the characters would be like. But you can really do that for any qualities that have two polls. Anywhere there’s a spectra of how they could come out. So you could look at this in terms of like how much is this person a planner versus an improviser? Are they serious or are they funny? Are they warm versus cold? Introverted versus extroverted?

You can really take any two opposites there and look at where a character is on that scale and as you combine the other things you kind of feel what they’re like. But I do just worry, even going back to eight sequence structure, it can just become a lot of busywork, a lot of ticking of boxes that’s not actually doing the work about what is making that character interesting, distinctive, and specific to this story.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, in the end if you can neatly fit a character perfectly into one of those boxes then they’re not a person. They’re a box.

**John:** Yeah. Yeah. I would say the last thing that’s been helpful for me thinking about alignment or these opposites is that it’s useful – once you’ve figured out who your hero is, who your protagonist is, thinking about who the polar opposite of that character is can be really helpful in terms of thinking about your villain, your antagonist. What is it about that antagonist that is uniquely challenging to that protagonist? And that can be a useful starting place for thinking about who is the person to put opposite your hero.

All right. We have time for a few short questions. Let’s invite Megana Rao, our producer, on to ask some questions that our listeners have sent in. Megana, what have you got for us this week?

**Megana Rao:** OK. So Adrianne from LA asks, “These days every company has its own streaming service that exclusively exhibits its content. Disney has Disney+. Apple has AppleTV+. And now Netflix creates originals not shown anywhere else. How is this not a modern day violation of the Paramount decrees? And how does this all factor in with the termination of the Paramount decrees? Please help me understand. I’m so confused.”

**John:** Yeah. So it’s a separate piece of that. The Paramount consent decrees are about studios owning movie theaters. Basically said that the studios were not allowed to own movie theaters. That’s going to go away and studios are going to buy the movie theaters. That’s kind of inevitable.

What you’re describing, Adrianne, is a little closer to Fin-Syn which was the change in the ‘80s I’m guessing that allowed for networks–

**Craig:** I think so.

**John:** ‘90s? When was it?

**Craig:** I think it was the late ‘80s or possibly early ‘90s. Yeah.

**John:** Regardless, there was a time in which NBC could not own its own programming. They basically had to buy from somebody else. That changed. And that’s kind of more like what we’re talking about here. A form of vertical integration. I think it’s not great. But it’s where we’re at.

**Craig:** Yeah. So Fin-Syn or financial syndication laws were why networks licensed their shows. So the way network television used to work is a studio like say Paramount would produce a show like Star Trek. And Star Trek cost a whole lot of money to make. And the network that showed Star Trek would pay Paramount a license fee per episode of some amount to run that show in Primetime, or syndication, or whatever.

And, if you could make enough of those then you could rerun them and that’s where you make all your money, and so on and so forth. And then for the network their whole game was pay out less in licensing than they take in in advertising. That was how that business worked. It has not worked that way in decades. John is absolutely right. Fin-Syn is what you’re thinking of here.

Paramount decrees really just referred to the brick and mortar buildings where they show movies and obviously that’s also gone. So, hopefully that helps you understand. Basically imagine all the possible barriers there could be and then get rid of them all. There you go. That’s what we got.

**John:** Yup. Megana, what have you got for us next?

**Megana:** So Tara asks, “My script made the Black List, got me agents, and several generals, and we’re finally getting a little heat. I’ve been writing in my free time for 20 years, but the business end of this is all new to me at 46 years old. My team is brilliant, but here’s my question for you and Craig. We’re trying to build a package. We may be close to getting the perfect lead attached. And the perfect director is tentatively interested. Hopefully I’ve got meetings with them in the next few weeks. What should I ask them and what can I expect them to ask me?”

**John:** Great. First off, Tara, congratulations. That’s awesome that you’re getting this together.

**Craig:** Good job.

**John:** And I’m guessing this is a feature that you’re putting together. I mean, it could be a limited series. It could be a TV pilot. But when we say a package, don’t worry or mistake the idea of a packaging fee, the kind of thing we’ve been fighting against for in the WGA. A package is a grouping of great bits of talent together to make this thing attractive to buyers. So it’s awesome this is happening for you.

Those questions when you’re talking to a big actor or director is sort of what attracts them to the project. What are they excited about? What are the questions they have for you? What is it about their previous work that you have questions about? Talk about the thing you’re hoping to make. Talk about the sort of – just get a sense of whether this is a shared vision for things. That’s the most crucial thing is to feel like what is it going to be like working with this person.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I just want to point out that if I were on your team I would – this is a great sentence. My team is brilliant, and you can see them sort of sitting up straighter in their chairs. But here’s my question for you and Craig. And then they’d go, oh, dammit. You know, there is no special questions. There’s no secret handshake. I don’t know what they’re going to ask you. Because sometimes they ask great questions and sometimes they ask terrible questions.

I can’t tell if you’re talking about a feature or if you’re talking about a movie – it feels like you’re talking about a movie. So a lot of times with movies the directors barely want to even acknowledge that you are a human in the room, which is terrible, but true. And I hate that.

So, just have the conversation. And if you have the ability to decide in some way, to help decide who is getting this and who is doing it, then have the conversation and then just check your gut after. The only thing you need to make sure of is that the person that you’re going into business with, if you have any control over it, agrees with you about what this is, and what the tone is, and why it’s good. And if they don’t, then they’re not the perfect lead or director. That’s kind of what you’re about to find out.

**John:** Yeah. And that’s a longer conversation. Maybe we should put that on the list. What do you do when there’s a person who is circling your thing who you don’t really like? And I’ve been in Tara’s situation where there’s been a director and it’s like, ugh, how do you shake that person away without burning bridges? It can be challenging. So maybe we’ll ask Megana to put that on the list for follow up, because getting rid of somebody you don’t want is sometimes harder than attracting the person you do want.

**Craig:** True, true.

**John:** Megana, thank you for these questions. I see there’s a whole bunch more we have on the Workflowy, so thank you to all the listeners who sent in questions. Anything more you want to share, Megana?

**Megana:** No, I think that’s great. Thanks guys.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is type related. So, the New York Times has banner headlines occasionally for really big things. One of them was recently Trump Impeached and Trump Impeached Again. When you have letters that are next to each other you have to sometimes worry about how those letters are bumping into each other. In the case of impeached, when you have that uppercase, the E and the A next to each other looks kind of weird. There’s actually a lot of space. And so you’ll do some kerning to try to get those things a little bit closer. But then if they bump it feels weird.

So I’m going to link to an article that goes through the New York Times’ decision to build a special ligature, a special combination EA for headline situations where those capital letters are showing up next to each other so it forms one kind of letter glyph. And ligatures are pretty common in type overall. You’ll see them a lot with FL or FFL. There’s special combinations for those things because otherwise the letters would bump together in weird ways. I love ligatures and so I loved this little article explaining how and why they created a special EA for the word “impeached.”

**Craig:** Impeached. I also see they used it in Biden Beats Trump.

**John:** Yeah. Special.

**Craig:** Biden Beats Trump.

**John:** Feels nice.

**Craig:** I just like the sound of it. Thank you, John. My One Cool Thing this week is a website called Wordlisted from a gentleman named Adam Aaronson. There are a few resources on the Internet that allow you to – well, they give you a little bit of a helping hand if you are constructing a puzzle, and they can certainly give you a very big helping hand if you’re trying to solve a puzzle. And I probably cited some of them before like One Look for instance.

This one is quite the Swiss Army knife. First of all, it allows you to upload your own dictionary. And you’re like, what, I don’t have a dictionary. Well, a lot of puzzle folks create word lists. So, some terms that may have not made it into the dictionary or phrases, for instance, that they can sort of add on to the regular dictionary. And then you have all sorts of options doing simple pattern searches where question marks are missing letters and asterisks are missing strings of letters. There’s anagrams. Hidden anagrams where if you need to figure out, take the word MATE, how many words have an anagram of MATE inside of it. So, “steamed” for instance would be an example of that.

There’s letter banks where you put in eight letters and it tells you all the letters that come from just using those letters, with repeaters. There’s sandwich words. There’s replacements. Deletions. Prefixes. Suffixes. Consonancy. Consonancy is when two words have the same order of consonants but the vowels are different. Of course, there are palindromes.

And it’s all sortable by length or by alphabet. It’s a wonderful tool. And it’s free. So, thank you, Adam Aaronson. Yes, thank you, thank you, thank you. So you can find this. Wordlisted. We’ll throw a link in the show notes for you. But if you’re listening at home it’s Aaronson, that’s with two As. Aaronson.org/wordlisted.

**John:** Very nice. And right underneath that link we’ll also put a link to Rhyme Zone which is a thing I use as a writer all the time and I think it’s the best online rhyming dictionary. And so if you need to rhyme something, a very good tool for that.

As we wrap up, I need to give a special shout out to Megan McDonnell, our former Scriptnotes producer, who has her first produced credit this week. So episode three of Wandavision, the Marvel show that I think is just delightful, has a nice little credit that says Megan McDonnell, because she wrote it. So we’re very, very proud of Megan and–

**Craig:** Well, you know what? That’s your first credit. That’s a big deal.

**John:** Yeah. It’s awesome. First of many credits to come. So, congratulations to her.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** Scriptnotes is currently produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week, and thank you so much for people sending in outros, this new one is by Malakai Bisel. It’s great. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts and they’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for the 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. You get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re going to talk about right after this on QAnon.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** And we’re back. So James in New Zealand wrote in to say, “It’s been reported that one of the top QAnon influencers is a ‘failed Hollywood screenwriter.’ That started me pondering two things. One, what is a failed screenwriter? Most of us, present company included, have failed in some aspect of screenwriting. Two, do you think most screenwriters would be good at creating conspiracy theories? At its core it’s about writing a compelling story. I’m wondering if there’s a Save the Cat template for conspiracy theories.”

So, Craig, the confluence of things in our lives. So, many, many years ago there was a guy named Script Shadow who was a thorn in our collective sides, well before the podcast even started I think. But the QAnon guy is not the guy who is this guy, but there’s relations. Basically Script Shadow had reviewed one of these guys’ scripts and they sort of knew each other, the QAnon guy. And another listener wrote in with a longer explanation of sort of the history behind all this stuff.

I am not at all surprised that some of the QAnon folks are aspiring screenwriters.

**Craig:** Me neither. And this guy apparently was kind of haunting Franklin Leonard for a while on social media because he didn’t do well on the Black List. It’s not like Franklin sits there just digging into screenplays one by one and adjusting the scores and giggling. He doesn’t do that.

So, this was a grouchy guy that wasn’t getting the pat on the head that he thought he deserved, which is something that entitled people have in common. And so question number one. What is a failed screenwriter? I don’t know. I think if you abandon screenwriting, if you wanted to try and be a screenwriter and it didn’t work out and you didn’t get paid, or you got paid once and never again, and you leave it, then your attempts to have a kind of ongoing career as a screenwriter have failed. And that’s most screenwriters. I mean, honestly most people out there are failed screenwriters if they’ve written a script. Because very few screenwriters are able to kind of keep that going. It’s unfortunate. That’s the way it is.

Do you think most screenwriters would be good at creating conspiracy theories? No. Here’s the thing. I’m not surprised that a guy that was struggling to be a successful screenwriter was not struggling to be a successful conspiracy theorist because conspiracy theories are by definition overly complicated, pointlessly involved, illogical explanation of simple things. They are the opposite of elegant.

We are always trying to create elegant plotting that is simple, and compelling, and there’s not a lot of like weird rules stacked on top of each other of why this thing actually doesn’t work this way, but really this way. And that’s all these conspiracy theories. They’re terrible screenplays.

When you look at the QAnon screenplay for what’s going on you go, “Wait, what? That’s terrible. That’s just bad writing. That’s not how humans are. It’s not how organizations work. It’s not how anybody behaves. This is ridiculous. Ridiculous.”

Every single one of these conspiracy theories fails the “yeah, but why” test. Like, oh, didn’t you get it. There’s 17 flags behind him and Q is the 17th letter of the alphabet. But why? What does that actually achieve? Nothing. Nothing! Oh my god.

**John:** So, Craig, you’re saying that a screenwriter wouldn’t be great at creating conspiracy theories, but a screenwriting guru, or a wannabe aspiring screenwriter guru, that does feel like the sweet spot. And that’s apparently who this person really was.

So this is a person who was not successful as a screenwriter but then ended up setting up a website about how to make it in Hollywood. Basically giving all his tips. And that feels like such a great connection there.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Because you’ve discerned a pattern for success and you’ve broken the code of Hollywood and now you’re going to expose the real secrets within it.

**Craig:** Grift. Utter grift.

**John:** And that feels exactly – yeah, but grift and self-delusion are all part and parcel with a conspiracy theory.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** It’s an elaborate mythology that you’re building and that you have the actual secret for seeing past the illusion.

**Craig:** Well, the level of either self-delusion or just outright, just shamelessness required to, A, not succeed at something, and then, B, subsequently take people’s money to inform them how to succeed at the thing you could not succeed at is mind-blowing. Mind-blowing.

So I looked at a couple of the articles and I saw the nature of the way this guy would post things. And it was terrible. It was just a lot of “don’t you get it.” A lot of these aimless questions. Like, “You might have missed it. Don’t you get it? Think about this.” Just open-ended.

You know, like when people accuse a television series of not being accountable to its own stuff, like it starts to make up mysteries and rules and things and then it never actually pays them off. And that’s bad. That’s all this stuff is. It’s literally like you never got anywhere. I mean, there are people who have been, I hope, that a lot of the people who were caught up in this silly cult now understand, OK, that’s what it was. And I hope that they didn’t lose too much money. I hope that they didn’t lose too many people in their lives and family members. I hope that they didn’t hurt anybody. I hope that they can just gently return to sanity. They deserve the right to return to sanity.

But now that they’re hopefully able to see they can see that this was just a ridiculous game of Lucy pulling an imaginary football away from Charlie Brown day after day after day.

**John:** I think who I’m angriest at are the people who clearly didn’t believe any of it, but were using it to maximize – the Ted Cruzes. Who clearly doesn’t believe a single bit of it.

**Craig:** Of course not.

**John:** But is using it, the furor over it, to advance his own aims. That drives me crazy. I want to both be able to punish him and provide a ramp back to normal society for the folks who got caught up in it like it was Lost. And didn’t understand this is not actual reality. And I’m curious to figure out what are the best ways to get people re-involved in a normal functioning society and feeling like what they do matters because it actually does matter.

To me it feels like them volunteering at a soup kitchen a couple Sundays in a row might get them thinking about the world outside of them that’s beyond their screens. I don’t know.

**Craig:** Well, you know, people got stuck in their homes. And they were frustrated. And they were afraid. And they were being fed a fascinating story. Obviously they were inclined to want to believe it. I don’t think anybody who has been voting for the Democratic Party their whole lives was suddenly grabbed hold of by Q and went, “Oh, wait, hold on a second.” The willful manipulators, the crooked Bible-thumping fake preachers are always going to make us angrier, always, with their deceit and their nonsense which is so blatantly tuned to earn them money.

A lot of the leaders of this Q movement were selling Q merchandise. And their platforms were monetized on YouTube. And Facebook. And Google and Facebook should not only be ashamed, but they’re the ones who need to do the penance. They’re the ones who have screwed us.

But, yeah, this QAnon guy, that’s perfect, isn’t it? Freaking screen guru selling consultation fee sessions while he’s also just – he’s like, here, let me go ahead and grift you like this, and with my other hand I’m going to grift these people like this, because I’m bad.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Sorry. We can’t always be hopeful. But, yeah.

**Craig:** Ugh. Ugh.

**John:** Thank you, Craig.

**Craig:** Thanks, John.

 

Links:

* Ballard C Boyd for Stephen Colbert’s show [Queen’s Gambit Rubik’s Cube](https://news.avclub.com/stephen-colbert-has-the-next-the-queens-gambit-all-squa-1846107922)
* [Hollywood’s Unions Celebrate Inauguration Of President Joe Biden & VP Kamala Harris: “Most Pro-Union President” & “Partner In The White House”](https://deadline.com/2021/01/inauguation-hollywood-unions-celebrate-president-joe-biden-vp-kamala-harris-1234677017/) by David Robb
* [Biden Gave Trump’s Union Busters a Taste of Their Own Medicine](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/01/peter-robb-alice-stock-nlrb-fired.html) by Mark Joseph Stern
* [Impeached Ligature EA](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/insider/banner-headlines-letters.html)
* [Wordlisted](https://aaronson.org/wordlisted/) by Adam Aaronson
* [Rhyme Zone](https://www.rhymezone.com)
* [Wandavision](https://www.disneyplus.com/series/wandavision/4SrN28ZjDLwH?pid=AssistantSearch) check out episode 3, written by [Megan McDonnell](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6876585/)!
* [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 Malakai Bisel ([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/485standard.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/sexy-ghosts-of-chula-vista).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Today’s episode has one bit of swearing so just a warning if you’re in the car with your kids.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is Episode 486 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show it’s a new round of the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at listener’s pages and offer our honest feedback. We’ll also discuss some of the most common mistakes we find in these samples and how you can avoid them.

Plus, we’ll look at irony, which is not ironic. It’s just a topic.

**Craig:** It’s a topic.

**John:** And in our bonus segment for Premium members we will discuss money and happiness.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Can’t wait to see what happens.

**John:** And what is the relationship between money and happiness. So, for these bonus topics you and I just sort of come up with them last minute, realistically I come up with them last minute.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** And so I emailed out to all of our Premium subscribers saying like, hey, what do you want us to discuss in bonus topics. And at last count Megana had gotten 165 suggestions for bonus segment topics.

**Craig:** Oh boy. So, we’re locked into this show for at least another three years is what you’re saying.

**John:** Yeah. That’s basically what we’ve come down to.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** But, Craig, there’s big breaking news because this last week Craig Mazin announced that he is no longer going to be on Twitter. Tell me about this.

**Craig:** It had been something I was thinking about for a long time. I mean, I didn’t do the big huffy cancel your account thing. I’ve just made my account private. I’ve stopped tweeting. And I turned my notification filter down to the most narrow band, so I don’t really get any. So, if for instance – the thing that’s different, like I quite Facebook many, many years ago. If you quit Facebook you can’t really see much on Facebook. With Twitter you can. So, sometimes if I’m reading an article it will link to a tweet, so I’ll be there, but my days of tweeting and responding, that’s over.

And it’s because I just kind of felt a growing list of issues that were part of the Twitter experience. Some of which I think people generally are familiar with, like the addictive nature of it. Also, I felt like Twitter was starting to change the way I was thinking about things as I learned them. So, information hits you, like news hits you, and without even trying or thinking about doing it I start to have a reaction. An opinion begins to form immediately. Twitter demands your opinions now. Now! You must have it. And that’s probably not good.

There are a lot of things that I just don’t need to have an opinion on. There are a lot of things that I don’t need people to hear from me on. And I think that there was something that happened, you know Bean Dad, right? Remember the whole Bean Dad fiasco?

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** So when I was reading the Bean Dad thing and I saw how that was all going down I thought to myself I think Bean Dad probably thought he was going to get love for this. I think that’s what was happening. I think Bean Dad was like people are going to applaud my story. They did not. And it does seem to me that underlying a lot of the interaction that people do on Twitter at least, maybe it’s just me, I don’t know, there’s a sense of like I think people are going to like this. And I don’t want that. I actually don’t want likeability or approvability or agreeability to be behind opinions I have or things I say.

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, every day without fail a number of people would have some advice for me on The Last of Us. Who we should cast. Who we shouldn’t cast. What it should be about. What it shouldn’t be about. Who I should be working with. And I don’t do well with that. It’s not that I don’t care. I do care what people think. It’s just that there’s no way to actually do something that way. For every person that feels very strongly that it should be blue, there is somebody else who feels incredibly strongly that it should be yellow. And so you can’t make everybody happy and people are very emotional about it. And they’re very insistent. And it just starts to mess with your head. And I want to just be somewhere quiet. And make the show without feeling like I’m surfing people’s feelings, because my own feelings are so hard to surf at times.

So, all of that kind of added up to “it’s time.” But there were some good things about Twitter, I think, for me in particular. I thought Twitter made me a more empathetic person. I do.

**John:** Talk more about that. So empathetic in terms of you’re seeing different people’s experiences, you’re seeing their opinions and understanding sort of what it might feel like from their perspective?

**Craig:** Yes. But the way to get – Twitter is really good at getting under the hood of those things. Because there’s a lot of culture where people say through essay or interview this is how I feel, this is my experience, this is what’s hard. There’s a lot of fictionalized narrative and drama that does all of that. But it all feels a little bit crafted.

And on Twitter what happens is you see people in a very under-the-hood specific way talking about not only how something good makes them feel, but specifically how something bad makes them feel. Like I don’t like this and here’s why. And I think it’s normal for people who are – look, nobody wants to feel bad about themselves. Let’s just start with that. We avoid that shameful feeling if we can. So here’s something, an aspect, that you can feel shame about. If you are wealthy you can feel shame about the money that you have compared to somebody who doesn’t. If you’re white you can feel shame about the way that racial superiority has kind of shaped the world and you continues to do so. If you’re straight you can feel shame about the fact that people who are not are being limited in their freedoms or are being mocked or made miserable.

And for a lot of people I think when somebody confronts them with a possible mistake, their first instinct is to say, “No, what I just did is actually, no, you should not be upset about that because I don’t want you to be because I don’t want to feel like I made you upset.” That’s really underneath all of it. I don’t want to feel the shame of knowing that I made you feel upset.

So instead I’m going to tell you why you should be upset. And Twitter is really good at allowing the upset person to explain it. And to get out of like the cycle of people going, “I’m offended,” and other people going, “Oh, god, you people are offended by everything.” And that whole like people yelling in each other’s face it kind of still happens on Twitter, but there are times where people explain it and then you suddenly go, “I think I understand not only why you’re upset but why you’re upset that other people aren’t upset.” I’m starting to understand.

**John:** For sure. And I think the rise of threading made that more possible where you can provide additional supporting evidence behind those claims. So some things I’m hearing from you is that it was not just the consumption cycle of Twitter, and the doom-scrolling which we’re all familiar with, that was part of it. But really the need to have a reaction to things and then to feel the need to process any new piece of information in terms of like what is my take on this, what is my response to this, just become exhausting. Particularly when it’s something that you’re in the middle of creation, like The Last of Us, I can totally see why it makes sense to jump off that.

I’ve at times taken the Twitter app off my phone which sort of breaks the cycle of it. And I found that to be helpful. This feels like a nice natural step for you, too.

But I do have a question for you because one of the things I’ve appreciated about Twitter is the sense of being caught up on the popular culture and sometimes it’s stupid culture that you don’t need to be caught up on, and sometimes it’s fun.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So three things in the Trending Topics of today, and I’m curious whether you even know what they are. Jewish space laser.

**Craig:** I know what that is, because I built it. [laughs]

**John:** Harsh advice for writers.

**Craig:** Not familiar with that, but I can imagine what it would be.

**John:** So this was somebody had harsh advice for writers. Your writer friends are also your competition. And so people sort of jumped off of that, in reaction to that, but also made funny responses to it which is just delightful to read.

Mount Rushmore 2.

**Craig:** No. No clue.

**John:** I just made that up. But it feels like something that could be on Twitter, right?

**Craig:** I do love Jewish space laser. We are blamed for so much. I wish that we had the ability to make a space laser. She said that it caused the forest fires, where Marjorie Taylor Greene said forest fires in California were caused by a large laser in space that was possibly built by the Israelis? Is that about right? Something like that?

**John:** That’s about right.

**Craig:** That’s all I need to know.

**John:** Or there was Jewish money behind it.

**Craig:** There’s Jewish money behind it. Yeah, because the one thing I can tell you as the most Jewish person you know is that we love forest fires. Oh, boy, do Jews love forest fires. Yeah, it’s our favorite thing. What a lunatic. Good lord.

**John:** Yeah, she is.

**Craig:** She’s nuts.

**John:** Good lord. All right, some follow up from previous episodes. Back in 483 we had the episode Philosophy for Screenwriters and I had pointed out that I didn’t see a lot of examples of female characters in stories having to make ethical or moral choices. Andrew wrote in to say, “Isn’t Sophie’s Choice a classic example of a female protagonist with a moral debate?” Yes, Andrew, you are right. It’s like literally called a Sophie’s Choice. And it’s a thing we use all the time. So it’s a very good counter example in terms of just like a character having to grapple with an impossible decision. So, Sophie’s Choice.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a very specific decision that rarely will people have to make, but yes it is. No question.

**John:** And Airy wrote in. She said, “Regarding the female character philosophical question, in Godzilla: King of the monsters,” which I’ve seen, “Vera Farmiga’s character Emma has a bit of a villain philosophical speech where she explains why it’s a good thing to let the titans roam free and take back control of the earth.”

And I will say that it’s a really odd moment in this movie that I guess I was surprised to see a female character having that sort of villainous turn. So, yeah, that’s another counter example. There aren’t a lot of them, but I do like that people are finding some of them and I think it is still a very fertile ground for people to create female characters who are grappling with these decisions.

**Craig:** Yeah. Women can root for the destruction of all humanity, too.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** They can be just as good as men at rooting for the destruction of humanity. I love those speeches. Those are my favorite. Isn’t there like a factory that makes that speech and they just update it?

**John:** There is. Well it’s always the eco-terrorist who really wants to turn his back to the Stone Age.

**Craig:** Look what we’ve done to this planet. Why should we be here? We’re a virus. We’re a parasite. Yup, factory just churned out another model.

**John:** Oh, it’s good stuff. J. Harris wrote in to say, “Could you discuss the use of irony within your screenplays, including situational irony, verbal irony, dramatic irony, cosmic irony, and tragic irony?” And it occurred to me that we have not really talked irony as a literary concept very often in the podcast. I think it’s because I don’t like the term. I find irony to be one of the most pedantic sort of – just the fact that you’re trying to split this into five categories of irony kind of drives me crazy.

And yet I think the use of irony is so fundamental to narrative and to dialogue and just to so many different things. I thought we might spend a few moments talking about irony as it is used in screenplays.

**Craig:** Sure. I do talk a little bit about it in the How to Write a Movie podcast, mostly I think in terms of what we’re breaking down here as possibly situational irony. That’s probably the one I think about the most when I think about writing.

**John:** Yeah. And so we’re not going to reference the Alanis Morissette song because I think that’s partly what turned me off of ever using the word irony.

**Craig:** It’s a song about non-ironic things.

**John:** Yeah. And the pedantry of sort of like well it’s a bummer but it’s not ironic. Well, ironic is maybe just not a great word for it. But it’s a phenomenon and it’s a feeling that permeates so much of what we write. So let’s talk about this umbrella feeling of irony, even if we’re not sort of going to zero in on the subcategories of it.

Irony in a very general sense is the contrast between expectation and reality. What you thought you were going to get and what you actually get. And in many ways to me it feels like the punchline to a joke, even if it’s not a funny joke. It’s the idea of you thought you were going this place, but I took you this place.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I think contrast between expectation and reality is an excellent way of thinking about it. And I would just add one little Philip to that and that is that the reality that you weren’t expecting is related to what you were expecting.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** So, if a banker is walking down the street and a piano falls on him and kills him, that was not expected. It’s also not ironic. But if a safe falls on him and kills him, he’s a banker, got killed by a safe which is a thing he uses at the bank. There is a connection between the thing that wasn’t expected and reality vaguely. And that’s where you kind of start to feel the usefulness when we’re writing because it is a fun and interesting game to figure out how to connect the surprises in some sideways interesting contrasting way with what you thought you would get.

**John:** Yup. And so I want to avoid talking about a character being ironic, because I think when we say that we really mean that a character is sarcastic and is sort of using words in a specific way. I want to talk about irony more in the sense of what it’s doing for story. So let’s look at how irony is often helping to create the conflict, the tension, the plot itself. A classic example is the audience knows something that the characters don’t.

So, the audience knows that, oh, that’s actually the characters mother rather than his sister. Or that there’s a bomb underneath the table and they keep lingering around this conversation. There’s a tension being created there because that is suspense, that is comedic. At the end of Romeo and Juliet all the trouble of the poison. We know that the poison was real, or not real, and the characters in that scene don’t. So, we feel the tension because we have information the characters don’t.

**Craig:** And typically this will be referred to as tension. I mean, while technically it is a form of irony, it’s pretty rare that people would call it ironic. It’s that feeling that you get when Clarice Starling shows up at a house and it’s supposed to be a billion miles away from where Jame Gumb is and whoops, actually he’s right there. That is the house. And she’s there and she doesn’t know he’s the guy and we do.

So, that’s tension. But technically irony, yes. Typically we don’t use it that way.

**John:** Yeah. More classically sort of ironic is in Aladdin he wants to become rich so he can impress Jasmine, but she’s repulsed by his riches. And sort of the fancier he gets the less she likes him.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s irony.

**Craig:** Good old backfiring. Yup.

**John:** In The Incredibles Mr. Incredible gets sued for saving a person from suicide. There’s an irony underlying that situation. So because the suicide and saving the life are related and they’re not related in the ways you would expect them to be related. It’s helping to ignite the plot of the story as well.

**Craig:** Yeah. And it’s pretty common that you create these odd details that make you think, oh, how strange. Irony tries to make sense of the chaos of reality. So, it’s not just that some random thing happens to somebody to help them or hurt them. But it’s almost as if somebody, like God, or a writer, did it in such a way as to make a comment about that person and their life. Like, oh, you wanted – have you ever seen, I’m not a huge fan of the movie itself, but there’s a movie called Wish Master. Have you ever seen Wish Master?

**John:** I have not, but I have a sense of what may happen there. Is there a Monkey’s Paw kind of quality there?

**Craig:** There sure is. So the Wish Master is a gin, you know, that’s the root of genie. But he’s evil. And he’s released from his captivity and he grants wishes. And whatever you wish for you get. But only in the most literal sense, which ends up killing you every time. And so it’s just one situational commentary/irony moment after another. Backfiring supreme.

**John:** On the thread of like what you’re wishing for, the whole category of situational irony, like because of who you are this is ironic that it’s happening. In The Wizard of Oz everyone wishes for, everyone wants the thing that they actually already have. Scarecrow actually is quite smart, but he’s looking for a brain. That’s natural.

Darth Vader is Luke’s father. Harry Potter has to kill Voldemort, wants to kill Voldemort, but the only way he can do that is to let Voldemort kill him. So there’s a reversal of expectation there.

Classically The Twilight Zone episode, which are all sort of Monkey Paw situations. The main character wants to be left alone so he can read, but then his reading glasses break so he’s stuck there alone but can no longer read the books he wants to read.

Oedipus is searching for a murderer who is actually himself. Those are examples of sort of situational irony where a fundamental reveal in the plot, in the story itself, is character’s misassumptions about themselves or their situation.

**Craig:** And I think we like it as an audience because it does organize stuff. Irony implies intention. If someone has to die in a story you could just shake a big old bingo roller full of little balls with possible deaths on it, pull one out, and kill her. But that doesn’t feel as interesting to us as something that is intentional. Well if it’s intentional then it’s probably going to have that ironic vibe.

**John:** Yeah. We like there to feel like there’s some order and some sense to the universe. And so when we see a twist ending that works really well it’s probably because like the punchline to a joke all that setup was there, you just weren’t anticipating the setup taking you to that place. And that’s the pop. That’s the little bit of surprise you get.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** But even when it’s not the whole movie, or the whole story, we use irony in smaller places to provide some texture and some detail. So, you have a married couple in counseling and they find out that their therapist has been divorced three times. There’s an irony to a divorced marriage therapist. You have a fire station burning down. You have a police car that the tires have been stolen from it. There’s an irony to that that feels – it makes the world feel just a little bit more, I don’t know, detailed, textured. It makes it feel like there’s some intention behind it.

**Craig:** Interesting. Yeah. It’s just more interesting. I mean, because you could, I mean, look the marriage counselor when they say, “Well what about you? What’s your secret?” And she says, “Oh yeah, no, I got married when I was 22 and we have the occasional fight, but mostly it’s been wonderful and we don’t really have challenges and we’re still married. It’s been 40 years. And the secret is just, you know, like all these things that I showed you on this worksheet, yeah, just do the worksheet. That’s great.” That’s super boring. It’s super boring.

And we like the idea of a failure somehow having some wisdom from their failure that they can impart that helps other people, but they’re struggling to help themselves. This is interesting. Our minds are wired to contrast. You know that vision and hearing are entirely based on contrast. So, hearing in particular, if someone plays a pure tone at a frequency and just keeps playing it you’ll stop hearing it after, I don’t know, 20 seconds. Because it’s not changing. So the little fibers that are twitching against the nerves in your ear, they activate because it’s a new. And then after a while they’re like, OK, we get it, we’ll stop. This hasn’t changed. The way that they encode videos, you know, with MPEG and all that stuff is basically by just encoding the things that change. Why encode the things that don’t?

So, this is kind of how it works for us when we’re watching stuff. We want those weird changes of things we would expect because that’s the information that makes it through our filter. Otherwise, boring.

**John:** Yeah. But we want things ideally to change in a way that matches to some degree our expectations. And so as you said earlier, if it’s just random then eventually you’re going to give up on it because you cannot follow what’s actually happening.

**Craig:** It’s just noise.

**John:** So it has to feel like, OK, there’s an intention that’s taking you to a place. And so often dialogue, irony and dialogue, is giving you that texture and giving you that bit of surprise. That little pop that keeps you coming back to it. And so sitcom writing is so full of joke after joke after joke, and it’s these little bursts of ironic surprise that sort of keep you going through it.

Generally in verbal irony it’s the difference between the literal meaning of something you’re saying versus the figurative meaning of what someone is saying. And so that’s how you get into your double entendres, your shade, your sarcasm, your passive-aggressive, “the good news is we’re all going to die.” It’s all those things that sort of have a little bit of a spark that sort of keep you engaged in a thing, keep the ball up in the air.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Irony is a useful way to do that.

**Craig:** Yeah. Use it.

**John:** Use it. Use it, and use it smartly. And so be thinking about it not just on a big story-wide scale, but on a smaller scale. And I would urge people to not be thinking about these little subcategories of stuff, because that’s literary criticism and papers you write when you’re a sophomore, but it’s not the kind of work that you’re doing writing a new scene in a script.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Your use of irony and use of these techniques is setting a tone for what your script is doing and the way the characters talk, the way the world works. And as long as you’re consistent with it it’s going to be great. But if you try to dial that in for the first time on page 60 it’s going to bump.

I remember a script I wrote at Paramount years, and years, and years ago I had this one great line of dialogue and I was so excited about it. And my executive called it out. “That’s a great line for a completely different script. It just does not make sense here.” And I’m like, yeah, you’re right. Just it’s a great line.

**Craig:** Yeah. Irony is a fundamental ingredient. You can’t bake cookies without sugar and then sprinkle some sugar on these little flour dough balls and call it a cookie. It’s got to be in there. You just have to plan it.

**John:** All right, well let’s move to some actual writing on the page that we can look at and see if there’s any irony on display there. This is our Three Page Challenge. So for folks who are new to the podcast here every couple weeks we open up the mailbag and look through and see these submissions that our listeners have sent in, generally the first three pages of their script. It could be a TV script. It could be a feature script. And we look at what we see and give you our honest opinions on what we’re seeing that works and what could be a little bit better.

So we get in a zillion of these. And Megana Rao is responsible for looking through all of these. I want to invite her on because before we get started on these three specific ones she and I were looking through some of the examples and had some general guidelines and suggestions for everybody else sending stuff through. So, Megana, why don’t you come on board here?

**Craig:** Take it away, Megana.

**Megana Rao:** Hey guys.

**John:** Hey. So, how many of these samples do we get in on a given week in preparation for a given episode?

**Megana:** I usually look through about 100.

**John:** That’s a lot. And when you’re looking through them are you mostly focused on this is an interesting story idea, these are interesting problems I’m seeing, this is really good, this is really bad? What are the kind of things that bring it up to this next level for you?

**Megana:** Yeah, I think I’m looking for people who are taking risks, doing something interesting, or within three pages are quickly establishing the world and giving us some character development. And I think recently as I’ve been getting better at this, filtering through what’s just not going to work, too, issues of formatting or if I can read in the first couple of lines the writer is just trying to do too much within the description, I think it’s much easier for me to filter those out.

**John:** Yeah. We don’t want writers to ever be embarrassed. We don’t want people to feel like, you know, these people are doing this voluntarily which is great and awesome and so thank you for sending this in, but we don’t want to embarrass somebody and it does nobody any good for us to slam on somebody.

We want this to be helpful and educational for the person who sent it in, but really for everybody. And so we’re trying to find that balance of like examples that have enough things to talk about that can be improved but also have some good things to talk about as well.

Some of the pages you’ve sent through recently in this last batch, some things that I noticed, I’ve put them into kind of two buckets. One is sort of sloppiness where I just sense that this writer did not proofread carefully. And there were mistakes where like the wrong word was used. There’s extra spaces in places. It’s not even that it’s formatted wrong, they’re literally just typos. And second is unfamiliarity with the screenplay format. And it’s great that some people are sending in some of the first stuff that they’ve written, but I also feel like they have not read enough screenplays. And I think the great thing about 2021 is you can find the scripts for any movie that’s ever been produced online.

I just feel like you need to read like 30 scripts and really get a sense of what that format feels like. Because sometimes I get stuff in that’s like, oh, that’s just really don’t know what a screenplay is or does. And they just need to take in that format a little bit better.

**Craig:** I agree with all of that.

**John:** Some other sort of ongoing things I’ve noticed in a lot of these pages is confusion about punctuation. Confusion about where do commas go. You can make different choices about where to put some commas, but some of these commas are just really in the wrong place. I see semicolons sometimes. Almost never have I seen a semicolon used properly. If you’re thinking about using a semicolon you really need to stop, take a few steps back, maybe look up what the usage of semicolons is, and see if that’s really the right choice.

**Craig:** It’s not. [laughs] It’s not the right choice ever in a screenplay ever.

**John:** I mean, I can think of, having written 120 or more scripts, I’ve probably used a semicolon in a screenplay three or four times. It’s just not a common thing you’re going to use in a screenplay.

**Craig:** I literally don’t think I’ve ever done it.

**John:** Yeah. You probably want a colon. You may want two dashes. More likely you want a comma or a period. Simplicity is generally your friend there.

A thing I noticed in this last batch is people tend to not put a space before parenthesis, and so they’ll have a character’s name and then there won’t be a space for the parenthesis, the character’s age, or what the description is of that person.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Put a space there. That’s great. Same with brackets. You’re doing like day or night or after something, just give us that space before then.

Lastly I would say on the title page, Written by, Screenplay by, Story by, those are all credits you’ll see. Something you’ll never see on a real screenplay is Story Edited by.

**Craig:** Story Edited by?

**John:** Or Story Editor. That’s not a thing.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. That’s not a natural credit.

**Craig:** Don’t do it.

**John:** Written by, Screenplay by, Story by, nothing else is really appropriate for the stuff that you’re sending in to us.

**Craig:** The semicolon of credits.

**John:** It is.

**Megana:** And I guess the only other thing I’d add is verb tenses. I see a lot of people, just even within the three pages, flipping through a bunch of different verb tenses and that’s just something I think to be mindful of.

**John:** Yeah. Let’s talk about that. Because screenplays are written in the present tense. And they’re never written in the past. They’re always in the present tense. And you can use the present continuous, like “Joe is putting on his shoes when he hears a noise.” “Is putting on his shoes” is great and fine. But you’re not going to use that for everything. Use that in cases where action could be interrupted. Most of the time you’re going to be using the simple present. “Joe puts on his shoes. Joe opens the door to find something.”

If you’re using present tense continuous there’s got to be a reason why you’re using that other than just the normal present tense.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think there’s just a lot of overcomplicated – all right, so John and I have a slightly different view about whether you should be going back over your stuff, but I’m such a go-backer over my stuff. And at least in this point I think even if you don’t want to creatively go back over your stuff just take a moment to go back over your stuff just for compression and concision. And just look for the bunch of words and things that maybe you just don’t need. And just concise it up a little bit if you can. It does help, right, because there’s a buildup of stuff over time.

We start to think of the things that have survived a month, or two, or three of rewrites as worthy of lasting all the way to the screen, but maybe they’re not. Maybe it’s just that you haven’t roughed them up when you could have. And these little dinky things, sometimes if you don’t do it right away you’re never going to get around to it and it’s just suddenly – there is a cumulative effect of too many words. “Too many notes,” as the emperor said.

**John:** And what Craig is saying about going back over your stuff, I think just so that everyone is clear, I try not to go over my last week’s work before I start on today’s work. I try to stay within the scenes that I’m working on. But in that scene that I’m working on I will go through that hundreds of times to keep tightening it up and to keep working on it.

And so he and I are both believers in, yeah, there’s probably your first approach to how you got through that scene, but there’s going to be a tighter version of that. There’s going to be just better choices of words and really making sure everything fits lockstep. Because screenwriting is very concise. You’re trying to use the fewest words to create the best effect possible.

So, sometimes we don’t see that in the pages that we’re getting and we’d love to see more of that.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And as a reminder we’re going to be talking through with some descriptions of these things, but if you’d like to actually read the pages we have PDFs. They’re attached to the show notes of this show. Or you can go to johnaugust.com. So you can read along with us as we go through these.

**Craig:** Let’s get onto it.

**John:** Cool. All right. Let’s talk about specifically the three pages that were sent through this week. Megana, can you give us a summary of this first one which is Echopraxia by J. Vernon Reha.

**Craig:** Or An Interdimensional Coming of Age Ghost Story.

**John:** Which we’ll talk about as well.

**Megana:** OK, great. 19-year-old Bianca fiddles with the radio as she drives through a quiet neighborhood in Memphis, Tennessee. She approaches a stop sign, but instead of slowing down she accelerates through the intersection and crashes. Time slows as we watch the fall out of the crash and ghostly images of dead squirrels in buildings flicker on screen. Bianca speaks to us in voiceover as we watch the scene of the accident from a bird’s eye view.

Police and paramedics ID Bianca’s body, but find that the car she crashed into is mysteriously empty.

**John:** Great. Craig, so you set up the first question here. So Echopraxia Or An Interdimensional Coming of Age Story. This is by J. Vernon Reha. I bumped on that subtitle.

**Craig:** Well these are more common now. I have to say. This is sort of – it’s a trend. Nobody wants to just write a thing that’s called Rebound or whatever you might want to call something like this. So, it has become common to do these funky, twisty titles like for instance Echopraxia. There’s also a trend to do funky, twisty titles where you say something like Rebound, colon, and then some sort of Charlie Kaufman-ish overly worded musey kind of Synecdoche, New Yorker-y kind of thing.

And in this case J. Vernon did both. Echopraxia or An Interdimensional Coming of Age Ghost Story. This is essentially a promotional choice. I don’t think that J. Vernon is expecting that there’s going to be a movie with this on the marquee, or in whatever the tiles are on HBO Max or Netflix. This is really about getting people to go, “Oh, I think I’ll read that one from the pile.” That’s my guess.

**John:** Yeah. I think that’s a fair guess. And a couple of the other samples we got through had something kind of like that. It kind of annoys me and yet I can see why somebody does it. So, I’m not going to come out strongly against it. I can’t imagine some buyer is going to go, “Ugh.” It doesn’t feel kind of fair on the title page and yet I can see why people do it.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s promotional. But, you know.

**John:** Well let’s get into the pages itself. So, the first page of this is essentially the car crash and going up into the car crash. And that first line was an example of sort of the not putting a space before the parenthesis. It’s not a big deal, and yet at the same time it’s like the first word I see a problem. And that doesn’t give me a lot of faith in what’s going on.

Mostly what I wanted to see in this opening section, because I think some of the writing of the actual crash is really nice, is stuff was in the wrong order. Stuff was in the wrong place. So it says, “I/E. CAR – MORNING,” well right now the writer is starting on Bianca. But then later on it’s talking that it’s early, the sun is still rising. We keep hopping around in terms of are we talking about the day or are we talking about Bianca. Give us one thing, then give us the next thing, then give us the next thing.

So I feel like if you’re going to set up what time of day this is, or what this feels like, what the neighborhood is like, do that first. And then get us to Bianca. And then get us into the crash.

Craig, what are you thinking?

**Craig:** There are a lot of really interesting things going on here. There are some things that are also poking out where I just think I’m not sure how this works practically. So, for instance, “She turns on the corner of Fourth and Lake.” And then you point out, “It is early – the sun is just rising.” OK, couple of things. There is practically no difference between the sun rising and the sun setting, unless we literally see a west or east sign with an arrow, like in a cartoon. We don’t know which one it is. So we’re going to need some other indication that this is morning. Any other little indication would do if that’s what you want.

Similarly, turning on the corner of Fourth and Lake, is that important? Do I need to know it’s Fourth and Lake? Do I need to know it right now? If I do, I need to be outside of the car. I don’t want to see her turning on the corner of Fourth and Lake. I want to see a car turning onto Fourth and Lake. If it’s just her, I just need to see that she’s turning. That’s all. She turns to head down a different street. It’s early. The sun is rising. Did the sun just get into her eyes? Has it shifted? You know, give me some stuff there.

This is where it gets a little trickier.

**John:** Craig–

**Craig:** Go on.

**John:** Let’s just talk through sort of how you might do that on the page. So I could envision, if the first slug line of this was “A quiet residential road in Liberty, Tennessee, a suburb of Memphis, one of those neighborhoods where all of the homes are eerily similar. It’s early.” And then some other description about dew on the laws. You know, newspapers on sidewalks. Whatever you want to do there. And then a car turns onto Fourth and Lake. And then we are interior the car afterwards. That’s a much more natural way to sort of – it helps us see what are the shots. It lets us visualize the movie a little bit more easily.

**Craig:** Yeah. Or stay inside the car the whole time. And then we don’t get out until the crash happens. So you have choices to make. “Bianca is pretty, but nondescript, with a face you could forget.” Well, why don’t we just start by saying, “This script is fine, but nondescript, with a story you could forget?” Why would you want to advertise? This feels like a reaction to a “hot but doesn’t know it.” But it’s not actually giving me anything. I don’t know what she looks like at all. And I definitely don’t want to be told that I need to cast an actor whose face is so generic I’ll forget them.

I want to know what her hair is like. I want to know what she’s wearing. I want to know if she has makeup on.

**John:** Are her nails painted?

**Craig:** Are they dirty?

**John:** A 19-year-old young woman could be a zillion different things, so give us some choices here.

**Craig:** “She Flicks through radio stations,” so J. Vernon capitalizes flicks, which I think is OK. At first I was like, oh, is that a mistake, but I see there’s a flick, flick, flick, flick thing going on. Flicking through radio stations is something that was far more common when you and I were learning how to drive. Because now you tap, tap, tap I think to get through radio stations at this point. But I get the point. What I was a little bit more concerned about was that this is being intercut with the following: “A child runs into the street for a ball. Flick. Squirrels chase each other up a tree. Flick. A man and his wife shout indistinctly behind an open window. Flick Flick Flick…”

How are we supposed to get to any of that? Are we just dead-cutting to a squirrel? Are we dead-cutting to a window and people maybe behind it and you can’t hear them. Are we dead-cutting to a kid in the street which you know you’re going to think is going to get run over? How do we do that? And why?

**John:** Yeah. And how does it relate to Bianca? Is she noticing this? I assume that we are in POV because of how this scene started, but this didn’t feel like POV, so–

**Craig:** Right. It doesn’t feel like POV. And the reason that I’m kind of picking on this is because I really like what happens next.

**John:** Very much.

**Craig:** And that’s what sort of matters. And so I’m wondering maybe we don’t need all this junk because really what’s important is that she does something surprising which is she intentionally crashes into another car. And I would love to know, since it’s day, I don’t know why we’re being blinded by approaching headlights? It’s morning.

**John:** I noticed that, too.

**Craig:** I’d like to see what kind of car that is. That’s actually going to be very helpful for what comes next. Is it a Prius? Is it a pickup truck? What is it? Then she crashes. The description of the crash was fascinating. I mean, obviously we’re getting into science fiction here but it was really cool.

**John:** Yeah. So this is the moment that gave me some hope because I felt like the writer was picking very specific visuals to dramatize what was actually happening here. So I love a good car crash in slow motion. And I love how it’s going to feel. I love the description of glitching. It let me know that something unusual was about to happen. And that was great. And so I loved that we got there.

So, if earlier it was just more normal and got to that moment, great. If earlier, you gave us a sense that something was odd and then we got to that, great. But I wasn’t led into this moment with any confidence. And so if I had been a little more confident going into it it would have felt even better.

**Craig:** Yeah. Then the first line comes from Bianca, who has just theoretically killed herself. And it is in voiceover, “Sometimes I wonder if I have a personality.” That’s not kind of – you want that line, whatever that line is, it needs to grab you by the face and go here we go. This is fascinating. She’s making a statement. And it doesn’t quite do that. It’s a little bit more of a thinky line than a grabby, shocking line.

**John:** Yeah. I think it’s close. And I would have loved to have – there’s going to be a first line, and whatever that first line is I would have pulled it up earlier towards the crash so that we have something to anchor us to before we get to this sort of wide open street scene, or people we’ve not established before looking at the results of the car crash. I would love to hear that line somewhere in that car crash scene.

But I like the voiceover over all as a feeling. And so I was, you know, excited to see it. I don’t think the line is quite right, but I like where it was headed.

**Craig:** Yeah. Tonally it seems like it’s dancing around the right thing.

**John:** So, Craig, the answer to your question, they are both gray 2004 Ford Fiestas.

**Craig:** Now I see.

**John:** Which feels like well that’s got to be important. I feel like that is an intentional choice. And yet I don’t know what’s important and what’s not important because there hasn’t been any signaling to me as a reader. So if that feels like the kind of thing which is so important that I might underline it or bold face it or somehow call it out or stick it on its own line. Because that’s weird.

**Craig:** I’d go further.

**John:** Why would two identical cars crash into each other?

**Craig:** That to me requires actual direction on the page. First of all, gets its own paragraph for sure. And then her car we now see is crumpled. Her 2004 gray Ford Fiesta is crumpled and smashed. We come around to see the other car on its back. Also gray. And then as we move around the back we see an upside down the word “Fiesta.” Then we go it’s the same exact model and make. Two of the same cars just smashed into each other. Because you want the audience to go Whoa, not like, Huh, those are similar.

**John:** Yeah. There must have been a sale on 2004 Ford Fiestas.

**Craig:** Meh.

**John:** So then we get into two detectives, one with glasses and one with a beard, talking. I want to cut most of their dialogue because it was just yada-yada. They’re basically saying that she’s alive and stable, but there’s no other body in the other car. I felt there were ways we could visually see that and get to that point and have it be the moment of discovery rather than two people talking about something that has already happened.

It would be great to see people looking in the car and there’s no body in the other car. There’s no person in the other car.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Rather than reported moments, seeing the moment feels better to me.

**Craig:** Well, yeah. I mean, you can do a thing where a detective shows up and he walks over to the other guy and he says, “OK,” and the guy is like, “Yeah, she’s…” And they’re wheeling her into – that’s Bianca Armitage, 19, no criminal history, family has been alerted. We’re running a tox screen. Looks like she’s going to make it.

OK, what about the other guy? Or what about the other car? And the cop says, “There was no one in the other car.” And that’s it. And just like, what?

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s weird.

**John:** What? What?

**Craig:** We don’t need this back and forth. “It’s the strangest thing.” No one ever says that. Ever.

**John:** A real head-scratcher.

**Craig:** It’s the strangest thing. Real head-scratcher. These guys are actually diminishing the drama of the situation that you’ve created by kind of being weirdly bland about it.

**John:** Yeah. So I can envision a scenario in which the crash has basically just happened, or we’re coming in like 30 seconds later and there are neighbors who are like looking at Bianca and like, OK, she’s alive in there, and they’re looking. And then we dolly around to the other car and there’s nobody in the car. And that’s surprising. That is shocking. That’s a cool moment. And then we reveal that the license plate is blank. Like that is really creepy and interesting and goose-bumpy.

But having these detectives who aren’t going to be important characters have this dialogue isn’t doing it for us.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And then going to the reporter.

**Craig:** No. No, no.

**John:** That just has to go.

**Craig:** No, no, no.

**John:** I never believe the reporter covering this thing. You don’t cover car crashes like this.

**Craig:** No. I mean, Memphis is – maybe in some tiny, tiny Podunk town in a county where nothing ever happens. But this is Memphis, Tennessee. It’s not necessarily New York, but it’s a real city. And, no, car crashes happen all the time. They stay on somebody going, “A car crash happened.” It’s just, no. No.

**John:** So, I don’t know if I’ve ever talked about this on the show, but at the end of my street there are car crashes all the time, or at least there used to be car crashes all the time until we finally convinced the city to change how traffic flows and put in some one-way turns and things like that. But I would just be watching TV and I’d hear the squeal of tires, crash. And like, OK, it’s a crash. And so I’d put on my shoes, I’d get my phone, and I’d go down. And so I’ve had to deal with so many flipped over cars over the last couple of years.

**Craig:** Oh god. Jesus.

**John:** And it’s terrible. And so I know what these crashes are like and never does a news crew show up. I mean, this is Los Angeles. But even in Memphis, Tennessee a news crew is not going to show up. This is just not realistic or believable.

**Craig:** It’s not news.

**John:** Not news.

**Craig:** It’s not news.

**John:** It’s not news. Then we get to the hospital room and I’m curious what happens next. And so I will say that the good writing of the car crash and of the mystery of like, wait, where is the other person in the other car, who is Bianca, is Bianca possessed by some other spirit, I’m fascinated by all of those. So that’s what makes me curious about what’s going to happen next.

**Craig:** And that is exactly how I would think about rewriting this. What would the person watching this be most curious about? And I can assure you it is not a reporter talking about a crash. It is not two detectives yapping back and forth in a bland way. I want to know, wait, was there somebody in that car? Can you convince me there was nobody in that car? What does it mean that these two cars are exactly the same? What does that mean? And where is that car now? That’s what I want to know.

So, think about what people would want. Give it to them. But in an interesting way. This is the big secret. Now you know.

**John:** Now we know. All right. Let’s move onto our next Three Page Challenge. Megana, tell us about The Little Death by Autumn Palen.

**Megana:** All right, so Brandy, a young woman in her 20s, stares blankly at the ceiling of her bedroom. Tony, male 20s, emerges from beneath the covers and asks if she “got there.” Brandy admits that she did not and that she has never “been there.” Brandy reveals that she’s been too scared to masturbate on her own. Tony asks why not and we see a series of quick cutaways of Brandy’s fears, i.e. that someone will walk in on her or that she’ll electrocute herself with a vibrator.

They banter about what Tony can try next.

**Craig:** You really can’t electrocute yourself with a vibrator. I mean, if it was plugged into a wall?

**John:** These are battery controlled. So back in the days of plug-in vibrators, which I’m sure was a thing at some point.

**Craig:** Was it?

**John:** Then you could have, but you can’t.

**Craig:** Not in my lifetime. I think there have been batteries for a long time.

**John:** It’s probably more like hair dryers in bathtubs was maybe a thing. I bet some people actually did die of that. Exposed wire.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Early on, I think like in the 20s, a man would get on some sort of bicycle contraption and then an egg beater type electric vibrator would be attached to a woman. And this was all done under the heading of curing her hysteria. But, no, not since I would imagine the ‘40s has this been.

By the way, that actually counts. I have to say, people may think we’re just being picky, but it counts. Because people need to know that the characters are living in our world and thinking somewhat logically.

**John:** Yeah. Craig, it does make me think though I’ve seen so many examples of like shows from the ‘70s where a woman was murdered because someone threw a hair dryer into the bathtub. But how was it ever a believable death? What person is using a blow dryer while in a bathtub?

**Craig:** Well, you know, people are incredibly stupid.

**John:** Yeah, I guess they smoke in bed.

**Craig:** They do. The good news is that somewhere along the line the ground fault interrupter circuit was invented so in your bathroom all those things you would plug a hair dryer into now has its own little circuit breaker. So, you probably won’t die.

**John:** All right, Craig, so The Little Death, what is your take on The Little Death?

**Craig:** Well, there’s nothing wrong with it. OK. There’s nothing wrong with it. There’s just not a lot right with it. Because it is somewhat familiar. We have seen conversations a little bit like this in all sorts of sitcoms and things like that, and other movies. My biggest thing about it was it read, it flowed, the dialogue sounded perfectly fine, I just didn’t believe much of it.

So, Tony seems to have feelings. Tony is just totally cool with everything. And Brandy is in a very strange place because she’s never had an orgasm before, which is not horribly uncommon for women in their 20s. It’s a thing. OK, so I’m with it. But she neither seems to be open or closed about it. She just sort of tells it in between like let me just tell you a big secret of mine. And his reaction is like, oh, OK, let me just try a different thing. And, does that work?

It all feels a bit sort of shruggish. Like a shrug. Like I’m watching a fairly mild discussion between two perfectly nice people.

**John:** So, I enjoyed that it was overall sex positive. I enjoyed Tony’s sex positivity and that Tony was trying hard. And I really like that. I like the specific details of like “wipes his lips with a thumb and forefinger.” Great. Love that. I see the image. It’s terrific.

And while I like him being sex positive, I don’t have a sense of where are they at in their relationship. Like how long – who are they specifically individually and how long have they been kind of a couple. And I think we can get that information into this scene. Or we can get some sense of what their connection is in this scene.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Some of the problems are like, Brandy, 20s. 20s is anything from 20 to 29. That’s a huge range.

**Craig:** It’s a big spread. Yeah.

**John:** So I think you got to give us a very specific age on Brandy. Like is she still in college? Or is she killing it as a consultant at a top law firm? It’s just too general here. And that’s I think my biggest problem with all of this is that it didn’t feel like it was rooted in very specific characters encountering a specific situation.

**Craig:** I mean, look, Brandy has a problem. Right? It’s not like Brandy loves this situation. She doesn’t love this situation. She’s sort of trapped by a fear. I’d love to know a little bit more. I think this fear part is the part that I believe the least, not only for the aforementioned batteries can’t kill you reason, but also because that doesn’t actually seem like why women are too scared to masturbate. It’s not a fear of physical death as much as there’s shame, culture, family issues, religion, whatever it is. It seems like it’s probably a little more complicated than that. So it seems so readily and immediately psychologically accessible to her.

Also, she seems to not – at least in these pages – she doesn’t come off as aware that this is a problem. So it’s only a problem suddenly and then it’s a problem always. Meaning, she’s letting him do this. Now, if she has a problem and she’s allowing him to do this, either she’s saying, “Here’s the deal. It’s not going to work, but you try and let’s see if you can be the one.” Which I don’t get from this. Or, she’ll fake it.

But what she’s not going to do is think, oh, for some reason this time it will be different than all the other times and I’ll just sort of mention that it actually turned out to not be different from all the other times. It just feels like there’s not backstory built in. There’s not experience built in. We’re dealing with sex, so there’s shame around it and it’s tricky and it’s psychological. And both of them just seem too simple. They just seem like incredibly simple people.

**John:** I think my biggest issue with how the pages were flowing is I didn’t get a good sense of – I think the tension of the pages is that she’s telling the guy sort of what these different encounters were, because he’s reacting to them. And I think all those cutaways back to “I just told you that story, I just told you that story,” get rid of those. I think you have a stronger story.

I think it’s more interesting if we’re, as the audience, are being led into these things and she’s not telling him those things. Because then it becomes a source of tension between the two of them. Because someone who can be too nice and too supportive and it can drive you crazy, I think that could be the source of real good comedic tension within the scene. Where she’s like I don’t want you to even try. I don’t want to deal with this right now. I don’t want to try to fix this. And then we don’t need to sort of have the escalation and the rule of three in terms of like all the things that have gone wrong.

Just the one occurrence could be great. Right now on page two, “The sound of the door slamming open snaps her from her daze. Brandy jolts up, focus fixed on the door in a panic.” And right now she says, “I didn’t know you were home.” That’s kind of generic. If she says, “Grandpa!”

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s funnier.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And then we don’t even need to see grandpa. We just know like, oh god, I can’t even imagine how terrifying that would be.

**Craig:** Or we just see grandpa. We see him staring there dropping his little bag from Trader Joe’s on the floor in shock. No one says a full, complete sentence when they’ve been caught masturbating, I have been told.

**John:** Mm-hmm.

**Craig:** Allegedly.

**John:** Allegedly.

**Craig:** It just seems way too, yeah, sort of rigged. By the way, I didn’t quite understand thumb and forefinger. Do you understand her to mean like wipes his lips, like wipes his mouth with the back of his hand?

**John:** No, so sort of pinching – using thumb and forefinger on each side to sort of clean off his mouth.

**Craig:** I dispute that that would be effective. [laughs] I dispute that.

**John:** Sure.

**Craig:** Yeah. That seems odd.

**John:** I would also, getting back to sort of the basics here, it’s such a clichéd moment of like the guy comes up from the covers and asks like “how was that/did it?”

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I just feel like I’ve seen that so often. I could cut those first couple lines and – or even if he just says, “No?” And you could just get rid of the question, I guess.

**Craig:** I have a question for you. Why did Tony stop? What clue did he have that it had ended? Right off the bat I was so confused. Did he set an egg timer? What happened?

**John:** We won’t know.

**Craig:** And he was like, “How was that?” And she’s like, no. And he’s like, “No? Really? You mean that you didn’t have an orgasm right when I arbitrarily stopped going down on you?”

That’s what I mean. They just seem a bit dim as people. So, make them smarter.

**John:** Yeah. We like that. Let’s get to our final Three Page Challenge. This is Chula Vista by Kristen Delgado. Megana, talk us through it.

**Megana:** Enrique, 17, and his father, Ignacio, 34, are selling a wealthy homeowner, Mr. Lawson, 45, on their landscaping services. Mr. Lawson’s daughter, Stevie, 17, pokes out and tries to talk to Enrique who barely acknowledges her. Enrique secures the sale and as Enrique and his father are leaving Ignacio asks his son who the girl was. And Enrique pretends he doesn’t know her. As they leave the Chula Vista neighborhood Enrique tells his father that one day when he’s a doctor he’ll buy him a home there.

Then we see a tired-looking Enrique getting ready for school in the morning. He almost forgets to pack the burrito his mom packed and the dad makes a joke that Enrique is too good for it because he’s going to be a doctor.

**John:** Great. We’ll start on the title page. This includes an image. It looks like an image that’s maybe custom made for this script. You and I have talked about images in screenplays before. I felt like this set a nice tone and a picture of it. What did you feel about this image?

**Craig:** I liked it. I liked it. I thought that because the image was a bit soft and watercolor-y and defocused that it immediately said this is romance. And not just because a boy and a girl are sitting there on the ground by some lit candles at night and all the rest. Just the Chula Vista itself, the valley, the world, the sunset, the lights. Everything felt romantic.

So, even if this turns out to not be a romance, which I suspect it will turn out to be a romance, it put me in a nice place. I was happy. It felt sophisticated. You know? It was an interesting image.

**John:** Yeah. I liked it, too. One challenge with images in screenplays is that images want to be centered across the width of the page, but of course text in screenplays shift slightly to the right because historically we’ve had bindings, we’ve had three holes on the left hand side. So it bugs me a little bit that the image is off-center compared to the text. So it’s a thing you could figure out how to manipulate in whatever program you’re using. You could figure out how to do it in Highland. Being off-center bugged me more than the fact that there’s an image there. That’s me.

**Craig:** It looks on-center to the title and her name.

**John:** To me it’s on-center to the page but off-center compared to the title.

**Craig:** I printed it out, so there may be some funky printer stuff going on.

**John:** Ah, so it may look different to you.

**Craig:** But it’s a nice image. You know what? Actually, Kristen, this is by Kristen Delgado, the only thing I would think about is if you have a little Photoshop-y thing or Gimp is a free one that you can get that’s like Photoshop, to somehow just do something with the edges of this thing so it doesn’t seem like such a hard edged Internet grab. You know what I mean? Like something that’s a little softer and kind of blended somehow. Fading on the edges. That sort of.

**John:** Let’s get to the script itself. The writing of the script itself. And so I believe after these three pages that this is a story about Enrique and his probably coming of age story in 1979 Phoenix, Arizona. I’ve never seen that before. It does feel like probably about a rich girl from Chula Vista and his dad is going to be the gardener for this family. I got that off of these first three pages and I would be curious what the complications are in that relationship that go ahead. And obviously the image was helping send me to that place.

Craig, what was your overall take, your overall feeling of these three pages?

**Craig:** Nervousness. Because I think you’re right. And that is what they’re promising. And I feel like I’ve seen this. A lot. I mean, there have been a billion Romeos and Juliets, but more importantly it seems like we’re getting a little bit of a kind of already done quite a bit take on being the child of immigrants and the mixing of immigrants with people who aren’t immigrants and different races and different classes and looking down at people.

It feels like this is well trod upon territory. And I didn’t get anything different from these than I normally would. It feels like I’m getting set up for Enrique to start to turning his back on his parents and his family because he’s a little bit embarrassed about them because he kind of aspires to be more with the rich kids. And so there’s going to be conflict there. And the first page I was a little nervous because Mr. Lawson does not seem like, again, this doesn’t seem like the way people are. Someone says, “We’re doing landscaping. We noticed your grass is kind of high.” “Uh, yeah, I haven’t had a chance to get to it.”

But more importantly he goes, “How much?” “$30.” “Great. Go ahead. Do it.” That’s it? Did he not think of this before? It just seems so kind of like mild. And the other thing that was kind of odd is Ignacio in Spanish says, “What a fucking asshole.” And I’m all for the good old classic fucking asshole rich white guy, but I don’t see what Mr. Lawson did. He answered the door.

**John:** He didn’t shake his hand, but he did say yes. He got a job. So I was also thrown by that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, I guess the part that he closes the door in his face. Also, that’s – that’s not even how racists work. Like they do shake your hand. Then they close the door and then they bad mouth you. It feels like there’s a slight kind of – there’s a bit of a corniness going on to something that I think as a culture we’re getting and more honest about. I mean, there’s just more honesty.

I’m nervous that this is not going to give me something new. That said, it might. I can’t tell from three pages.

**John:** Yeah. So, Mr. Lawson, 45, dressed for racquetball at the country club.” So, I don’t really quite know what dressed for racquetball at the country club means. Unless he’s carrying his racquetball racket, I just see a guy in shorts and a headband maybe. But I immediately stop and think like you don’t actually go to the club dressed that way. You change into that kind of stuff at the club.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** It was a weird first image for me. I love, obviously, hair and makeup and clothing details to help us tell about the character, I just – it felt like we were trying to get to like you’re interrupting some other moment. And so figure out what that moment was.

I like the idea of Enrique, and we’re starting this story with Enrique trying to get the job to mow the lawn there. And I thought his first dialogue does make sense. But what Craig is saying is like Mr. Lawson is going to hear that and then immediately sort of know what’s going on. He’s going to check the Blakey’s home, OK, this really is a person. You know you’re not making this up. And he’s going to push a little bit more. And I just didn’t see that pushing.

And if this scene were a few lines longer there could be a little bit more back and forth in looks in terms of Stevie, the girl who is coming out, and sort of what that whole dynamic is. I just felt like it got a little rushed to get through this and I didn’t believe that he got this job.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, if this is a rich guy, if that’s the point, then nice house in nice neighborhood, he either has somebody mowing his lawn, or he’s like a little kooky and doesn’t give a shit. But he’s not going to be this kind of stuffy classic country club kind of white guy and be neither of those things, just be negligent about his lawn. It just seems odd.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** There must be a reason why he’s been mowing his own lawn if he has been. Also, where did Stevie come from? She just like suddenly steps out from behind her father. That’s weird. Does she just follow him around and hang out behind him and then just slide into? You know what I mean? You have to think about, OK, on the day where is she? Can she just be coming around the other side of the house? Or coming down the stairs? Or something.

**John:** Yeah. You could mention her coming around the other side of the house and she’s using the hose to spray off her feet or something that are dirty. There’s got to be a more interesting way to sort of see her than just like behind her father.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Another opportunity here is while I do like the idea of getting the job for the first time, that is a lot of work to set up. If it works for the story, he could have been cutting the grass here for a time and he’s basically saying, “Oh hey, I need a check,” or “I need to get paid.” And that’s that moment. And then there’s actually money exchanging hands which could feel good and actually help set some stuff up a little bit better.

So, I think there’s just opportunities here.

**Craig:** Yeah. Like Mr. So-and-so who has been doing your lawn, he’s retired, he just retired last week. We’re doing your neighbor, Mr. Blakely’s, lawn. If you like we can just pick up yours now. There’s some kind of – it just makes sense, you know.

But Stevie, yeah, like if that’s the thing, if this is the Enrique and Stevie story, this is not – this is weird. It’s like a weird dud of a moment.

**John:** Yeah. So then we get to Ignacio and Enrique in the pickup truck and this could be a really good moment. It’s not working for us right now because I don’t get what the real vibe is between father and son here. I felt like the “when I’m doctor I’ll move here,” I didn’t buy – that just felt like an author talking. It didn’t feel like an actual kid talking.

**Craig:** Corny. It just feels corny. And similarly like a dad, generally speaking, if you think that maybe like your son likes this girl and you’re like, “Oh, who’s that?” “Oh, she’s this girl from school.” You’re like, “OK, cool.” You don’t say, “That’s what I said about your mother.” Eww.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Eww. That’s an eww. You just don’t do that with your boy.

**John:** Yeah. So, but I wonder what their vibe is. Is he ribbing him? What’s going on? I like the dad is drinking a beer, so there’s stuff you could do there. Also crucially, it’s in this pickup truck sequence that we’re establishing Chula Vista as a place and we’re seeing this sign. So think about, again, this is the inside/outside of the car. There’s a good argument to be made for being outside of the car, see the sign, the truck drives past, and then we’re inside the car with them.

Because if we’re inside the car with them it’s very hard to then pop out to see the sign and then be back in the car. If the sign is important, which I think it is, because I wouldn’t know that Chula Vista is necessarily a neighborhood, then tell us that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think this little spot here is one, Kristen, that I want you to think about really carefully. Because you have a point of view, you have a perspective, and you have a feeling about this place. I can tell. And I am not from there. So your job is to make me feel what you want me to feel. And in this moment you want me to feel some sort of connection and kinship to this place. But what you’ve done is you just have a guy that I just met just announcing something that frankly he wouldn’t normally announce. Because they’ve been living there a long time. So, how common is it for you to drive around the place where you’ve been living with somebody else who has been living there and then they suddenly announce, “Man, this view never gets old.” And then a fact. “You can see the whole valley.” No shit, dad. We drive here every day. I live here.

**John:** I can see, too. I have eyes.

**Craig:** So you need to figure out another way to make me feel this thing that maybe dad is upset that Enrique takes these things for granted or maybe that he doesn’t look closely enough and that he’s teaching him a lesson. But then the lesson has to be inspired by something that’s lacking that he sees in Enrique. So these are the things you’ve got to kind of figure out so that I feel what you want me to feel. Because I can tell you feel stuff. I just want it for me.

**John:** Absolutely. But if you’re trying to tell us that as the author, as the writer, then give us the wide shot and describe what it feels like and give us a sense of like this is the panorama and we get a sense of what the music is like. Oh, that’s really pretty. Rather than having the character comment on how pretty it is. Just show us how pretty it is. And that’s a thing you can do as the writer.

I felt the transition between this truck scene and then Enrique’s house, getting ready the next morning for school, was just a weird jump. And it didn’t feel like a natural handoff between this truck thing and then the next thing we’re getting ready for school. There needed to be some other moment between those two things.

**Craig:** Night.

**John:** Or maybe this wasn’t the next – night feels natural. Because as time progresses we’re used to – you know, a couple episodes back we talked about that we are time lords. And as an audience the next thing we want to see is night. We don’t want to see like the next morning getting ready for school. So, you could do the same kinds of things in the scene, but have it be a dinner thing. Like maybe he has to get all his homework off the table to set the table for dinner? Great.

**Craig:** Or maybe he’s just alone in his room thinking. You know, or he’s walking around thinking. We learn something about him or we learn something about Stevie. But if you go from day to morning you’ll just be so confused. Like, wait, why are they going to school suddenly in the afternoon. It won’t feel like morning.

**John:** It feels like a scene got dropped out in the edit and it’s just weird. Let me save you some grief in pages. The first time you have characters who are speaking in Spanish, do that “in Spanish” and then you never need to do it again. So if you’re going to use italics from that point forward you don’t ever need to do that again.

This is something I should have mentioned. The setup overall. If you have a parenthetical, that first letter inside a parenthetical is not uppercased unless it has to be uppercased. But that “in Spanish,” that should be a lowercase “in” for that parenthetical.

**Craig:** Correct. It’s just a strange convention, but that’s how it is.

**John:** Yeah. I want to thank these three writers here for sending in their pages, but also all the writers who sent in pages because it’s a tremendous amount of work for Megana to go through them but we get such a broad sampling of what our listeners are writing in with. So thank you very much for trusting us with these and for sharing your work with other people so others can learn.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** If you have three pages you want us to take a look at, don’t send them to the “ask” account. Instead, you need to go to johnaugust.com/threepage which is all spelled out, threepage. And there’s a little form there. You say who you are, that it’s OK for us to talk about on the air, and then you attach a PDF. So if you want to send in your pages that is where you send in those pages.

But thank you to everyone who submitted, especially these writers for these pages.

**Craig:** Thanks folks.

**John:** All right, it has come time for our One Cool Things. Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing this week?

**Craig:** Nope. [laughs]

**John:** All this time you’ve completely forgotten about the conceit of the show.

**Craig:** I whiffed.

**John:** Which is absolutely fine. So I will give two One Cool Things.

**Craig:** Oh great.

**John:** One of which I think you would especially enjoy. So the thing you would enjoy is GeoGuessr, which could have been a One Cool Thing many–

**Craig:** I’ve played that. Yeah.

**John:** It’s a great, great game.

**Craig:** I think it’s been one before. Yeah, it’s fun.

**John:** So, tell us about GeoGuessr. That can be your One Cool Thing.

**Craig:** Yeah, sure. I’ll steal it. So in GeoGuessr you’re basically using the Google Earth function where you’re looking at a street view and what it does is it just generates a random street view somewhere in the world. And your job, and you can click around on the image like you an on regular Google Street View. You can move this way and that way and up and down. And your job is to figure out where it is, down to as close to the exact point as you can.

So what you’re doing is you’re looking for clues. Obviously any text on the side of a building or a truck or even license plates. You start to think, OK, am I on the left side of the road driving forward or the right side of the road? What are those trees? And then if you’re lucky enough to get a crazy phone number, you can really get close.

So, you know sometimes you do really well. Sometimes you’re like I honestly don’t know where this is. And sometimes you can get within – the best ones are when you’re within three meters of it or something, which is just a joy.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But you get points and it’s for nothing other than just your amusement. It’s just fun. It’s a fun game.

**John:** Yeah. So my family has been playing that to pass random time. And it really is a good detective sort of game and you can work really hard to get yourself within three meters and then other times it will come up with one that you’re like I think I’m in Australia but I could also be somewhere in South America. You just have no idea because it plops you down in the middle of no place. But it’s always fun to find new places.

So, GeoGuessr. We’ll put a link in the show notes to that.

My One Cool Thing is a newsletter that comes out every week by Noah Kalina. I know him through a podcast I also listen to with Adam Lisagor, but his newsletter is terrific. I don’t think it has a name, it’s just his newsletter. He is a photographer in Upstate New York and he just goes on these sort of weird missions that he’s inspired by things and finds all the poppy seed bagels in his neighborhood in New York and figures out the poppy seed distribution on these bagels and photographs them beautifully. And it’s fun. Every week it’s sort of a weird little adventure.

It reminds me of, folks who are fans of Reply All, it feels like Reply All, or those episodes where they go off on these weird missions to figure out stuff. It feels like that. So, there will be a link in the show notes, but check out the back episodes and maybe subscribe to Noah Kalina’s newsletter.

**Craig:** I’m just looking at it right now and he actually did like a little MythBuster’s thing to see if it’s true that if you eat a bunch of poppy seeds that you will test positive for opiates. Because obviously that’s where heroin and morphine and all those things ultimately derive from the poppy plant. Not that poppy seeds get you high.

And he ate six poppy seed bagels in a week and then he did a drug test and he came back positive for narcotics, opiates specifically.

**John:** Yeah, opiates.

**Craig:** It worked.

**John:** So, lesson learned.

**Craig:** Lesson learned.

**John:** And so the podcast I was referring to is All Consuming. And so that’s where he and Adam, they look at all the products that show up on Instagram and they buy those products and see what they actually are like in real life. And they are delightful people and I also listen to their podcast.

**Craig:** Fun.

**John:** That is our show for this week. I want to thank Megana Rao for reading all those submissions. Thank you very much our producer.

**Craig:** Thank you, Megana.

**John:** It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. 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 questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a Premium member where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on money and happiness.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right, Craig, the first of our Premium subscriber questions, or suggestions comes from Lianne in Burbank. And she writes, “In your own personal experiences has becoming wealthy actually made you happier? Has there been a certain threshold of your income where you noticed diminishing happiness returns? Is being truly wealthy all it’s cracked up to be, or are there difficulties beyond the glamour that you find often aren’t discussed?”

**Craig:** That’s an interesting question.

**John:** Craig, what’s it like being rich?

**Craig:** Well, let me tell you. [laughs] There are levels of wealthiness, but safe to say that John and I do pretty well. So, here’s my experience, Lianne. Being wealthy has not made me happier. Being wealthy has made me less unhappy, because when problems arise, as they often do in life, sometimes they’re mundane, something is leaking. Sometimes they’re very involved. Someone is sick. Money can solve problems. Money can’t make you happier, but money can definitely make some unhappy things go away faster or more efficiently. And I don’t kind of undersell that. That actually is a big deal.

The ability for money to diminish misery is impressive. That’s not everything. But it is impressive.

What it can’t do is keep you off the psychologist’s couch. The problems that you carry with you, your shames, your fears, all that stuff that was kind of in you and fomented within you by childhood, that’s still there. And sometimes being paid a lot exacerbates those things. It makes you feel guilty, undeserving. It makes you feel like you’re an imposter. You’re a liar. You’re somehow ripping people off.

There’s all sorts of crazy things that can bang around in your head if you are somebody that deals with some core shame issues…and some of us do not. But, you know what, making bad stuff go away, hooray money.

**John:** Yeah. And I think what Craig is describing is there really is a threshold beyond which it’s like, oh, some of the things which are not annoyances or aggravations or really anxiety I guess is probably the best way to put it diminish because I’m not going to be so worried about that thing. And so I do remember going from, after having been hired to do my first project, I’ve talked about on the show how I used to have just a spreadsheet and I knew what my monthly expenses were. And I knew I can afford to live for three months, or six months. I could just sort of count down and I could watch the money run out. And that was really stressful.

And once I started making enough money that I didn’t need to worry about that so much I was happier just because I didn’t have that source of constant dread and anxiety. Not really unlike having a president I couldn’t count on. A president I was convinced was actively trying to destroy the world. When you free yourself of that you’re like, oh, you have more space to be a little bit more happy.

But it plateaus and I think you’re sense, Lianne, is that there’s a plateau, there’s a zenith at which more money doesn’t make you any happier and I think that’s very, very true. And I don’t know the specific dollar figure, but when you – I think it’s when you don’t have to worry about every expense. When you can be just like, oh, I’ll just put that on a card and I know I’ll be able to pay for it. That is a nice feeling, knowing that I don’t have to worry about certain kinds of choices that just don’t really matter.

But I think Craig and I have both described how one of the ways you can stop that anxiety from coming back in is to just not live beyond your means. And we both know people who have made a lot of money and then have lived beyond their means and are on this terrible treadmill where they have to sort of keep making money or else everything falls apart.

**Craig:** Right. So those people never get the benefit of what we’re talking about, which is a sense of security, financial security. And it is, when you don’t have it, and I’ve certainly – I was definitely, you know, on the month-to-month living plan when I first came to Los Angeles, it is exhausting. You’re expending a lot of energy in fear and concern about how that functions. And if one thing goes wrong, there’s not a lot between you and real trouble.

So living beneath your means is incredibly important. It’s also, generally speaking, it’s a value. I don’t know how else to put it. It’s a value. I think that there’s a grace to it. And also one really nice thing about making a lot of money is that you can be charitable. And some people aren’t. And OK, fine. I’m not going to yell at them. But it is rare that I feel as effective and impactful on the world as I do when I’m making some kind of significant charitable donation. More so than writing television and movies and things, which I know people see and they may or may not care about. But actually making charitable contributions to either political causes or medical help or developing nations, whatever it is that you pursue, you know, curing diseases, it feels good. It does.

And I know that John you and Mike are pretty charitable folks as well.

**John:** For sure. A thing that I think people can intuitively sense and yet they can get tripped up on is buying the next thing will not make you happier. And buying that fancy car, you may enjoy driving it for a time, but that will fade. And buying a bigger house, you know, beyond a certain point just becomes an extra source of anxiety and stress and tension.

We have friends who have multiple houses and that fills me with dread. I would constantly be thinking about that house that I’m not at and sort of something going wrong with that property.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And that’s just a choice I made to not invite that into my life. And people, obviously there’s many ways to do things, but I think not getting caught up in the expectation to really be happy, if I had this thing I would be happy, that’s not true. Happiness comes from having enough. Having plenty and not needing to have more.

**Craig:** Sharing is generally when I feel the best about spending. Sharing. That’s a great feeling. It’s a great feeling to have friends over and cook them dinner and know that you’ve bought lots of good food and you don’t have to freak out about it and you could put a good bottle of wine out. That, to me, the kind of quiet – here’s what I’m not, for instance, I’m not a collector. And I now a lot of people who are collectors. And most people are collecting things that don’t cost a lot of money, but there are people who make a lot of money and then they just begin collecting incredibly expensive things.

I’m sure Jay Leno is a great guy. This isn’t even a criticism of him. It’s really more just a difference of opinion. I don’t understand why he has 800 cars. I just don’t understand it. I don’t. Just drive one, and then, you know, rent it or something. I just don’t understand the idea of having them all. Or I think Seinfeld has like 80 Porsches or something. That gets weird for me. It just feels like a dragon sitting on its hoard.

So I think just sharing and that sort of thing is fun. But, you know, again, look, here’s the truth. The guys like Jay Leno and Jerry Seinfeld have so much more money than I do that they can hoard things like cars and such and then in their charity however they perform it donate vastly more money than I do. So I can’t really criticize them. It’s just a difference is how I would put it.

**John:** It’s a whole different conversation to have about that level of super wealth and sort of like what that does. When a person has the wealth of a nation, that is such an odd difference from the lives that you and I are leading. I’m still scrubbing the bathroom. We’re still doing our own laundry at our house. So it’s a different kind of life than some other people have. And that’s fine, too.

Craig, have you ever heard this explanation for why altruism exists? That sense of an evolutionary adaptation to recognize that the best place to store food is in your friends’ bellies. After a hunt there’s more meat than you can possibly eat and so you cannot store it. So, the best thing you can do with that meat is to give it to everybody else so that they will share their wealth the next time.

**Craig:** I wrote a paper about this in college. And I think the center of it was there’s a story. In the ‘80s there was a terrible plane crash. Plane went down in the Potomac. I don’t know if you remember this. Right there in DC. It was a frigid wintery day. A plane goes down. There are people alive but they’re in this icy water. And a man driving by stops and basically jumps into the water and saves some people. And the question was why. He doesn’t know them. And it’s quite clear that there is great danger connected to jumping in that frigid water. He himself might also die. So why/how evolutionarily does this make any sense at all?

And the answer, or at least an answer is this. That evolutionarily we are better off as members of a society, strength in numbers, right? So, we are selected for pro-social instincts. People who generally feel a connection to a group beyond just their own immediate family members will tend to do better overall because they stay inside of a group. But that tendency, that pro-social tendency is stupid. Meaning it can’t make choices in a moment about what would be advantageously pro-social. It just is pro-social.

And so that’s why you find people who just that instinct kicks in. And it’s the instinct of holding a society together which in its own way is a beautiful thought.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve talked about empathy on the show as well. In leaving Twitter you said it taught you empathy. And for me pulling over to the side of the road and jumping into the frigid water is like it’s because I could imagine myself as the person in the water and needing somebody to help save me. And so it’s easy to see that other side. And the folks who don’t have that are sometimes our elected president and that’s a bad thing.

**Craig:** Or run movie studios. [laughs]

**John:** True. Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

Links:

* [Irony](https://www.masterclass.com/articles/what-is-irony-different-types-of-irony-in-literature-plus-tips-on-how-to-use-irony-in-writing#what-are-the-main-types-of-irony) and [cosmic irony](https://www.studiobinder.com/blog/what-is-cosmic-irony-definition-and-examples/)
* Three Page Challenge: [Echopraxia or an Interdimensional Coming of Age Ghost Story](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2020%2F12%2Fechopraxia-three-pages.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=3daf6520c3d18584e970f76e9b48965308dfbca379eb9e229603392f8b8c2ece) by J Vernon Reha
* Three Page Challenge: [The Little Death](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2021%2F01%2FTheLittleDeath_AutumnPalen.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=0abfaa550f0e35fa9e1fe7d11adc10079351101e68f0a6e46563289eb367bd82) by Autumn Palen
* Three Page Challenge: [Chula Vista](https://johnaugust.com/index.php?gf-download=2020%2F11%2FChula-Vista-pg-1-3-Kristen-Delgado.pdf&form-id=1&field-id=4&hash=4d0c0d1249961917d27dcfa77679d4b7713ef86147a3a00e2860e4bfacd3d97e) by Kristen Delgado
* Thank you to all of our Three Page Challenge submissions! [Apply here](https://johnaugust.com/threepage) to be considered for our next round.
* [GeoGuessr](https://www.geoguessr.com/)
* [Noah Kalina Newsletter](https://mailchi.mp/6068da7c609b/noahkalina)
* [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 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/486standard.mp3).

The original post for this episode can now be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2021/batman-and-beowulf).

**John August:** Hey, this is John. Just in case your kids are in earshot and you don’t want them to hear swearing, this is the warning.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

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

**John:** And this is Episode 482 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we’ll discuss America’s favorite crime fighter, but more importantly how we talk about him, and the bundle of IP surrounding Batman.

**Craig:** Who?

**John:** Then we’ll look at another unlikely but iconic hero, a Scandinavian king who is clever with words but also great with the sword. Bro, that’s Beowulf. And he was the Dark Knight way back when. Plus we’ll answer some listener questions and in our bonus segment for Premium members I will tell Craig about the Batman teaser trailer I wrote way back in 2001.

**Craig:** Whoa.

**John:** And we’ll discuss what other heroes we would tackle if given the chance.

**Craig:** Well this is going to be fun.

**John:** A good episode. And a good episode for the New Year. Happy New Year, Craig.

**Craig:** Oh. Happy New Year. I mean–

**John:** Happy New Year. I’m optimistic.

**Craig:** Yeah, look, I understand that the calendar is not actually a thing. That we’ve just arbitrarily said this is the beginning and this is the end, because the sun, you could pick any point in the earth’s rotation around the sun and call it day one. But, oh man, this year. Oof.

**John:** Oof.

**Craig:** Oof.

**John:** Yeah. I’m optimistic about the New Year. I’m more optimistic about the back half of 2021 maybe, but still. I’ll happily turn the calendar to a new page. And get started with new stuff.

**Craig:** And I think in 2021 we’re going to hit 500 episodes.

**John:** We’re going to hit 500 episodes. We’ll hit like 10 years or something. It’s a lot.

**Craig:** Jesus Maria.

**John:** Many milestones. Plus I know you have a very busy year coming up. I have a busy year coming up. So, we know that 2021 is going to be eventful just personally.

**Craig:** It’s going to be fun. We’ll still find a way to play Dungeons & Dragons.

**John:** We somehow will. Priorities will be set straight.

**Craig:** Priorities.

**John:** Some follow up. Follow up on follow up actually. We’ve discussed the Rent a Family story. Maria from Argentina but now living in Tokyo writes, “Werner Herzog actually already made that movie released earlier this year called Family Romance, LLC. It’s not a documentary, but the protagonist is the actual owner of the family rental company and many of the actors are real employees as well, so it creates an even stranger dialogue on the meta level on the con within the con” as I was describing.

So there already is a movie, not just How Would This Be a Movie, there already is a movie by Werner Herzog about the Japanese Rent a Family situation.

**Craig:** No one needs to write it especially since Werner Herzog has already done it. You don’t want to follow in those footsteps.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** It’s Werner Herzog for god’s sakes.

**John:** It would be foolish. And Craig would be forced to break out his Werner Herzog accent which he’s well known for.

**Craig:** [as Herzog] It’s not very hard to do. Why are you making another Family Romance movie when I’ve already made one? Mine is better.

**John:** It feels like Werner Herzog should have been in a Batman movie, but he’s not been which his just crazy.

**Craig:** Weird.

**John:** But let’s talk about Batman, because I have DC Comics on the brain, partly because of the Wonder Woman 1984 movie that came out this past week. But also the announcement that HBO Max/Warners is planning to build a whole stable of movies around their DC characters, sort of how Disney has done with Marvel.

Mike Schur, a friend, he tweeted, “Hoping they finally get into the Batman’s backstory. Like, yes, he’s a vigilante for justice and has this sort of brooding presence, but why? What happened? We fans deserve that explanation.”

**Craig:** [laughs] That’s funny. That’s funny.

**John:** That’s funny. You can’t talk about Batman, it’s always his origin story again and again and again. We’ve seen that damn alley outside a theater so many times. And the pearls dropping from the necklace. It’s just like it’s constantly an origin story. But Batman is actually a fascinating character. He’s a really weird iconic character because he’s just different from all the other characters.

So I want to talk about his history, how he fits into IP, what’s interesting about him as a character to write. And, Craig, have you ever written any scenes with Batman in your career?

**Craig:** No.

**John:** No. I have written half of one, which you’ll see referenced in the bonus segment. But I have written in the DC universe before. So I wrote a Shazam movie which was not the Shazam movie that came out. I helped out on another big DC movie a while back. And while I’ve never written Batman himself, he’s sort of always kind of there. So many of the things I like – Harley Quinn earlier this year was a One Cool Thing. He’s always a background character in that. So he has this weird looming presence over a lot of stuff.

So I thought we’d start by talking about sort of history and then get into sort of what makes him weird and unique as a character.

**Craig:** Sure. I think up until, and I could be wrong, but I think up until the mid-‘80s when the Tim Burton Batman movie came out was just, you know, another superhero. It was a high level superhero that everybody knew. I don’t know about you, but in the ‘70s when we all dressed up for Halloween in those weird vinyl aprons with the mask with the little horizontal mouth hole–

**John:** I can still smell what those masks smell like.

**Craig:** You can smell it. Everyone would stick their tongues through the little mouth hole and cut their tongue. And Batman was definitely one of those. And just like Superman or Spider-Man, or Wonder Woman, or any of them, he was in the League of Justice, the cartoon. And he was fine.

And then the Burton Batman came out, I think it’s sort of alongside the Frank Miller re-imagination, and suddenly Batman just became an entirely different thing and it was fascinating to watch.

**John:** Yeah. So we should stress that we are not Batman historians and so you do not need to write in with any of your corrections to things we get wrong about this.

**Craig:** Do not write in.

**John:** [laughs] Yes. Megana is on this call and just for her sanity and safety please do not write in with your corrections. But let’s briefly sort of talk through the timelines here. Because it starts in 1939. Detective Comics, written by Bill Finger, illustrated by Bob Kane. We move forward to the 1960s. We have that campy Batman series with Adam West. In the ‘70s we start to see Batman as this darker version and obsessive compulsive. We get The Dark Knight Returns which is really probably the first graphic novel I actually remember reading.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It sort of anchored this idea of like an older Batman and a really dark Batman. And sort of Batman as a political force and sort of questioning his role in society.

But at the same time you referenced the Tim Burton Batman which was such a different feel and take. It was dark, but his Gotham was constructed so differently. And then it became this series of directors. So we had Tim Burton’s Batman. Joel Schumacher’s vision. Chris Nolan. Zack Snyder. We now have Matt Reeves making a version of Batman. It’s a character that’s been sort of continuously re-envisioned but not reinvented because his backstory has always stayed exactly the same.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes. His backstory is fixed. And also his powers are fixed. There’s really no flexibility in terms of what he is and what he does. He is a boy who is incredibly rich, because his parents are incredibly rich. They live in a city that is modeled after decrepit New York. Not fun New York. But crappy New York. So they live in a beautiful part of New York, but then there’s this bad part of town. There’s a guy who I think officially is named Joe Chill who holds up the mom and the dad. Tries to take the mom’s necklace. And ends up shooting the mom and dad, who had been out to the opera with their young child, Bruce.

Bruce Wayne suffers two terrible things that night. First, his parents are killed in front of him. Second, he had to watch opera as a baby, as a kid. That’s just miserable. That’s always the same. And you know what else is always the same? He doesn’t have super powers. And that never changes. And maybe that’s why he’s kind of fascinating to us.

**John:** Yeah. So there’s a relatability to him in that he’s just really good at doing the stuff he’s good at. So he’s really good at fighting. He’s really smart. He can figure stuff out. And so it has that sort of proficiency porn aspect of it. He’s just so good at doing the thing he does.

And so he seems like a self-made man, although he’s a self-made person who starts with a tremendous amount of wealth.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** A quote that sort of tracks into this. This was DC Comics’ Jenette Kahn writing that “Batman is an ordinary mortal who made himself a superhero. Through discipline and determination and commitment he made himself into the best. I always thought that it meant that I could be anything that I wanted to be.” And so there’s a relatability to him that’s different than Superman or Wonder Woman or Aquaman who are born into their greatness. In this case he is just a normal mortal human being who is just really, really good at things.

**Craig:** Well he’s a bit of an Ayn Randian kind of hero in that he starts incredibly wealthy but because he’s so smart and so resourceful and so clever and careful he manages to preserve that wealth and grow that wealth. And he uses his wealth and persistence and hard work and determination and sweat and tears and his ability to withstand pain.

**John:** Yeah. Seems like a supernatural ability to withstand pain.

**Craig:** Right. And he uses all of that mustering American ideal independence, standalone masculine thing to become the ultimate cowboy. And he doesn’t need your unions. And he doesn’t need government. He definitely doesn’t need government. The one thing that’s also incredibly consistent throughout Batman stories is that government is bad. Because the police department is either corrupt or incompetent or both. The mental health industry is a total disaster as all they do is just churn out one damaged super villain after another. In short, the city can’t get it done. The people can’t get it done. Only this individual can get it done.

**John:** Yeah. And so in many ways it feels like a very American kind of story because we are the country of the frontier and the going out on your own. We have this sort of cowboy mentality. It’s like the cowboy mentality transferred back to an urban core.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And where you need to have some lone ranger of justice there to protect the innocent and beat up the bad guys. But we often talk about hero’s journey/hero’s quest kind of things. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of those, at least in the normal ways. It’s not like he’s born with some great flaw that he overcomes over this quest. He’s always in a state of anguish and pain and a determination to save his parents in ways he never could have saved them before.

He’s not a hero who has a concluding arc.

**Craig:** No. His basic job seems to be to defend and preserve the safety of the people, the good citizens of Gotham. In this regard he’s a very strange hero because presumably there are other cities which also have problems. And he doesn’t seem to give a sweet damn about any of the other ones. He’s a homer. He loves Gotham. That’s his hometown. He loves Gotham. And he is constantly serving as Gotham’s true father. Not their lame stepfather, the government. God forbid the mayor or the police or social services were at all relevant or competent. In Gotham, no. Only he is Gotham’s true father. The father who can come at night and punish the bad by inflicting fear upon them primarily. Fear.

**John:** Exactly. And so his relationship to the law is fascinating. Because he wants to be a force of law, the one who is cleaning up the corruption and the filth of the streets. But he doesn’t actually believe in the law enforcement officers. Or he has a special connection to the law enforcement officers. There’s like the good ones, you know, Chief Gordon as commissioner, but nothing else beyond that does he sort of seem to believe in.

And yet at times he does kill. At times he doesn’t kill. His decision to not use a gun or to use a gun has changed over the years. So the moral code he sets for himself is both specific but changes in a way that a lot of these things about his origin remain fixed.

**Craig:** Yeah. And in that regard he’s an extension of our American fantasy of power. He uses a vast expenditure of money and he harnesses an enormous wealth of technological advancement to shock and awe. All to protect the homeland of Gotham. And if it sounds like I’m down on Batman I’m not because he’s not real. [laughs] Just, you know, I think people lose sight of these things all the time. I should probably mention Batman is not real.

Mostly I’m interested in what our fascination with Batman says about us. I will say that I am a huge fan of the Arkham videogames, which I think are amazing. And as a Batman experience they’re incredibly both enjoyable and also they drive home another fascinating thing about Batman. Batman himself personality wise is boring. Batman does not have a family. Batman is constantly fighting the most amazing collection of villains. Period. The end.

Spider-Man has a lot of cool enemies, but nothing like Batman. No one comes close to the variety of lunatics and larger-than-life villains that Batman is constantly dealing with, all of whom are kitschy as hell and so much fun. And that is also part of the deliciousness of enjoying the Batman story.

**John:** He has a good ecosystem around him. I thought we would wrap up this segment by listening to the audience reaction to the very first teaser trailer for Batman. So this is 1988 at Mann’s Chinese Theater here in Los Angeles. And someone found video from this and so here’s the audio from a newscaster interviewing people and their reaction to the Batman teaser trailer. This is the Michael Keaton Batman directed by Tim Burton. Let’s take a listen.

**Female Voice:** Oh, I can’t wait. I love Michael Keaton. He’s one of my favorite funny people. And I love Jack Nicholson. And I love the trailer. I love the whole thing. I’m ready to go.

**Male Voice:** That’s going to be live man. It’s going to be live. I’m going to come to see it.

**Female Voice:** The trailer was better than the movie we just saw.

**Male Voice:** How do you think Michael Keaton is going to be as Batman?

**Female Voice:** Sexy. [laughs] Very sexy.

**Female Voice:** Oh, he’s just a gorgeous guy. He has great legs and everything. [laughs]

**Female Voice:** Michael Keaton is a great actor, so I’m really excited to see it.

**Male Voice:** What kind of Joker is Jack Nicholson going to be?

**Male Voice:** Nicholson, I can say he’s great all the time. He is a joker, so he’s probably just going to be play himself.

**Male Voice:** I mean, with Jack Nicholson in it, I mean how you can you go wrong? I mean, especially his makeup. That’s great man.

**Female Voice:** Jack Nicholson is casted as the perfect Joker. Michael Keaton is adorable. And my husband will just be counting the minutes to see Kim Basinger.

**Female Voice:** The only thing I could change about it was letting me play the babe.

**Male Voice:** Kim Basinger. Yeah, I can see either you or Kim Basinger.

**Female Voice:** What’s she got that I don’t have?

**Male Voice:** So intense with the eye. Come swooping in on all these scenes. And that car, man.

**Male Voice:** I like the Batmobile. Yeah.

**Male Voice:** Why?

**Male Voice:** I don’t know, it’s pretty cool.

**Male Voice:** Yeah?

**Female Voice:** I love the Batmobile. It looks so cool. I wish I could ride in it.

**Male Voice:** And what was your favorite part of the whole trailer?

**Male Voice:** When Michael Keaton comes in and says, “I’m Batman. I’m Batman.”

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh, we were so young and innocent. Oh, wouldn’t it be nice if we lived in that world again where no one had a goddamned idea of what was coming out. There weren’t 5,000 articles. There wasn’t a campaign just to unveil the tire of the new Batmobile. And people were like, “Oh yeah, Batmobile, it’s cool. That’s why I like it.” It’s so nice. Aw.

**John:** Aw. The time before there were Batman movies.

**Craig:** The time before there was Twitter and the sort of like cottage industry. And no hot takes. Did you notice?

**John:** Not a single hot take.

**Craig:** You do that now and someone is going to be like, “Um, you know, I don’t think that – it doesn’t, you know.” Ugh.

**John:** All right. So Batman is a character we’re all familiar with because we’ve seen him 1,000 different times. But I want to transition to talking about a character who is at least as foundational but sort of less well known. And that’s Beowulf. And to help us out with that let’s bring on Maria Dahvana Headley. She’s a New York Times bestselling author and playwright. She’s also an authority on Beowulf, having written The Mere Wife: A Modern Day Adaptation of Beowulf, and an acclaimed translation of the original this past year which was in fact my One Cool Thing a few weeks back. Welcome Maria.

**Craig:** Hey.

**Maria Dahvana Headley:** Thank you. Thank you for having me on.

**Craig:** So much fun.

**John:** It’s very exciting to talk with you. So I absolutely adored your translation, because I tried to read an earlier version of it that was also acclaimed in its time and I found your version to be just so sparkling and present and fresh. And it felt like someone was just sitting across the bar/table from me telling me this story.

So, I strongly recommend it everybody. That’s why it was a One Cool Thing. But I’m wondering if you could give us a little backstory on what was it that I actually read. Because I think I have this vision that Beowulf is sort of like The Iliad and the Odyssey that it was an oral tradition story passed down for generations, but I don’t really know what it was I read. So what is Beowulf?

**Maria:** Well, you have a pretty accurate possible guess. We don’t know. We don’t really know what it is.

**Craig:** That’s the best answer ever. [laughs]

**Maria:** One manuscript is about 1,000-ish years old, written by two scribes. We don’t know who the scribes were. But they are correcting each other throughout. And it is probably, and in my opinion almost definitely, a transcription of an oral performance. Because it had throughout the poem it’s 3,182 lines of battles and lineage basically. And throughout the poem there will be stopping points where the narrator will be like, “Let me tell you what happened last night,” because he’s clearly, in my opinion, performing for a drunk audience that is shouting and he’s unamplified standing on a table. That’s just how I feel the poem is.

But not everyone has felt that way. Lots of people have felt like this is a normal poem about the sort of glorious traditions and that it should be done in a somewhat fusty language or in a “noble” language. J.R.R. Tolkien really felt this way about it. It’s the thing that inspired everything he did. All of Lord of the Rings was inspired by Beowulf. He was a big Beowulf nerd and he did his own translation which is done – it feels like reading Lord of the Rings. It just doesn’t feel as good.

**Craig:** Because J.R.R. Tolkien, was he a philologist? Is that the word?

**Maria:** Yeah. He was someone who really, really, really cared deeply about Beowulf. And what he cared about most deeply was the attempts to fall into the old traditions, rhyme and meter wise. And so he was driven bonkers by it. He was trying to translate a language, Old English, which does not translate directly to contemporary English. So what you’re reading in my translation and in anyone’s translation is a wild guess.

It’s like – and it’s definitely unlike some languages, this is a language that if you’re translating from Old English it’s so much about the translator, what the translator is choosing out of many different possibilities for most of the words.

**John:** So, anybody who is doing a translation of Beowulf is really doing an adaptation of Beowulf. Because it’s taking what is the sort of foundational story and trying to apply not just modern words to it but kind of modern concepts. And that’s why – it got me thinking about Batman. If you go back to the original issue of Detective Comics that introducing Batman as a character and took that as a foundational text, any new version of it is going to necessarily change some things to have it make sense with sort of modern audiences. And it’s hard to imagine a character who has been more transformed more times than Batman.

In your case, in telling this story of Beowulf, you’re looking at sort of how we approach this character, but also what is even the format of the story it takes place in. Because yours very much feels like an oral tradition. It’s some guy telling you a story like right across the table. But that’s a choice. It’s a way of presenting this sort of foundational text and introducing this character.

**Maria:** Yeah. I decided to do it like a long monologue essentially. Because I thought, OK, well then you can have the POV of the poet as well, which is really part of the original. But lots of people don’t put that in. They feel like it’s needlessly confusing. So they just sort of relate the Beowulf story like it’s history, like here’s the true thing that happened to my boy. Whereas I wanted a sense of POV.

**Craig:** I’m just curious, what do you think – when you do this kind of translation, do you run into a resistance that somehow by making it accessible you are cheapening it? Do people still equate accessible with less than?

**Maria:** Yes. [laughs]

**Craig:** What’s the story with – like why do people do that? And how do you respond to that?

**Maria:** Well, it’s an interesting state of affairs. Like in the case of this translation a lot of the press surrounding it has been that I used a lot of slang. I use bro as the opening word of the Beowulf.

**Craig:** That’s so cool.

**Maria:** Which is a transgressive thing to do, but also a pretty accurate translation idiomatically of what that word means and what [unintelligible] means. But it’s transgressive because people feel like that’s a low word. And they feel like slang is low. Which is ridiculous because the entire English language is slang. It’s slang after slang after slang and all kinds of things have contributed to the language.

So, it’s an interesting thing. I think the tradition of believing that something that’s written in vernacular is low is a tradition that’s based on all kinds of hierarchy and prejudice and lack of accessibility to sort of ivory tower structures that have meant that diverse translators have not been able to get into the tower to do the translating and to give perspective on a lot of these ancient texts.

**Craig:** Right.

**Maria:** So it’s been an interesting experience. Other women have translated Beowulf and there have been maybe 15 other women have translated Beowulf into English. And their translations are really interesting but rarely get a lot of play. And often what has happened is that the old guard comes in and says, “Well, this is a minor translation and it’s not a real translation and it’s for children.”

Most of the women in the early part of the 20th Century who translated it ended up writing children’s translations of Beowulf, even though those are also the things that were taught in Tolkien’s primary school that got him into Beowulf.

**Craig:** Right. So in their own way their translations are more experienced than the other. That’s the kind of strange weird feedback loop is that the more accessible you make it, the more people read it, the more people learn, and that becomes Beowulf.

**Maria:** Yeah. And that becomes the cultural understanding of Beowulf is built completely on accessible translations rather than translations in the sort of Old English meter, for example, that are untranslatable.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Now, Maria, I want to talk to you about your character of Beowulf, and he’s so proficient and slays creatures with such aplomb. In your mind as you’re translating this is he supernatural or is he just a really good fighter with a sword? Because he seems to have at times sort of Hercules kind of powers. Other times he’s just really a good fighter. Where do you come down on the nature of him as a hero?

**Maria:** I think I come down all over the place. I’ve thought about it so much because it’s – one of the things that I think is really interesting when you first read Beowulf you think, wait, OK, this guy can sort of slay 30 at one blow, which means he’s not human. And the only other person who can do that is the major monster, Grendel. Grendel also can slay 30 in a blow. And they’re both mentioned with the same number of men.

So, you read that and you think, well, OK, if one of these is a monster the other one is also probably a monster. And so I kind of come down on the no one is really a monster end of the spectrum. The poem itself has a big talk makes you big kind of situation. So, if you talk – I want to say bigly so much – if you talk–

**Craig:** Do it.

**Maria:** If you talk with enough Trumpian volume about yourself, and indeed this is part of how I translated Beowulf’s speeches. If you talk that way about yourself you can sometimes pull it off. You can make other believe it. And even if it doesn’t really work in reality, the story they tell about you will be a story about somebody who swings it really hard.

So, I think it is as much a story about storytelling as it is a story about anything else. And the Beowulf character is a character that’s built on his own story about what he’s capable of doing.

**Craig:** I remember reading The Song of Roland in college and I was struck by how iterative it was a battle that there was this kind of almost hypnotic rhythm once the fight began of just like he killed this guy and then he killed this guy, then he killed this guy. Was this sort of like the action sequence way back when? Let me describe how – or like Sampson killed a thousand Philistines with the jawbone of an ass. I mean, was this the action sequence of the old days when you didn’t have moving pictures so you just had to describe violence over and over?

**Maria:** It’s an interesting thing. I mean, some of those ancient texts are almost like a ship’s manifest. You get the [unintelligible] and their lineage. And along with so I guess they’re the spoils of war itemized. And that’s often something that’s part of the poem, like remembering the names which is interesting when we think about the many ways in which we fail to remember the names of the dead throughout the 20th Century and 21st Century.

Yeah, the blow, blow, blow, blow, blow stuff is very much part of the Old English tradition as well. And in this story, I mean, it’s three big battles basically. But you also hear about a lot of other battles in which whole armies of men die and everybody is scattered and flattened on the ground and Beowulf swims away from one battle with 30 suits of armor in his arms somehow.

**Craig:** That’s awesome.

**Maria:** You know, things like this are happening.

**Craig:** Cool guy.

**Maria:** And you really get a sense of the cost of the big ego. If you are the king you have to choose your time to fight. And sometimes your time to fight – or if you’re the hero, the right hand of the king, which is what Beowulf is for most of the story, sometimes there’s just a big cost. You just have piles of bodies.

**Craig:** Just like Batman.

**John:** Just like Batman. And also just like Batman we see Beowulf in sort of two forms. We see his young form where he kills Grendel and Grendel’s mother and he’s the hero who shows up at the foreign kingdom and is the giant hero. But we also see him much later in life sort of like in Frank Miller’s Dark Knight Returns where he is the aging king going back for one last battle.

To me it feels like there were two volumes or two different comic books that sort of got joined together at some point historically because they feel – they’re related but they’re very different stories. And there’s some sense of all the things he didn’t do in his life. It seems like he never had kids, never had a family, sort of never got to have the normal human life. As you’re translating this did it feel like two stories that got joined together or does it feel like it was always intended to be the arc of this one hero’s journey?

**Maria:** Well, again, there’s lots of debate about that in the Beowulf realm. Some people really feel that the last section of Beowulf which is a battle with a dragon. He’s a king for 50 years and we don’t get any information about that. We get Grendel’s mother. Than he gets home. He gets rewards. He tells his story. And then 50 years pass in a line. And he’s an old man. And we get this thing where he goes up against a dragon by himself and he has to fight the dragon. He’s sure he’s the only guy who can fight the dragon. And he goes in and he kills the dragon, but the dragon kills him, too.

And some people feel like that last third of the poem is just a meanness that was grafted onto it by someone. That it was just stuck on and this like mean situation involving darkness. But I think what it is is youthful sins get payback later. I think that the center of the poem, and this is something I’ve always thought about, when Beowulf kills Grendel’s mother she is acting according to the law of the time. She goes in, her son is killed, she goes in for a revenge killing, which is allowed. She kills one guy. And goes home.

She takes that guy home. She does a little bit of graphic display of his beheading and whatever.

**Craig:** That’s reasonable.

**Maria:** She only kills the one dude, an important guy who is equivalent to her son. And in sort of feudal laws that’s allowed. And what Beowulf does is he breaks into her house under the water. He goes in, like a mercenary, because he is a mercenary. And he comes in and attacks her in her own realm. And she’s an old woman. She’s been queen for 50 years just like Hrothgar, the king he’s serving has been king for 50 years. So she’s probably in her 70s. And Beowulf is maybe 20.

So he goes in, kills an old woman who is so ferocious and hardcore that she almost kills him. And that’s just against the law. Like it’s against the moral code of the poem. So my feeling that the dragon in the end, the last third of the poem, is the wages of sin. It’s sort of like, OK, you can do it, you’re strong enough, you’re big enough, you’re bold enough, your balls are big enough. And you do the thing and then 50 years pass and the whole time you’re having a bad feeling about it.

And I think that Batman has some things like that, too. He always has this sort of morosity. And the morosity is about am I – because he’s declared himself the arbiter of morality in Gotham. And then this difficulty of what if he got it wrong at some point. What if it was a fuck up? And I think the Beowulf story is about – the center battle is a fuck up that he shouldn’t have done.

**Craig:** It is interesting that Batman is constantly struggling with that and yet not really struggling with it, because in the end the dictates of the story are feed us justice. So, he will “wrestle” with it, but the people who generally pay are the people around him. So he gets off the hook. There is no dragon that eats Batman in the end. But a couple of Robins have died, I think.

**John:** And Beowulf ends with a handoff to a Robin kind of character as well. There’s a sense of a generational passing down finally at the end there.

**Craig:** Batman doesn’t pass on. So I think Batgirl at some point canonically is paralyzed. So, people are constantly dying around him. Commissioner Gordon gets killed a few times. And [unintelligible], I think he definitely gets killed. And Batman keeps going. And his anger fuels him to further on. And I kind of love the idea that the wages of – maybe not wages of sin, but truly if you’re living by the sword. Yeah, at some point you can’t be the best forever. And if you beat a 70-year-old woman, albeit a Grendel mom, a mom Grendel, when you’re a 70-year-old guy someone is coming for you. I like that.

**Maria:** Yeah. I mean, there’s always the sort of arc of what is coming for you. And throughout the Beowulf poem that’s discussed, as it is – I mean, it’s interesting thinking about Batman because Batman never becomes the king. He’s the Dark Knight the whole time. And being the Dark Knight means you have to serve. You don’t necessarily get to – I mean, he’s serving a larger moral god. But he still has to serve. He doesn’t get to be the king who is making all of the decisions in terms of his own well-being and in terms of the well-being of others around him. He’s often – I feel like he’s often in a tournament. It’s like more out of the Arthurian myths.

**John:** Yeah, for sure.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Maria, it is absolutely a delight getting to talk through Beowulf and Batman with you. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

**Maria:** Thank you for having me on. I could talk about this all year. I love it.

**Craig:** Thank you, Maria.

**John:** Thanks Maria.

**Maria:** Bye.

**John:** All right, bye. So, Craig, that was actually delightful. We did not pre-interview at all with Maria. I just assumed she would be great talking about Batman and Beowulf and I was correct.

**Craig:** You were right. Yeah. Pre-interviews, why would we ever do that? We live on the edge?

**John:** We live by the sword and we die by the sword.

**Craig:** That’s right. We don’t give a sweet damn.

**John:** All right. Now it’s the time on the program where we welcome on our producer, Megana Rao, who asks the questions that our listeners have asked. Megana hi.

**Craig:** Megana.

Megana Rao: Hi, Happy New Year.

**Craig:** Happy New Year.

**John:** Happy New Year to you. What have you got for us this week?

**Megana:** So, Patricia from Canada writes, “I recently started working in the nuclear industry and am easily Google-able. My question is whether producers or network executives like those from a very family-friendly network, which is my genre, might have an issue with my day job if I were to sell my script that has received a bunch of interest this year before I started in the nuclear industry. And if they do are there options for me like using a pen name?”

**Craig:** Huh.

**John:** All right, so Patricia basically is a Homer Simpson somewhere in Canada.

**Craig:** Right. I’m sure she’s a competent nuclear technician.

**John:** I’m sorry. She’s a competent Homer Simpson who has written a script that is now getting attention. She worried that if someone figures out that, oh, she’s actually a nuclear person that they won’t want to work with her. I don’t think so.

**Craig:** No. That’s not – I think people have this sense that Hollywood is incredibly, I don’t know, discriminatory against things that violate their tender snowflake sensibilities. Far from it in fact. I think people would be surprised how compromised people are. It’s a business, right? So billionaires with their billionaire companies are trying to make billionaire stuff.

No, I don’t think your employment in the nuclear industry is at all a problem. If you were, I don’t know, employed as a hacker for the Russian government, yeah, sure. But, no, people working in a nuclear power plant are doing a perfectly fine job. So, no, I don’t think so.

And as far as pen names go, just as a general note for – Patricia I think is from Canada so you have the WGC, I don’t know how they do it there. But in the United States the WGA, which administers credits, we do have a clause that says we can use a pen name but only if we’re paid under a certain amount. I think it’s $250,000. And if we’re over that amount then the studio has to agree to let us use the pen name which is obviously an awkward conversation. It’s an awkward thing to do regardless.

**John:** That said though, if she is just starting her career she can pick whatever name she wants to use as her professional name.

**Craig:** That’s right.

**John:** So a pen name in that situation is like I don’t want my name on this movie that I wrote but I don’t want my name associated with it, that is a different case than sort of like starting with a new name. Because I started my career as John August even though that wasn’t my born name just because it was an easier, better name.

**Craig:** Right. Like Diablo Cody is Brook Maurio and she wanted to go by Diablo Cody. And then at some point like Brook if you’re like, you know, I think people get it I’m just going to use my regular name now and everybody goes, “Cool. That’s good. That works.”

**John:** What next, Megana?

**Megana:** Great. So Jake in Dallas asks, “I agree with the principle that characters will carry your story to a more successful and satisfying conclusion than the plot alone. However, I have a story that has some solid plot and shaky characters. My question is one of time management and expectations. Is it worth it to dig in and try to build up these weaker characters to match the cool framework that is my plot, or am I kidding myself with a task like that? Meaning the fact that I don’t have strong characters in the beginning of my writing process might be an indication that the story itself is a weak and therefore not worth the effort to populate it with compelling people.

“I feel really good about the structure I built but I’m not sure about the occupants I plan on inviting into the building. The décor and furniture will be rad, so it’s just the pesky people I’m sweating.”

**John:** Oh Jake. What you’re experiencing is common. And I think a lot of writers are probably nodding a bit there. Because sometimes you think of a cool idea for a story and like, oh, you could sort of imagine the set pieces and how it all fits together and the plot and the twists, and then you realize like, oh, but who is actually in this story. And then you actually have to sort of unwind some stuff to figure out like who is the most interesting person to be in this story that you have plotted out in your head.

It’s worth the time. It’s worth the time to stop and figure out who are these characters, what is it that they are uniquely bringing to this cool plot that you have figured out. Because otherwise you’re going to have a cool mechanical clock that no one cares about.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s exactly it. The plot is not there for the audience. The plot is there for the character. It’s what the character is going through. So, if the character is weak it doesn’t really matter what the plot is. Then they might as well just be an observer or the plot is not designed to challenge the character and put the character in situations that are unique for him or her. So when you say maybe this is an indication that the story itself was weak, I would say that you probably want to take a moment to stop divorcing plot and character from each other the way you are and put them together. Because I don’t think when you think about how you’re day went today, Jake, that you’re going to think about yourself and then the things that happened separately. There’s the things that happened to you. And that’s what plot is. It’s something that is happening to a character, therefore one in the same.

**John:** Or because of the character ideally.

**Craig:** Exactly. Well, both, right? So something happens to you, you do a thing, now something new happens and then the da-da-da, and that’s how it works. So they’re actually part of the same thing. And you don’t want to get caught in this sort of scriptic Cartesian duality.

**John:** Yeah. I will say there are forms of writing that are less character-driven. Certainly spy novel books that are very sort of – they’re plot machines. And there are crime procedurals that are kind of plot machines. And if that’s the kind of thing you like writing that’s great, that’s awesome. And they can rely on sort of less characters doing things and just sort of the story doing things.

But it sounds like if you feel this tension right now the thing you’re working on probably should have a strong central character that’s driving it. So stop, think about who that character is, and rewrite it so that character can really be at the center of the story that you want to tell.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**Megana:** Mitch writes, “I work a manual labor job and I most often listen to you gentleman in headphones while my hands are preoccupied and I can’t pause and rewind to hear something clear. I’m pretty sure I heard you two quickly mention something about John earning his Arrow of Light in Boy Scouts, but I couldn’t find it when I tried to listen back. Is John August an Eagle Scout? If so, what was his Eagle project?”

**John:** All right, Mitch, I am in fact an Eagle Scout. I went all the way up through scouts and Arrow of Light refers to – although Arrow of Light could have actually been – is that the Webelos Bridge? I can’t remember which part Arrow of Light fits into, but I know I had it because I had all the patches. I had all of it.

Yes, I did scouts. Yes, I was in the Order of the Arrow which is problematic for Native American cultural appropriation. I didn’t get it at that point. I’m sure I would get it now.

My Eagle Scout project, so when you go up through the ranks in scouts one of the final things after you’ve earned all your merit badges is to do a project which involves 100 hours of planting and community service and getting people together to do stuff. I did an interpretive garden at my public library, so it was putting up signs for what the plants that were there so that people who visit the library could actually learn what plants were used in that garden. I also built a new sign in front of that library which was not good and was replaced about a year later.

But that was my Eagle Scout project. I actually have some ongoing shame about how not good that sign was and how I wish it were better.

**Craig:** That’s like your parents getting killed in the alley, you know, behind the opera.

**John:** That sign in front of the George Reynold’s Branch Public Library in Boulder, Colorado is my parents getting killed in the alley. You’re right. It’s foundational.

**Craig:** Yeah. You have these flashbacks about it. I like that they suffered through it for a year. That every day they came in and they all turned to Verna, who I assume was the senior librarian, and said, “Verna, come on.” And she’s like, “Uh, we can’t. He was an Eagle Scout.” “Oh, please Verna.” And then finally the big Christmas party they’re like, “Verna, it’s Christmas.” And she’s like, “You’re right. Let’s burn it.” [laughs]

**John:** I really think it probably was arson. I didn’t see it burn but I have a hunch that it just burned somehow magically and they replaced it with a much better sign.

**Craig:** I mean, if you put a couple of rum eggnogs in Verna she’s going to light something up. That’s how it goes.

**John:** She’s known for it. All right. Megana, thank you for these questions. They were fun.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you both.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a long article by Olivia Nuzzi writing The Fullest Possible Story on Four Seasons Total Landscaping situation.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** So as you recall one of the weird, wacky things that happened in 2020 was there was a press conference held at the Four Seasons about potential election fraud in Philadelphia or in Pennsylvania overall. But of course it wasn’t Four Season the hotel. It was this tiny little place called Four Seasons Total Landscaping. It was weird and how it all happened is crazy. And so she digs into sort of what actually happened and how they ended up at this weird landscaping company and try to pretend it was their plan all along.

So, just as a last read in 2021 or first read in 2021 to remember what happened in that crazy year. It was a nice full accounting of a really surreal moment that feels like a Coen Brothers movie. Just a bunch of people making hasty decisions that turned out poorly.

**Craig:** Unbelievable. Unbelievable. My One Cool Thing, well, so we have a new puppy in our house.

**John:** I’m so excited. I did not know this. Tell us all about this puppy.

**Craig:** Her name is Bonnie and she’s fantastic. And you will meet her tonight, John. I will hold her up to the camera. She will be an NPC somehow in our D&D game.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And so I’m a big believer in crate training. If you are not a believer do not write in, because I don’t want to hear from you. But crate training I think is the key to why my older dog is such a wonderful dog. Obviously she doesn’t need the crate anymore. But she’s just an incredibly well-behaved, lovely dog. And that was a big part of it. And it also keeps, I think it keeps the new puppy parents sane as well.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But, you know, dogs – traditionally puppies – do struggle a little bit with the crate initially because they can feel a little bit lonely in there. And so there’s this thing called the Snuggle Puppy. Have you heard of this?

**John:** No, but I can imagine what it would be and I think it’s probably – my guess is that it’s the 2020 version of the alarm clock and hot water bottle wrapped in a blanket?

**Craig:** Bingo. So, well, just with a little extra twist. So it is, of course, a plush little puppy animal and it’s got a little Velcro pouch. And you can stick one of these little, they have like these heat warmer packs, like the hand warmers you get on set when it’s freezing. You put that in its little belly and then it also has its little heart-shaped thing with a battery in it. And you turn that on and it makes a heartbeat little thump-thump. So the puppy can snuggle up against another dog that is warm with a heartbeat which is exactly what they’re used to.

And my goodness. I mean, we put her in there and we didn’t hear anything. You know, for like three hours. Just silence. It was pretty remarkable. And then when we came to take her out, you know, because it was time to come out of the crate and go potty and all that, she was like I don’t want to go. I want to stay in here. I’m tired. I want to stay with my warm friend.

So, huge thumbs up to the Snuggle Puppy people. That was great. Big fan. Not that expensive.

**John:** I’m a fan of crate training as well. Lambert, my current dog, was already well past that, but still like having a crate, a place he can declare as his own, where he can be responsible for defending that and not the rest of the house, game changer.

**Craig:** Yeah. And also really helps house train them as well.

**John:** Oh yeah. For sure. All right. And that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli who also did our outro this week.

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 shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Maria is @mariadahvana. We’ll have links to all those things in the show notes.

You can find those at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. And you can sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of 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, including the one we’re about to record where I will go into the history of my Batman teaser trailer which was a different teaser trailer than the one we listened to earlier on.

Craig, thank you for a fun show.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** Craig, I’m going to play a teaser trailer for you and you probably have seen this trailer, but you don’t remember that you saw this trailer. And then we’re going to talk about it.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** So, we’ll put a link in the show notes to YouTube, but we can just listen to the audio for now.

Male Voice: Throughout the ages there has been one hero standing watch over us all. One hero protecting mankind wherever he is needed. He moves in shadows. Cloaked in mystery. And now in the summer of 2002 he will be called upon yet again to save the world. [Scooby-Doo sound]

**Craig:** Classic. So much classic marketing in that spot.

**John:** Thank you. So, let me tell you about the origin of this. And obviously if you’re listening to this just as the podcast version what you might not appreciate is we’re going through this mansion, this sort of spooky mansion, and we come upon the silhouette of Batman standing there. And we see his iconic sort of cowl. And he turns and it’s Scooby Doo. Because it always struck me that Scooby-Doo in outline actually looks a lot like Batman because he’s got the pointy ears that are sticking up there. And so he turns and you see that it’s Scooby-Doo.

So I always had this in my head as like at some point I really want to do a teaser trailer for Scooby-Doo when you reveal it’s Batman. And then I ended up being employed for a week, two weeks, to help out a little bit on the very first Scooby-Doo movie. And I said like, “I’m so excited to be writing these scenes, but more importantly I’ve always had this teaser trailer.” So I sent it through and they ended up making that and that became the teaser trailer for the first Scooby-Doo movie. A parody of Batman.

**Craig:** It holds all of the traditional elements. I mean, they don’t really do stuff like this now. I mean, it’s 20 years old. And I was doing similar things for Disney a little bit earlier, maybe like five or six years before 2001 when I wasn’t yet a screenwriter. Obviously you were a screenwriter at that point. But first of all it has that voice. For the kids, that’s a guy named Don LaFontaine. He is no longer with us. But he was essentially the voice of movie trailers and teasers. He did, I don’t know, 70% of them or something. It was insane.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** You would go to the theater and there would be seven trailers in front of the movie and four of them would have his voice or something. It was nuts. So it was Don LaFontaine. A misdirection in teaser trailers is incredibly common to the point where nobody was misdirected anymore. They were already onto it from the jump by the time you got to, I don’t know, whatever, 2009 or something. They were like, no, you can’t do it anymore.

And, of course, the ubiquitous needle scratch which became this fascinating sonic signifier that didn’t even mean anything to kids at that point, but yet they somehow understood it meant stop everything.

**John:** This trailer, I just wrote it up in normal sort of screenplay format with that dialogue and sent it through, and I was delighted how it turned out. What was also weird about these teaser trailers is they were completely disconnected from actual footage from the movie. Even now like when Chris McQuarrie has been on the show he talks about every day trying to shoot one thing that could make it into the trailer or the teaser trailer for the Mission: Impossible movies. But in this case it was just a whole special shoot which was just for doing this teaser trailer. And you don’t see that as much anymore where there’s no footage from the actual movie in it. It’s just a premise teaser trailer. Like this is a thing that is going to exist.

**Craig:** Yeah. So when I was working in marketing at Disney, this was like back in 1994 and 1995, this would come up quite a bit where you would do a special shoot. And in fact I was dispatched as a 23-year-old or a 24-year-old to the set of a movie called Mr. Wrong. Do you remember that movie, John?

**John:** Oh, I do. With Ellen DeGeneres.

**Craig:** Exactly. With Ellen DeGeneres and Bill Pullman. It was a comedy. It was ill-fated. It did not do particularly well at the box office. Although I remember reading the script. It was one of the early movie scripts that I read and I really liked it. And I was sent to talk to Ellen and Bill about making a special shoot, some sort of scene that we could shoot to help tease the movie.

And, you know, you rapidly learn as a 24-year-old that no one – they’ve got their hands full making a movie. They don’t want you there. So it was an uphill battle. But we would make those things. I remember The Ref, like I think the marketing campaign for The Ref was entirely a special shoot, which did not help The Ref which is one of my favorite movies. Yeah, they used to do this stuff all the time. Now we have our own trailer and teaser conventions that we cannot seem to break. So the modern version of the misdirect, Don LaFontaine, and needle scratch is a fairly well-known pop song that is played at a much slower speed by a different kind of voice so that it’s this really weird dreamy take on some pop song that we know and love.

And then some wahs and some booge and stuff like that. In 20 years from now people will look back and those, OK, yeah, that’s what they did then.

**John:** That’s what they did. Now, this was the closest I ever got to writing Batman and I don’t know that I’ll ever write Batman in anything, which is fine. But the announcement that Warners and HBO Max are going to be doing a whole big expansion of their thing and of course with all the new stuff that Disney has announced with the Marvel universe, it got me thinking what characters might you or I at some point want to tackle. And so I have a short list here. I’m curious what characters would be on your list.

Obviously we’re differently placed because we could theoretically do one of these things. I don’t think we will do any of these things. But here’s the list of things I would love to tackle at some point.

I really like ATOM as a character. After Ant-Man I’m not sure there’s a space for another guy who can become really small, but I always liked ATOM. I still love Wonder Woman. I get why people didn’t love this last one as much, but I dig her as a character. Thinking sort of mythologically, I’ve always really dug Perseus. I especially love Perseus’s backstory where as a baby he got shoved into a trunk and sent off to sea because his father worried that he was going to usurp him. I love that.

I love Hermes/Mercury as a god who again is just a cool trickster character. And then in terms of the non-superhero characters, I think Indiana Jones/Nathan Drake are great guys who like Batman are super good at the things that they’re good at, but also having a fun attitude. They’d be fun characters to write in ways that I think Batman would not be a fun character to write.

Any iconic characters for you, Craig? Any ones that you’d want to tackle?

**Craig:** I don’t think so. I like comic books. I was mostly a Marvel fan when I was a kid. But I think if someone said to me, “Here’s a blank check. Write any comic book superhero movie you want,” I might say to Kevin Feige I want to do a kind of mumblecore Galactus movie. [laughs] Where it’s like he eats planets but mostly he’s lonely and he has no one to talk to expect his heralds. His heralds start to resist him. I think Galactus’s sister was deaf or [unintelligible] or something like that. So he’s having weird chats with her.

Look, the dream adaptation is happening with other people and that’s Neil Gaiman’s Sandman which in a sense I’m glad that other people are doing it because I would be terrified, absolutely terrified, to tackle that material for fear that I would do it any harm. Because I hold it in such high esteem. So, yeah, I’m going to go with sort of bummed out emo Galactus.

**John:** Yeah. I think one of the good things we’ve gotten better at in the ‘10s and the ‘20s is taking characters who would be villains in normal situations and looking at what is their actual motivation and you put them as the protagonist in the story, the central character in the story. And Harley Quinn is a good example of that. Joker, whether you liked it or not, is an example of sort of looking at that character from his point of view and what it feels like to be in his shoes.

And so, sure. A planet-eating villain, go for it.

**Craig:** A mopey planet-eating Galactus, just bummed out. I eat planets because I’m depressed. I’m depressed because I eat planets.

Links:

* Werner Herzog’s [Family Romance LLC](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10208194/)
* [Mike Schur’s Tweet](https://twitter.com/KenTremendous/status/1343712071037272066?s=20)
* [1988 Batman Teaser Reactions](https://twitter.com/i_zzzzzz/status/1339728162306011137?s=21)
* [Why Does Batman Matter](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/black-belt-brain/201203/why-does-batman-matter) by Paul Zehr
* [Beowulf: A New Translation](https://bookshop.org/books/beowulf-a-new-translation/9780374110031) by Maria Dahvana Headley
* [The Fullest Possible Story on Four Seasons Total Landscaping](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/12/four-seasons-total-landscaping-the-full-est-possible-story.html) by Olivia Nuzzi
* [Snuggle Puppy](https://snugglepuppy.com/)
* [Maria Dahvana Headley](https://www.mariadahvanaheadley.com/) on [Twitter](https://twitter.com/MARIADAHVANA)
* [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/482standard.mp3).

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 483 of Scriptnotes. It’s a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show we discuss character’s moral codes, philosophies, and beliefs, and how deep a writer really need to go fleshing those out. Then we’ll talk about virtual pitches, attaching element, eight-sequence story structure, and how to read a script.

**Craig:** Hmm. Eight-sequence story structure? I didn’t know that there was an eight-sequence–

**John:** There’s a thing. There’s a thing.

**Craig:** Really?

**John:** Yeah. We’ll talk through it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And in our bonus segment for Premium members we will revisit our disagreement over when it’s OK to lie.

**Craig:** [laughs] I can’t remember what I said. But I’m sure I told the truth.

**John:** All right. So we’re recording this on January 8. It’s two days after what happened at the Capitol, so it feels weird not to talk about it, but it’s also going to have been a little bit in the past. Watching the events at the Capitol, it felt like the How Would This Be a Movie kind of flipped in reverse, in that you saw a bunch of people who were trying to act like they were in a movie and didn’t know what to do in the movie that they were in.

I had not watched that much cable news in decades. And it was just overwhelming.

**Craig:** Yup. As always these events sometimes are disturbing fodder for those of us who write because normally people are presenting themselves within a general range of behavior of social norms and so on and so forth. And in these instances they break out of it. And in breaking out of it you start to see certain bizarre aspects of human behavior that are counterintuitive. The example that immediately comes to mind is the fact that they were rioting and smashing their way into the Capitol building, but upon entry many of them chose to stay within the boundaries of the velvet ropes that would guide tour members through the halls of Congress.

It is so strange. And those details are fascinating. But, yeah, I think you kind of nailed it. They thought that they were in a movie and then they ran out of script.

**John:** Yeah. You think about if you had written any of these scenes into a movie, like the event didn’t happen but you were writing these things, the notes you would get back would say like, “Well that doesn’t make any sense. They wouldn’t just stay within the velvet ropes there. I can see them breaking into the offices, but wouldn’t they have a better plan? Wouldn’t there be an agenda?” And the fact that they had no actual idea of what to do once they got in there you saw the horrifying guy who had like the zip ties and clearly maybe did have more of a plan, but most of them had no plan. They were a bunch of older white people who needed help getting down the stairs afterwards. It was so unsettling to watch just because you didn’t know what was going to happen. And they didn’t know what was going to happen.

I remember watching 9-11 and going through that and that sinking feeling of like I just don’t understand what’s going on, how we got here. And in this case I did know how we got here, but I still didn’t have a sense of how it could resolve.

**Craig:** I think they were in part as surprised as everybody else was. That it got as far as it went. But they don’t know what to do. Their philosophy is incoherent. They are actually more chaotic than just about any other mob I’ve ever seen in the sense that mobs are always chaotic in their motion and their actions, but they have a goal. So from a writing point of view what do you want is the fundamental question we ask. I don’t know if they knew what they wanted exactly.

I mean, to have Donald Trump be president. But how?

**John:** They had slogans but less than an actual philosophy, or belief system, or a set of principles. And so that actually is relevant to what we’re going to get to today, because one of our sort of framing questions is how much work do you need to do to establish a character’s philosophy. How much do you need to think through that going into it? And this is a good example of people who cannot articulate their philosophy. They can articulate their affiliation, but it’s not actually based upon anything.

**Craig:** I think that’s spot on. I mean, it’s always a little uncomfortable to immediately relate these things to craft work and such, because people have died and our country is in chaos. But I guess in our defense I would simply say that this is how we’re going to be processing this stuff anyway. And the more you and I talk about how the news of the day is narrativized and how it could be narrativized, and how it should be narrativized, the more hopefully people can listen to the news and so forth and be a little more critical in the way they see how things are being presented to them.

**John:** And I’d also like to reflect because I think I’m the person on this show who often encourages people to think of themselves as the protagonist in the story of their life. And this might be a good counter example of that. Maybe don’t think of yourself as being the hero in Star Wars which some of these people do. And there’s a degree to which there’s like a fanboy thing happening there which is not healthy because it’s not based in reality. And so there’s a limit to how much you perceive yourself as being in a story because you are actually in real life and there are real life consequences in ways that there aren’t in fiction.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, weird intersection between neo-fascist rioting and cosplay.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** That is disturbing as you see the not just a sense of reality breaking down, but even an interest in reality breaking down.

**John:** Yeah. It was as much Comic-Con as it was a political convention.

**Craig:** Yeah. The one guy wearing the fox furs and holding his wizard staff. Just, oh boy.

**John:** Oh boy.

**Craig:** Oh boy.

**John:** All right. So we will get back to that, but there’s a bit of follow up to get through because this is a new year. There’s new stuff to talk through. Really quickly a rundown. This whole last year we talked about the WGA campaign with the agencies. To remind everybody of what happened in previous episodes, all the agencies have signed, including CAA, except for WME. That was the last holdout.

When we last talked WME had gone to court asking for an injunction that would allow them to represent writers again.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** While they were waiting for the decision from the judge they made a new proposal. WGA said that proposal was weak sauce and wasn’t going to cut it. And that they needed to basically sign the same agreement everybody else signed with some sort of side letter or something else to show how they were going to sell down to the limits that everyone else was facing.

On the 30th, right before the New Year, the judge came back and said no injunction. So WME lost in court. And that’s kind of where we’re at. So this is sort of non-update update, but basically there’s not a resolution to the WME of the agency campaign.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, there are pending cross lawsuits between WME against WGA and WGA against WME that are still floating out there waiting to be entertained. Is that correct?

**John:** That is correct. And so in the previous ruling the judge had strongly urged WME and WGA to meet and figure it out.

**Craig:** Figure it out I think he said. I mean, in this case it seemed like WME was just throwing up a Hail Mary, a 2020 Hail Mary, to see if they could do an end run around that. And that was not probably ever meant to succeed.

**John:** Yeah. So I have no other news to report but I wanted to at least acknowledge that there’s still one plot line from 2020 that hasn’t resolved here. So that’s one of them.

**Craig:** I mean, since I’m always happy to criticize the WGA when I feel like they are bungling or making missteps, more than happy to do that with the agencies when they do so. This is dumb. WME is engaging in a similar kind of behavior to the people who believe that Donald Trump will in fact still somehow be president on January 21. This is delusional. It’s over. It’s over. Kind of conventional wisdom about a situation like the one the WGA was in with these various agencies. The second to last agency to sign a deal is setting the final term. There is no possibility that WME is going to get, nor should get, a better term than CAA or any of the agencies that came before CAA. None. Zero. Not possible.

I don’t know what they’re doing. I truly don’t know what they’re doing. They should just give up or sign the thing, otherwise maybe they’re just kind of pinning their hopes on this lawsuit, but by that point I think they’re going to be losing a lot of their old clients. I don’t understand.

**John:** Not to take your analogy too far, but I remember another situation in 2020 where this guy threw up a bunch of lawsuits hoping to overturn the results and they didn’t come out well for him. So, maybe the lesson is how do you resolve things quickly so you can get back to work might be the best goal here. But, anyway, I’m not here to give them business advice. But that’s where we’re at with that.

**Craig:** I am. [laughs]

**John:** More importantly – well, actually this is somewhat related because Endeavor Content is related to this, this past week it was announced that the Rubik’s Cube Movie which is often one of the things we speculate about, like what would replace the Slinky Movie, the Rubik’s Cube Movie is in development. So this is big news. Hyde Park Entertainment Group and Endeavor Content, which is part of WME, are teaming up for a big feature take on the famed global-selling brand, Rubik’s Cube.

There’s also a game show which is a separate thing, because we don’t make game shows. But we talk about feature. And so in the pitch, “The Rubik’s Cube has sold over 450 million cubes worldwide. Since 2018 amateur professional speed cubers from all over the world have faced each other and battled for the chance to prove their skills in the Rubik’s Cube World Championship Finals in Boston,” which I will say I do want to point out there’s a great short documentary on Netflix.

**Craig:** So good.

**John:** Love it. So I don’t want to disparage that at all because I think that was a great, great thing.

**Craig:** Beautiful.

**John:** But we need to make fun of the Rubik’s Cube Movie as a feature property.

**Craig:** Well, I’m starting to worry that they’re just listening to this show and waiting for us to come up with the next “stupid idea” and they’ll go well these guys are just pointing us towards gold. So I don’t know what our next thought is going to be. Mop and bucket, or whatever it’s going to be, the Mop and Bucket Movie.

This is not coming from a good place. I’m not going to undermine the people who take the job, especially these days.

**John:** Oh, no, not at all.

**Craig:** Yeah. You need a job, you need work, you do it. But the people who are – Hyde Park Entertainment Group and Endeavor – are engaging in an exercise that is even more cynical than the normal exercise that we all engage in in Hollywood to some extent. It just seems silly. It doesn’t matter. None of what they said matters. I doesn’t matter.

**John:** It doesn’t.

**Craig:** No. I mean, grass. You know what? People know grass more than Rubik’s Cube. Grass covers this much of the planet. 98% of people like grass. Who cares?

**John:** Yeah. So luckily we have the best listeners of any podcast in the world.

**Craig:** Yes, we do.

**John:** And our listeners are professional writers. So at least one but maybe two sets of writers sent in the pitch deck that was being sent to them. So basically when a big property like this is put out there they will contact the agencies and agencies will then go out to their clients and they’ll sort of give this is what they’re looking for.

Here was how the Rubik’s Cube Movie is being framed to writers when they are listening to them to pitch. “Our plan is to find a fresh and innovative way into the IP and develop a mythology that can speak to the scope of the puzzle’s influence. It can be anything from a world-building family adventure like Jumanji, a treasure hunt driven quest like National Treasure, to nostalgia-fueled sci-fi like Ready Player One and Beyond. Just imagine in the time it took to read this paragraph the world record holder could have solved the puzzle twice.”

**Craig:** God.

**John:** There’s also, Craig click through, because there’s a slide show deck.

**Craig:** The slide show is amazing. It’s deeply depressing. I have no problem with corporate robots speaking to each other in corporate robot language. But when they talk to us, for the love of god, this is just not good. So, they say things like “Rubik’s is winning globally,” and then there’s just a bunch of things about brand awareness and retail sales.

Then they have, “Rubik’s DNA.” DNA is a term that non-artists love to through around in front of artists because they think it’ll mean something. So, for instance, here are some of the things that would be meant to entice a writer. “A combination of colors.” Colors, John. It’s colorful. “A striking shape.” It is a cube. “It has key brand values. The key brand values are things like twisting motion. And world famous shape.” I just want to point out that before the Rubik’s Cube was introduced to the world in 1980 there were other cubes. Ice. Not the man, but the actual substance. There were ice cubes.

**John:** Bricks. Bricks are not technically cubes but–

**Craig:** Some.

**John:** They have square edges.

**Craig:** They have squares. They had cubes in all sorts of manners.

**John:** There’s a typo on the slide that you’re looking at right now. “Intelligence buidling.”

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s “intelligence buidling,” which is a bad typo to make. That’s a rough one. And then it says, sorry I’m laughing at this, “Rubik’s, an inspiration to creatives.” That is like saying everyone knows that the election was rigged. You’re just saying it. It’s not true. It’s just not. It’s not.

**John:** It’s not. Again, whoever takes this job–

**Craig:** No, we love you.

**John:** Take this job. Make something great from it. You know what? I hope you make the Lego Movie. I hope you find something that’s so great even though it’s a piece of dumb IP. You can still potentially make a great movie out of it. I don’t hate the player, I hate the game. So that’s a look into–

**Craig:** Yes, support your family. Buy a house. Do something fun with whatever they give you for this. We absolve you completely. In fact, we urge you to take a job that you can take when you need one. But good lord.

**John:** But let’s talk about the process of getting this job. Because right now there are 20, 30 writers or writing teams who are preparing their own pitches for this. And that’s kind of the tragedy. How much wasted work and creative work is going to go into trying to land this dumb job? And that’s what’s a little bit heartbreaking here.

**Craig:** Maybe the best you can sort of think is this is a fascinating exercise for your mind. If you can figure out an interesting solution to this you’re making your story solving muscle a little bit stronger. So nothing is a complete waste of time. But certainly the people who have presented this to you have not helped you with a phrase like “our plan is to find a fresh and innovative way into the IP.” There’s never been a way into the “IP” of this.

So, always fresh and innovative – that’s the part that blows my mind. We’re making a movie about a Rubik’s Cube. That alone should be shocking. Shocking. That’s the movie by the way. That would be my pitch. Like I would be the guy working at the company trying desperately to stop this movie from happening. [laughs] Desperate. Desperate.

**John:** Yes. Desperate.

**Craig:** Desperate.

**John:** So, talking about IP, some of the same people who sent through the pitch deck for this talked about other stuff that they’re getting sent. So there is a Lucky Charms being developed. General Mills, the cereal company, is developing a movie around Lucky the Leprechaun. So at least Lucky the Leprechaun has a face.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** And has a voice.

**Craig:** He’s a person.

**John:** That’s huge progress. So I would pitch for Lucky the Leprechaun over Rubik’s Cube just because there’s actually a character there.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** A character who wants something. Who is loss-averse. Like people are stealing his Lucky Charms.

**Craig:** 100%.

**John:** Why is he so loss-averse? Yeah.

**Craig:** I mean, when Chris Miller and Phil Lord approached the task of making the Lego Movie, I mean I’ve never asked them specifically this, but I will. If there were no Legos with faces would this have been doable at all? If it were just bricks what is there to do? But the fact is that a lot of Lego, plural of Lego, have faces, and so there are little mini characters. And therefore there are little mini stories.

**John:** Yeah. But the Lego I grew up with did not have faces. I grew up in a pre-face Lego world.

**Craig:** Ditto. And that’s how I knew that I was not meant to be an architect because I would just assemble the bricks into a larger mega brick. It was disturbing.

**John:** The building but you can’t actually enter it.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So the other thing we often talked about in terms of what piece of junk IP we can use for the placeholder, we went for the Mr. Clean Movie. Let’s all pitch a Mr. Clean Movie.

**Craig:** I don’t know.

**John:** And so it got me thinking, Procter & Gamble, if General Mills is going to develop a Lucky the Leprechaun Movie, Procter & Gamble, they already make soap operas. They have this character, Mr. Clean. He’s an identifiable brand. He’s got a jingle. It’s unclear to me, Craig, is Mr. Clean a genie or a sailor?

**Craig:** Oh, he’s not a genie. He’s definitely not a genie. He seems too modern. I mean, the ring is going to throw you a little bit I think. But I don’t think he’s a sailor either, to be honest. I think he’s just like a hot guy that loves cleaning.

**John:** He’s a daddy that loves cleaning.

**Craig:** Yeah. He’s a daddy that loves cleaning. By the way, at this point I’m getting turned on. And now I want to see the Mr. Clean Movie. The Rubik’s Cube Movie has destroyed the notion that the Mr. Clean Movie is the new bar. We have to go lower than Rubik’s Cube at this point. So now I’m thinking things like–

**John:** I think it’s going to be more on the grass frontier. Everyone in the world loves trees.

**Craig:** I think gravel. Gravel.

**John:** Sand. Sand is a foundation. Without sand you can’t get glass.

**Craig:** I know. Sand is almost too interesting.

**John:** Yeah. Actually the mathematics of sand is really complicated.

**Craig:** Because we know what they’re doing. They’re listening. So, if we seem, yeah, gravel is really boring. But, 99% brand awareness of gravel.

**John:** Everyone knows gravel.

**Craig:** Everyone.

**John:** You got skinned knees. You can use it to weigh stuff down. You can use it in place of a lawn if you’re trying to save.

**Craig:** See?

**John:** Sorry. I’m giving all this stuff away for free.

**Craig:** That’s fresh and innovative what you’re saying. [laughs] You know, the Poochie episode of The Simpsons should have killed all of that language, permanently. Permanently. And it didn’t.

**John:** Didn’t.

**Craig:** It just didn’t.

**John:** Such a good episode.

**Craig:** Edgy and in your face.

**John:** Yeah. All right. Let’s get into our discussion of philosophy for screenwriters. And this is all going to be coming out of a question that got sent in. So if our producer Megana Rao can join us, we have a lot of questions today and we need Megana to ask these questions so we can try to answer them on a philosophical level. Megana, can you help us out?

**Megana Rao:** Yeah, of course. OK, so Nisario wrote in and he asked, “On Episode 481 you and Craig discussed the ethics of lying as they pertain to blood donations. I couldn’t help but notice that John’s take was siding more toward a deontological approach which is rule-based. Simply, the refusal to lie, even if for the greater good, emphasizes what is right over what is beneficial for the collective. Your blood type is valuable, but the rules are such that you cannot donate, thus you must oblige to the rules of the system in place, not in favor of the rules but because you do not intend to perpetuate a flawed system. It’s a bit Kantian.

“Craig, on the other hand, argues that your lie will maximize the greatest amount of good. Therefore we ought to lie as this benefits the collective. This is consequentialism, utilitarianism, where maximizing the good is the end goal. Teleological ethics. My question is how much thought do you give to your character’s philosophy and beliefs?”

**Craig:** Good question.

**John:** Great. So in our bonus segment we’ll talk about specifically the lying and I’ll get more into that, but I think it’s a great question overall because I think it really depends on the project. There have been projects where I’ve hired on a philosophy professor to work with me to figure out character’s philosophical backgrounds, and other stuff I’ve written where like I couldn’t tell you what these characters believe in a general sense.

Craig, talk to me about your writing, how much does a character’s philosophy or belief system, how much do you know about that as you start to write?

**Craig:** Well, I took a good number of philosophy classes when I was in college and I deeply appreciate the distinction between the deontological and the teleological, and Nisario is absolutely correct. I tend towards the teleological in my thinking. I’m kind of a Nietzschean sort of dude when it comes to that. Not like full on bananas, but that’s kind of how I go.

But I think probably when I think about characters it never gets quite so specific and deep. It really stops right where I think most people go. Which is to say I tend to be a practical minded person. I tend to be an idealist. I tend to be somebody that is loyal to a set of beliefs and ethics. I tend to be somebody who shifts and moves depending on what it is I want.

We’re all familiar with people like that in our lives. So, philosophy will take a look at the way humans think and behave and attempt to organize that into analyzable and discussable systems. We don’t have to get that far. We can actually just stop with observing the behavior and then replicating it in characters as we choose. So I do engage in this to an extent, but not quite all the way into full on philosophy.

If I were writing something like The Good Place then I would absolutely need to because philosophy is literally a part of the character of Chidi. He is an ethicist and so that’s a huge part of how he thinks and what he says.

**John:** Yeah. When I said the philosopher I was talking about was Todd May who was the philosophy in residence, or one of the philosophers in residence on The Good Place. And so for the project I was writing it was really important to actually be able to explore some of those things.

Part of what you’re saying though, Craig, is you’re looking at what’s underpinning the motivations of characters. What’s driving them? And there is a balance between psychology and philosophy. And psychology is generally more present for us to explore as a writer because it’s driving people’s behaviors. It’s driving them sort of like moment to moment more clearly. Philosophy I tend to think of as being more deep, overall whether conscious or unconscious goals, a system by which people organize their choices and their life and their kind of moral structure. And most people I know in real life they may have affiliations, they may have belief systems that are because of their group identity, but they couldn’t articulate really their own belief system or their own philosophy in any meaningful way.

**Craig:** Yeah. There is a notion that philosophy is – if you think philosophy is teleological in and of itself and has a purpose, which many of the great philosophers agree with, then the purpose of philosophy is to help people live a better life. And thus we define what better means and we present them with a path to follow.

What I suspect often happens – and this is where the philosophers would probably be very upset with me – so we have the a posteriori and the a priori – that people already have an instinct of what they want because of who they are.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And then various philosophies are presented to them. They pick the one that will naturally satisfy their innate desires and they “follow it.” They’re not following it. The philosophy is following them where they were already going.

**John:** Yeah. And that really is the balance between psychology and philosophy as well. They want to do a thing and then afterwards they’re justifying why they did the thing. But that wasn’t really the cause of stuff.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** I want to get back to the group affiliations and beliefs because a lot of times the characters in our stories are going to be a member of a group. A very classic pattern is they are born into a group and then they challenge the assumptions and the beliefs of that group and leave that group and have to discover their own new way of living.

So, their initial group affiliation might be with a religion, so like as a Catholic I believe that life begins at conception they might say. Or political affiliation, so as a progressive I believe all cops are bad. Or I believe in MAGA. I believe the election was stolen by deep state actors. They’re stating beliefs but it’s hard to say to what degree those beliefs are actually innate in that they came to that decision and realization through conscious effort versus they just took a whole bundle of beliefs that came with a group identity.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is the unseemly all too human underbelly of all these discussions. People who are hurt and wounded and may simply be truly to manage shame or fear or anxiety are going to naturally drift towards certain things. We know this. It’s not quite as simple as you read a bunch of books and then you go, ah, this one makes the most sense.

For instance, did you ever read Atlas Shrugged?

**John:** Oh my god I read Atlas Shrugged.

**Craig:** Sure you did. Sure you did.

**John:** No, actually, maybe I didn’t actually finish the Atlas Shrugged. I read the Fountainhead and was an asshole for at least four months after reading it.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And I really thank my college roommates who told me I was being an asshole and got me past it.

**Craig:** Everyone I think of a certain kind like you and me, you’re going to read that stuff. It’s going to hit something instinctive in you that you suspect might be true. And it’s going to reinforce it. And that reinforcement will make you feel good, because the message there is you’re special. Because you’re doing well, you deserve praise. You’re special. And it’s intoxicating.

And then, yeah, and then ideally you grow out of it as fast as you possibly can because it’s also just wrong. It’s wrong philosophically and it’s wrong factually. We just know that. But that’s what a lot of this stuff is doing. It’s just sort of pointing at things and saying does this make you feel good. Well what if I said this. Does this make you feel good? And I think philosophy is an intellectualization and distancing from that process.

What we do I think is far better thought of as just living on that very human level – what makes you feel good? What makes you feel scared? What is it that you want and why? And the characters that overly philosophical in film are usually villains because the villains, we understand our rationalizing and intellectualizing to cover up the all too human truth of why they’re doing what they do.

**John:** What I think Nisario may be reaching for is you want a story, you want a film obviously to ask a question. We talk about what is the central dramatic question. What is the theme of a piece? And that theme idea really is probably a better way of thinking about philosophy. Because you’re asking a philosophical question like, you know, we think of Star Trek, the needs of the many. That question is sort of an important part of that film and that film series. So you may be asking a philosophical question and your characters will be grappling with that philosophical question, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you are. So in the conception of the idea there is a philosophy there. There’s something you’re grappling with. And your characters, your protagonists, and your antagonists would naturally be grappling with that as well. But that doesn’t mean that you are necessarily cataloging all of their beliefs and having every decision that character makes really very obviously tied into that philosophy because then you are Ayn Rand and you are writing The Fountainhead. And please don’t do that.

**Craig:** Correct. Exactly right. So what I call the central dramatic argument, people call a theme, it doesn’t matter what you call it, oftentimes is philosophical in nature because there is a very universal interest in these big questions of life. But the delivery system and the execution system is human and the people in the story, the characters you’re creating, are not philosophers. I mean, for instance, what Nisario is pointing out about our discussion about blood donations and your deontological approach and my teleological approach that is literally what is at the heart of The Last of Us, which is what I’m writing right now. That’s it. That’s the heart of it.

And nobody, nobody in this show, none of the characters in the game or the show are ever, ever going to speak philosophically about deontology or teleology because they’re not aware of that. That’s operating, it’s sort of like the history of whatever happens in this show 100 years later, if people are still alive a philosopher will write a history and then analyze it then. But not inside of the story.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s take a look at what are some philosophical aspects that are useful for a screenwriter to be asking about their characters.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** And there’s going to be some natural overlap with psychology because that’s just how it works. But I would say idealism versus pragmatism. And I’m going to broadly talk about idealism. I have this notion of things must work this way and I’m going to stick to my guns on this thing regardless of sort of what the situation is. Versus utilitarianism or pragmatism – pragmatism is probably the better way to describe it – of just do what you can in the situation and make the best of it. Those are psychological approaches but they’re also philosophical approaches. Sort of what is the best use of the current situation that we’re in?

We might ask how concerned is this character about ethics overall. Ethics as a system, how do they deal with ethical questions that come up? Do they care about them? Do they not care about them? One thing I’ve constantly observed in films is that questions of ethics are always being asked of and by men. And you almost never see women grappling with questions of ethics for whatever reason. It’s just not a thing that we see portrayed in film very often.

**Craig:** Hmm. That’s an interesting observation.

**John:** You ask how willing is this character to lie? And how easily do they lie? How worried are they about lies? And where does it rank on their scale of sins or crimes to commit to lie to somebody?

**Craig:** I’m thinking about what you said about men and women and ethical presentations.

**John:** My counterexample which I think stuck out because I hadn’t seen this character before. Tilda Swinton’s character in Michael Clayton is deeply conflicted and flips out over decisions she’s having to make. And I cannot think of another female character in film who is grappling with things that same way. I guess to a degree Meryl Streep’s character in The Post, to a degree. But there aren’t a lot. And maybe that’s because we don’t see a lot of women in control in places where they can make these ethical systemic decisions in our films, but that’s just an observation.

**Craig:** It may also be that we in a tropey way think of men as more – I’ll just say – slightly more sociopathic in that they can be more emotionally detached and therefore intellectualize a situation and analyze it strictly in terms of bloodless value systems or ethics. Whereas the trope is that women are more feeling and connected and human and therefore have an innate morality that doesn’t need to be the product of analysis, but rather just emerges from a wellspring within. That’s an interesting thought.

There is another movie that’s coming to mind that does sort of run against that and it’s Tin Cup. When I think about idealism versus pragmatism, Kevin Costner’s character is such a good example of an idealist. He just has an ideal of what it means to play golf well, or rather correctly. And he sticks to it through the very end. And through his application and connection to that he both loses and wins. Rene Russo is his therapist and she is very much trying to pragmatically help him grow. And she is more concerned about ethics and questions of right and wrong and practicality and growing as a human being.

So, that’s an interesting possible counterpoint. But I think you’re touching on something really interesting that there is a space there for female philosophers I guess that we tend to leave to them out. And we should be bringing them in because there’s a lot of them.

**John:** Yeah. So the team owner in Ted Lasso. Your example of Tin Cup made me think of the team owner in Ted Lasso who starts off doing a very bad thing, an unethical thing, and sort of grapples with it. So there are other examples like that, but it just feels like on the big screen, in the 12 Angry Men kind of way of it, we don’t see that happening very often.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** It’s an opportunity for writers who want to pursue it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m kind of curious. Can you think of an example of that scene that we’ve seen many times where a woman is slowly pacing back and forth in front of a captured hero explaining to him why her plan to destroy the world makes sense? Have you ever seen that?

**John:** I think in a Minions movie, yes. I feel like Sandra Bullock’s character in the Minions movie kind of does a little of that. But I’m really stretching to get there.

**Craig:** I’m going to exclude animation and I’m going to exclude superhero movies. So, you have a little bit of that in–

**John:** No, in a normal live action drama? No. I can’t.

**Craig:** I’m struggling to think of one. And now I want to write one because I feel like women absolutely have the right to be just as sociopathic and insane as men.

**John:** Yeah. We have sociopathic women. We have the Glenn Close’s character in Fatal Attraction. But where she’s justifying her actions based on her perceived wrongs, we have the scorned woman archetype. But that’s not really what you’re describing.

**Craig:** Right. Not necessarily sociopaths. Yeah. Those are like personality disorders. But the kind of bloodless sociopath who wouldn’t even be bothered with sleeping with someone’s husband. Who cares? She has a bigger method.

**John:** I think some of the villains, it’s hard to even call them villains, some of the characters in Game of Thrones might have aspects of that as well. But I really want to go for what we’re seeing in movies, I certainly can’t pick one of those.

**Craig:** Yeah. All right. It’s a challenge.

**John:** But let’s talk about heroes where you can identify some philosophical, some sort of belief system that they articulate and will come back to. And sometimes that can be helpful. So Indiana Jones, “That belongs in a museum,” that’s how he distinguishes what he does from other folks who are doing kind of the same thing.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I think about Miranda Priestly from Devil Wears Prada. And she very clearly articulates a philosophy that beauty has a purpose. And that what she’s doing at this magazine and fashion has meaning, so she’s able to articulate that.

Willy Wonka’s obsession with chocolate. He has that craftsman’s fascination, that artist’s fascination with the meaning that he’s in and he can speak to that very fully. So, those are characters who articulate a philosophy and it’s useful in their films to be able to do that.

So, we’re not saying don’t do that work. We’re saying it can be helpful. But I wouldn’t want – I think what I worry about is writers who would try to write a full philosophical treatise for each of the characters in their films and then struggle to find ways to actually make that fit into the film, or to articulate that in the film when it may just not be natural.

**Craig:** It would be bad. And it also robs your hero, your protagonist, of growth. It’s fine to put characters on either side of them. So, in Chernobyl I put a total pragmatist on one side of Jared Harris’s character, and on the other side I put an absolute idealist. So he gets to be pulled back and forth between them and then finds some sort of synthesis because he can see the value of both sides. And that’s interesting. You’re watching somebody make choices. The problem with philosophers as characters is they’ve already made up their minds and that is remarkably boring to watch in drama.

**John:** It is indeed. Great. Well thank you for this quick talk through some philosophical choices that writers might need to make. Write in with more stuff. I feel like on some future episode we should talk about kind of D&D alignment, because I see people trying to do that a little bit too much.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s not really–

**John:** Yeah. Not so good.

**Craig:** Yeah, don’t do it.

**John:** So many more questions. I want to sort of get into them. So, Megana, can you talk to us about Zoom?

**Megana:** Great. So this question was suggested by Benjamin Simon. And he asked, “My friend and I have been working on a TV show pitch and hope to ‘take it out’ soon. Checking in with a few friends about their experiences pitching during the pandemic, it seems they’ve had to make adjustments when it comes to pitching on Zoom. For example, using more visuals and slides. I’d love to hear your take.”

**John:** Great. I have done a lot of this during the pandemic, so I actually have some straightforward advice for this. So I’ve had two projects I’ve taken out. I pitched to all the streamers. I’ve also pitched to all the animation places. In a conventional pitch you would go into the room, you would sit down on the couches. You would have a couple minutes of bullshit conversation. And then you’d get into your pitch. And so you might have visuals. You might have boards presented. Or you might just be talking at them. You have to focus on who the most important person is in the room while occasionally doing the lawn sprinkler of sort of making eye contact with everybody else in the room.

On Zoom it’s sort of nice because you don’t have to – eye contact isn’t quite the same thing. Basically you’re looking at the camera and it’s like you’re looking at everybody at the same time. So that is good. I will often put a little sticky note near the camera lens on my computer just to remind me I need to look up there and not look at people’s faces down lower.

Some things I learned really early on. First off, it’s important to practice. So, set up a practice Zoom with your other collaborators, your other writer, or your director, your producers, and just practice through it just to make sure you get all the little things out and who is going to speak when. I found it to be really helpful to join the meeting both from my main computer and also from my laptop. And on the laptop, that’s the one I’ll be sharing slides off of. And that just makes it easier for me to be doing this, my left hand is moving slides around, while I’m still able to focus on the screen in front of me for everything else. So that’s been helpful for me.

If you have sound, like this animation thing had a little animatic that had sound that went with it, make yourself a note that you actually have to turn on sound when – you have to enable sound and screen sharing when you get to that part.

When I was pitching I would tend to have what I was going to say kind of written out in Highland and I would move that up to the top of the screen so that it was close to the camera lens so I wasn’t looking down, I was looking up as I was scrolling through it. And actually really liked pitching on Zoom because we could pitch three places in a day and not drive all over town. So, for that it was great.

The slides were really helpful though because it gave us something to look at while I was talking. It wasn’t just me. Craig, have you had to pitch anything during this time?

**Craig:** Not pitch per se, but I certainly had a number of conversations that had consequences. You know, implied consequences, like are we going to make your how, or should we hire this person. And so there was – I mean, I guess if you define the thing that makes a pitch a pitch is that you’re having a meeting that has a consequence, a potential consequence. So I’ve had those and I, like you, I enjoy them to the extent that I don’t have to drive around. And also there’s a consistency on my end.

So one of the things about the drive around over the course of two days and pitch stuff is you find yourself in different rooms that are too hot, too cold, too small, too dusty. You have a headache all of a sudden. It’s a whole thing. And here you don’t have that problem. You’re in your comfy chair. You’re in your comfy clothes. And you’re doing your best.

I find that one of the nice things about Zoom is that its consistent limitation is that it can’t really handle simultaneous audio very well. We all know that. So, it requires everybody to listen. And the most important advice I could give you, Benjamin, and your friend is don’t be afraid to make space for other people to talk and ask questions. And as you’re pitching build in moments to stop and say, “How are we doing? Any questions?” Because it’s good for people to have a chance, otherwise they feel they’re getting – in a room you can always interrupt. It’s really hard to do it on Zoom. And when they do interrupt it creates this awkward post-interrupt, “Wait. Did you? Sorry. Oh, I. OK.”

So give them moments.

**John:** Absolutely. Build in. That’s why it’s also important to practice is to figure out where are the natural places to stop and ask for feedback, ask for questions. You may have noticed this, too. In pitching to larger rooms I feel like the executives have asked their other people in the Zoom for their questions much more often on Zoom than in real life when I’ve been in a space with other folks. And so that’s been nice, too. I feel like I’ve had more and better conversations with the number two and the number threes in Zoom pitches than in real life. It may just be the projects, but it did feel like it was relevant.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, at some point you want to make sure that the people you’ve asked into the meeting as an employer feel like they’re there for a reason.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And so it is. It’s good. I like it. You know, you and I have a weird experience, a now decade-long experience, doing something that most people in Hollywood have no experience doing.

**John:** That’s true.

**Craig:** We talk and then we stop and we listen. By the way, most podcasts really struggle with this. It’s one of the reasons I don’t listen to podcasts. You know, I hate the banter. Like the overlapping banter.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** See that? See what we just did that? It’s beautiful.

**John:** That big, giant silence? OK, so hopefully that helps out with pitching on Zoom. I see we have an audio question here. This is Lauren from Los Angeles. Let’s listen to what Lauren has to say.

**Lauren:** Hey John and Craig. My name is Lauren and I’m a freshly repped screenwriter from Los Angeles. Believe it or not I signed with my management company on March 13, 2020. Yes, the day of the lockdown. So, every single general meeting I’ve had since has been over Zoom and I’ve never met my agents in person. That’s completely not relevant to my question, but I felt like it was a funny thing you might enjoy.

OK, so my question is this. I’m currently working on two different projects. One is a feature pitch that’s a very commercial YA type rom-com. The other is an indie feature script that is a dark comedy revolving around a mother-daughter relationship. I’m fortunate to say that I have different producers attached on both projects. Despite them being different I have ultimately gotten the same note on both. The note is always, “Don’t leave the protagonist’s point of view.” I’m curious what your opinion is on this because oftentimes I find that I want to leave my protagonist to reveal something happening without them knowing. For example, I will leave my daughter character to show the mother doing something behind her back. Or, in my rom-com I leave my main female character to reveal the love interest setting up something to surprise her.

Many times I’ve found their POV helpful. Nine times out of ten I’ve learned that the moments do in fact hit harder when I reveal the information to the audience through the character’s perspective. So, I’m curious if there’s a time when it’s better to leave the protagonist’s point of view and what your opinions would be on this. Thanks again. I’m a big, big fan. Lauren from Los Angeles. Bye.

**Craig:** I’m a big, big fan of Lauren from Los Angeles’s question. That’s a good question. We’ve talked about perspective a lot, yeah, but I don’t think we’ve ever focused on like when do you leave that perspective.

**John:** Yeah. I think it’s a great question. And I like that she half answered her own question. She says that nine times out of ten the producer’s note is correct and she shouldn’t do it. And that would be my instinct as well.

I think you’re making a contract with your audience, with your reader, about POV pretty early on in your script. And if you break POV on page 60 for the first time they’re right to say like, “Wait, that’s not the movie we signed up for.” So it feels like you’re cheating. So either you do it consistently or you don’t do it at all.

Some of my favorite movies will suddenly break POV and it’s exciting and it’s so unexpected when it happens. But they’re unusual when it happens. And, again, they tend to be movies where you go in there expecting for some sort of twist or surprise. And it feels like both of the things you’re describing don’t necessarily merit that break in POV.

**Craig:** Yeah. So first let’s sort of define this. We’re not strictly talking about who your main character, what they can physically see at any given point. But the emphasis of the scene is on your main character and how they’re experiencing something. So what you’re asking the audience to do is identify with your protagonist in this scene or sequence. In television it’s necessary to shift POV as much as possible because you are serving typically multiple storylines. And then inside those storylines there are protagonists. And so that storyline is within that protagonist POV, so it’s essentially staying inside of the notion of staying with POV.

For movies, the villain gets their own POV. You don’t want to spend too much time with the villain.

**John:** Sometimes.

**Craig:** It’s pretty rare to have a movie where you don’t have a scene where the antagonist gets to own it and express their feelings and desires and wants. But, yes, you’re right. It can happen. But very common that you can freely and you want to break POV to give the antagonist a moment. Or two.

There are also times in comedies where side characters later on can have fascinating little POV break points, as long as the scene is brilliant. I’m thinking for instance of one of my favorite movies, In and Out, by Paul Rudnick who, you know, we’re on record as adoring for the Addams Family movies, etc. So there’s a wonderful moment later in the film where Debbie Reynolds who plays Kevin Kline’s mother, and who has been haranguing him to get married the entire time, and who had no scenes inside of her own perspective, always from Kevin Kline’s perspective, suddenly after the whole wedding blows up and he comes out of the closet and everything is crazy there’s a scene where she’s just alone with her old lady friends in the hall where there was going to be a wedding and she’s just bemoaning it all. And it’s a really funny scene where each one of those women just comes out with this fascinating secret. Like they all come out of the closet – it’s not about their own sexuality, but about things in their life. Like they start to reveal things. And it’s brilliant.

And it was a wonderful breath of fresh air because it earned its weight. So, you pick your spots. But just know, Lauren, when you do drift away it’s got to be really good. Because we’re naturally going to be like, wait, why are we over here. What’s happening? Because we know that this isn’t really advancing the story per se. So that’s the key.

**John:** Yeah. So this last week we watched Bridesmaids, or I rewatched Bridesmaids. First time my daughter had seen it. And I was struck by just what a great movie it is. It’s so, so, so well done. So Kristen Wiig’s character, it is from her POV. She is driving really every scene. Another way you may talk about this in a meeting is who has storytelling power. Basically who can drive a scene by themselves where none of the other characters need to be there? But she really is driving basically every scene. But there are notable moments where she’s not in them and so there’s a plane sequence in which we see a lot of other side conversations between characters and we continue to flesh out some characters. I think the reason why it doesn’t feel like you’re breaking POV to have those moments is at any point Kristen Wiig’s character could come in and disrupt those existing conversations.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And so they’re in a space where she could still be there. And so sometimes in a script you may kind of walk in the door with another character, but as long as our central character can be there and be part of the scene soon you’re not breaking the rules. It’s not going to feel like you’ve shifted the playing field unfairly.

**Craig:** Yeah. There’s a question of substance to those moments. I mean, there’s this wonderful moment on the plane where Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone have this incredible interaction.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** That’s off of Kristen Wiig’s POV. It doesn’t advance the story really. Well, it kind of eventually sort of does. But it’s not deeply substantive. If you had a scene in Bridesmaids where Melissa McCarthy’s character was talking to one of the other Bridesmaids, not Kristen Wiig, and they talked about how they wanted to first go to this place to have lunch, but Kristen Wiig apparently wants us to go to a different place, and then we’re going to go over here. We’d be like why is Kristen Wiig not in this conversation? This is the whole point of us being here is to experience this discomfort through her.

So, if there is a lot of substance then, yeah, you probably want to avoid that. If it’s a fun little moment, especially in our YA rom-com, you know, why not?

**John:** Yeah. Absolutely. So, our general take home advice is you should absolutely be aware of it. And if you’re getting the note about breaking POV it’s probably because something is not working right. So take a look at what’s not working and POV might be the problem, but it may also be something else that’s not working right and POV is just the thing that’s sticking out.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** All right. Megana, do we have another question?

**Megana:** Awesome. So, Christina asks, “I’m taking a screenwriter class and the instructor is using the eight-sequence structure. I’ve never heard of it before. It seems to sort of map onto three-act structure, but the protagonist is supposed to have a unique want in each of the eight sequences, AKA every 10-15 pages. Is this eight-sequence structure widely used and should I be applying it to my screenwriting? Or could it possibly be derailing me from three-act structure?”

**John:** Craig, you had never heard of this, had you?

**Craig:** No. [laughs]

**John:** No.

**Craig:** Not at all.

**John:** It’s not a thing. And I don’t mean to say that your screenwriting instructor is steering you in a dangerous place, but that person is probably doing as good a job as a screenwriting instructor can do. The idea that there are 10-15 page chunks that sort of feel a little bit different, sure. Great. Call them sequences. Call them whatever. I’m always going to push back against this dogmatic belief that there’s some magical clothesline or whatever metaphor for how the story has to hang together and that these shifts have to happen magically.

**Craig:** Christina, you know, you probably knew, somewhere in the back of your head or perhaps in the front of your head, that when you asked this question you were just going to make me insane. There is not eight-sequence structure. It’s not a thing. I mean, I’m sure it is a thing for some people, but it’s not a thing-thing.

By the way, three-act structure which is a thing-thing is also not really a thing in the sense that it’s only useful if it’s useful. But this notion that the protagonist is supposed to have a unique want in each of the eight sequences AKA every 10 to 15 pages is absurd. Your instructor is certainly making his or her way through teaching this class as they have given themselves a structure. And that’s fine. I disagree with it. I don’t think it is applicable or practical or artistically substantive or justified. And maybe if you’re not feeling it this isn’t the class for you. Because I have a feeling that 80% of screenwriting classes – and I’m being charitable – are not for anyone. That’s just my gut.

**John:** I found a link here which talks through what the eight sequences are. So, I’ll read the descriptions of the eight sequences. And it does – I’m curious what you think.

So sequence one is Status Quo and Inciting Incident. OK.

Sequence two is Predicament and Lock In. I get that. So the story gears are engaging.

Sequence three, First Obstacle and Raising the Stakes. That feels kind of generic to me.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Sequence four, First Combination/Midpoint.

**Craig:** Hmm? That’s my favorite. No, no, I’ve got to stop there. And this is something I talked about in my how to write a movie thing. This I really loathe. It’s a midpoint. Why? Why? It just says, “If the story is a tragedy and our hero dies, then the first culmination (or midpoint) should be a low point for our character.” Why?

**John:** I don’t know. I don’t know.

**Craig:** So the hell are you supposed to write it? It’s so dumb.

**John:** Well sequence five is where you get the Subplot and Rising Action.

**Craig:** Huh? Huh?

**John:** Sequence six is the Main Culmination and it’s the End of Act Two.

**Craig:** What does that mean?

**John:** I don’t know. Well, it explains what it means, but not great. Not in a way that’s meaningful. There’s New Tension and Twist in sequence seven. And then Resolution in sequence eight. So I was like, yeah, you know what it’s the things that are going to happen in a movie are going to happen just like they’re putting numbers on them.

**Craig:** You can feel the tap dancing.

**John:** I hope Christina really what you’re focusing on in this class is learning how to write scenes and scenes work. Because that’s going to be much more important. Because all this stuff about structure we’ve talked about a thousand times. Movies have a natural structure to them. There’s ways that stories want to unfold. But all the structure in the world isn’t going to help you if your scenes don’t work and if your characters are not engaging on the page. That should not be the focus of a class.

**Craig:** You know, everybody who does this stuff they come out of the gate strong on act one. Because act one is super easy to structure. Everybody knows what it means to start a story.

**John:** You got to meet your people.

**Craig:** You got to meet your people.

**John:** Figure out your world.

**Craig:** Something happens. They get stuck. They need to do a thing. They want something. And then in act two there’s just argle-bargle. For instance, this says, “The second act SAG,” that’s in all capitals, as if it’s a thing, “can set in at this point if we don’t have a STRONG,” in all capitals, “subplot to take the ball for a while.” What does that mean?

**John:** It doesn’t mean anything. It doesn’t mean anything.

**Craig:** Subplot? I don’t know what this means.

**John:** If you’re talking about classic one-hour dramas where there’s an A-story and a B-story and a C-story, but that’s not a feature. That’s not how these work.

**Craig:** No. I don’t know what any of this means. And I don’t know why.

**John:** And Christina doesn’t need to worry about it.

**Craig:** No, don’t worry about it. You know what? Write something fun. And by the way if your teacher who is devoted to the eight-sequence structure doesn’t like what you’ve written because it defies the eight-sequence structure, rest easy at night knowing that it doesn’t matter anymore than a 16-year-old 10th or 11th grade student defying the introductory paragraph, three example paragraph, conclusion paragraph structure of an essay, which is a terrible structure. The most boring possible way to write anything, but that’s what they teach.

So, you know, just listen to this show. We’re doing better than this guy.

**John:** All right, this last question may actually be useful and helpful for folks. So, Megana, if you’d get us for this.

**Megana:** OK, so Fulla asks, “What advice do you have for new writers about how to read screenplays as a learning exercise? That is reading screenplays of movies that have already been made. Is it good to just read them and take it all in by osmosis, or is there a particular process for breaking the script down that you would recommend?”

**John:** I have an opinion but Megana I’d actually like to ask your opinion first because you’re at a place now where you’re probably reading a lot of scripts and future screenplays, TV screenplays, when you read a script what do you do?

**Megana:** A part of the reason why I was so curious to hear your guys’ thought is I worry that I’m doing it wrong. But I just read it straight through.

**Craig:** Funny.

**Megana:** And I’m always so impressed and floored and hear my agent friends who read like ten screenplays a day, like how they get through it that quickly. And I think now that I’ve been reading screenplays for a while it’s starting to make more sense to me how to break it down and to be able to flip through and find certain things faster. Or just like keep parts of the story and identify them faster. But I think I’m still sort of reading them from page one on.

**John:** Yeah. And as a person who is trying to learn how good screenplays work, especially if you’re reading screenplays of existing movies that are good screenplays that you want to learn from, that’s how you do it. You read the scripts. And sort of as you’re reading them figure out what impact are they having for you. What’s working for you on the page? What are lessons you can take from it?

The one thing I will say I have learned to do over time is in watching a movie or reading a script I will try to take some notes to myself afterwards about what I learned from it. What I actually took and what’s useful about it. If you can do that, that’s great. But really it comes down to your own taste. And your agents who are reading 10 scripts in an afternoon, they’re skimming. They’re not really reading. And they’re not reading to improve their own writing ability. They’re just reading to plow through stuff. So that’s not really I think a fair standard to try to hold yourself to.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think you’re doing it right, Megana. Fulla, if you are reading screenplays of movies that have been made, as you say, my advice would be to make sure you’ve seen the movie first. Watch the movie and feel, just like a regular person. Just go in there like a good old audience member. Experience the movie. Just make internal notes of what delighted you, what scared you, what interested you, what bored you. A line that made you lean in and a line that made you roll your eyes. Then read the script.

And as you read the script just start to note how the parts that you loved or hated related to the words on the page. And what you think went right and what you think went wrong. And the most valuable sections are probably the ones where there’s something that you love in the movie, you read it on the page, and you go, wow, OK, so the page, it’s there, and it works in the movie. What do I love about this so much? Why did this make me so happy? What surprised me about it? And just think about it.

The more you get into super-duper analysis breaking down, et cetera, the more you’re drifting out of the zone of somebody that makes things and more into the zone of somebody that analyzes things. The danger is you don’t want to sort of quietly train yourself to be a critic. You want to train yourself to be a creator.

So, always think about that as best you can while you’re doing this. But you’ll be fine.

**John:** I totally agree about not becoming a critic of things. And so if you are going to break stuff down, I would say break it down, like a scene, look at how that writer got into and out of that scene and sort of the choices that writer made about how they’re going to get that information out. That is so helpful to see the craftsman there. Imagine you’re looking at an amazing piece of furniture and you’re able to deconstruct it to see how the joinery works. That’s useful.

But don’t engage in film criticism. I think Craig’s exercise is great in terms of seeing the movie then reading the script. After you do that a few times I say flip it. And if there’s a movie that you haven’t seen but you can find the screenplay for read the screenplay and see what movie are you building in your head based on the screenplay. And then you can compare it to how it actually turned out. That’s a good counterexample. A realization of like how much of the movie you saw really was first reflected on that page.

So just read a lot. And I think Fulla, you versus Christina, if all the time Christina spends in that class learning about eight-sequence structure, she was instead reading a bunch of screenplays, she’s going to come out ahead.

**Craig:** No question. And pretty sure it’s a lot cheaper.

**John:** Yeah. It is cheaper. Especially now. I remember when I went to USC for film school, one of the big draws is they had a big script library so you could check out two scripts at a time and read these scripts. And it was so helpful and so useful. And now we have the Internet and just all those scripts that are there which were such a valuable resource, they are free for everybody and that’s better. That’s how it should be.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** Indeed. All right, Megana, thank you so much for these questions.

**Craig:** Thanks Megana.

**Megana:** Thank you, guys.

**John:** All right. It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing oddly is self-serving. I generally don’t do a One Cool Thing that’s actually something I wrote, but this year I wrote up my 2020 sort of year in review. Basically I wanted to take a look at sort of all the stuff I did in 2020, for my writing stuff, for the apps we build. Sort of personal stuff. You know, health and such. And actually just take an accounting of what happened in 2020. Because while the year was obviously bizarre, there were a lot of things that were still under my control and I wanted to be sort of accountable for the things I could control.

So I did sort of year-end review. It ended up being a super, super long blog post, which I hadn’t intended. But from it I was trying to really ask three questions. What went well? What didn’t go so well? And what did I learn? And it’s the what did I learn is probably the most important things, because that’s the stuff that helps inform the choices I make for 2021. So, take a look at it. If you’re inspired to, it’s not too late into January to be thinking about what you did in 2020 and really looking forward to what you want to do in 2021.

**Craig:** I assume a big chunk of that review is just about how you treated me poorly and how you’re going to get better?

**John:** How I could treat Craig better is really a part of it. I also want to credit Megana Rao, our producer, because she did a review of what happened in 2020 as well and it got me thinking like, oh wow, I tend to discount all the things that happened over the course of the year. And so when she did her listing of things like, oh yeah, that was a lot.

**Craig:** You know, that’s the thing. You forget. It’s true. You get a lot done. You get more done than you think. So always good to give yourself a little bit of a hug at the end of a hard year and man was this a hard one.

Here’s my One Cool Thing, and this is a wonderful hug you can give yourself. I every now and then will recommend a game on the iPad. Usually it’s because I found it to be a fun diversion. This one I truly love. I love this game. I love it on the level of loving The Room and stuff like that, although it’s very different. It’s called There is No Game. And it is an independent game that’s kind of done in the sort of ‘90s pixel style which generally I just don’t like, because I’m like we have lived through that. I don’t want to still do that again.

But it’s purposeful here. It’s very purposeful here. This is a fascinating exercise in meta-analysis of games while playing a game, and it’s also very beautiful, and then becomes rather touching. And it is also mostly narrated by its creator, Pascal Cammisotto, who is French and so you’re basically being led through this by a man with a very strong accent, which at first you’re like I’m struggling to understand a few of these words. And then by the time you’re well into it you are absolutely in love with him and his accent. And the fact that he’s making fun of his accent. And the game is making fun of his accent.

It’s brilliant. I think this game is absolutely brilliant. And I urge you to go and spend the whatever it is, the $3 or something that it is to play it. I just loved it. Really fun.

So, again, There is No Game. Technology the full title is There is No Game: Wrong Dimension. It’s wonderful.

**John:** And you’d recommend we play it on iPad if that’s possible?

**Craig:** Yes, absolutely. iPad. Well, you can play it I think via Steam. You can play it on Mac as well. But it was released for Android, which I don’t care about, and iOS just a couple of weeks ago on December 17.

**John:** Excellent. I look forward to checking that out.

**Craig:** Indeed.

**John:** That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro is by Rajesh Naroth. Oh, Craig, you’re going to want to listen to this one. It’s a good Mandalorian riff.

**Craig:** Oh, I like that.

**John:** If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We have 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. Plus you can sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has a lot of links to things we talk about on the show.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net. That’s where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record online. Craig, I would not be lying if I didn’t say that this was a good episode.

**Craig:** [laughs] I have to go through the layers of negatives.

**John:** I have no idea how that actually comes out.

**Craig:** I think you said that it was a good episode. I agree.

**John:** Good. Thanks so much.

**Craig:** Thank you.

[Bonus segment]

**John:** All right. Our bonus topic is on lying. And so the question that we had earlier from Nisario was follow up really on our discussion we had in the random advice episode where a listener had written in saying like, “Hey John, how do you feel about gay people not being allowed to donate blood and would you lie about being gay so that you could donate blood?” And Craig you said that if I had that rare blood type, if I had O-negative you would recommend that I do lie.

**Craig:** Strongly. Yes. I think what I said was that I would not only recommend it but I would bother you about it almost daily.

**John:** Yeah. And so I found that actually genuinely fascinating. I didn’t want to hijack the whole episode, just have a long discussion about that, but it’s a bonus segment so we can do whatever we want in a bonus segment.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so I found that really fascinating. And particularly coming from a guy who like the first episode of Chernobyl starts a line, “What is the cost of lies?”

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** And so I think there is a cost to it. And I sort of wanted to piece through this because I don’t come to it from a religious perspective. I don’t believe in a Saint Augustine kind of way I’m going to lose my immortal soul for that lie. But to me it really was important to not lie about that. And so I wanted to sort of pick through that a little bit more if we could.

**Craig:** Sure. So, the simplest way of looking at it is that lying does have a cost. One of the things that I said in the podcast we did for Chernobyl was that after thinking about this and working on that show and running over the various thought experiments in my mind, it seems to me that there is a certain amount of lying that is just built into how we exist. We actually cannot function neurologically without a certain amount of lying.

**John:** And let’s define lying. So is lying any deception? Or is it knowingly telling a falsehood? What is lying in that definition?

**Craig:** I would make it as broad as possible. I think we need a little bit of denial to be able to get through the day. Some of us need a lot of denial to get through the day, which is a kind of lying. It’s essentially a refutation of fact. Like for instance if our own mortality were on the forefront of our minds then I don’t know how we would get through it. We are engaged in a steady passive denial of our mortality all the time.

And also there is a general lying to get through the day just to be polite and kind, and to not hurt people’s feelings. When you see somebody and you don’t like what they’re wearing and they’re like, “Oh my god, what do you think?” Why? Truly it would be damaging to everyone if we just opened our brains up and spilled it all out. It’s one of the reasons why the Internet, particularly social media, has been so toxic. It’s not because social media makes people bad. It’s because social media stops them sometimes from lying. They feel free to just say exactly what they think or feel and then we begin to corrode.

So there is a certain baseline that is required. The lies that we talk about in the show are the malicious lies that are designed to give us comfort even when we must address the danger. If a doctor says to you, “You have,” like a doctor said to Steve Jobs, “Steve, you have pancreatic cancer.” And he engaged in a series of lies to himself about what that meant and about what kind of treatment would work. And he paid the price. And he found out what the cost of those lies were, which is death. And that’s the kind of stuff that worries me.

When we talk about the rules surrounding the donation of blood and gay people, that rule is based on a lie. And the lie is that the blood of gay men is dangerous. It is not. And also our ability to screen blood for things like HIV, which is why that rule came about in the first place, is very good. So it’s just based on a kind of lie. We don’t want to deal with the notion that somehow we should just proceed towards scientific truth there. Specifically scientific truth is the truth that is most concerning to me and the one that we really can’t afford to lie about.

So that’s why that’s my position on the blood donation. It’s just scientific truth that we cannot ignore or lie about. And it hurts people. That’s the cost.

**John:** Exactly. So you can frame that either way. What is the good you’re trying to do? You’re trying to save someone’s life by donating blood. And it is good to save someone’s life. Absolutely established that. And we’re talking about what is the cost of it. As I said at the start, I’m not worried about lying in the sense of like it’s going to cost me my mortal soul. I don’t believe that’s a thing.

But I do think there are other costs that you may not be accounting for. And I sort of want to talk through a little bit of that, because we’ve had other discussions even prior to Scriptnotes that involve some of this stuff. So I think that in telling a lie, in telling this specific lie saying that I am not – checking the box that I am not a gay man or have not had sex or whatever, I’m undermining trust in the blood system itself. Because if I’m willing to say, to lie on this checkbox, what does it mean that – what is to stop me from lying about the other checkboxes, or things that could be more important?

Why is the choice about what’s important to lie about and not lie about left to me, a person who is not a scientist, versus the science? You and I both agree that this ban should be taken down. The proper solution is to get rid of the ban.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** But I think even the interim step of me lying on this checkbox is undermining trust in the system because if we’re saying it’s OK for gay men to lie on that checkbox well is it OK for people with other serious blood-borne diseases to be lying on that checkbox. I think it naturally undermines trust in the way that lies undermine trust.

That’s one of my objections.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that that is reasonable. And there are certain systems where I think you’re right. If there is a sense that there is a mass jury negation going on then, yes, we are going to lose faith in the system. In the case of blood donations, it’s a little bit like the security question you get at the airport. Did you pack your bags yourself? Well, that’s actually of no value. It does not matter if people say yes or no. The system really can’t rely on the self-reporting of truth. It needs to independently screen. There is no reason that we should be asking anybody whether or not they engage in behaviors that might lead to their blood having a virus in it any more than they should be asking us when we walk through the airport if we’re carrying a weapon. They should just make us go through the freaking metal detector. And the same thing does – it should and also does – happen with blood, which is why the question itself is stupid.

It is putting an unfair moral burden on you that is both unnecessary and dangerous for the overall health of our society.

**John:** Absolutely. And so I think my second objection is that in telling the lie that you’re asking me to tell I’m actually perpetuating a broken system rather than fixing it. I’m allowing the system to keep going and I’m bearing the cost of the broken system rather than the system being fixed. And so I think that is – I raise that objection that it’s prolonging the system going on in its broken state.

**Craig:** 100 percent. That is a real objection, too. And I’ve got to say, if it were me, I think what I would do, if I were O-negative and gay, I think I would try and find somebody that would work with me to essentially get around the nonsense. The way that people for instance literally on a daily basis, on a minute-by-minute basis work around the euthanasia laws in our country to die peacefully and willfully. All the time. Because we should be able to. It’s ridiculous that we can’t, and so we do.

So I would try and figure out how to get around it while also fighting the system. But be able to fight the system and change it. That would be my moral compromise.

**John:** So two other points I want to make. So in telling a lie I feel like, and me having to tell this lie every time I donate blood I feel like I’m normalizing lying. That it basically – and we talk about deception and obviously some deception is naturally part of life, but if we’re saying that I should systematically check this check box that I know is untrue to do a thing it’s making lying more acceptable as a choice overall in society for function. And that that does not feel great.

The same way that cheating overall, once you see people start cheating people are more likely to cheat. I feel like lying is the same kind of thing. But I really want to focus back on myself though because you said if I were a gay man I would do these things, and I want to talk about sort of like – I don’t want to normalize lying for myself. In telling a lie I would be normalizing lying for myself.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So every time you choose to lie you’re telling yourself to be comfortable being a liar. It’s like a tax on your self-esteem I think. And you’re always worried about being caught. Because here’s the thing that could happen. Let’s say I say like, oh, sorry, I was late. I was donating blood. And someone would say like, “Wait, I thought you couldn’t donate blood because you’re gay.” And it’s like, oh, sorry. Guess I’m a liar. That sucks. And that experience is an experience I’ve had through so much of my life that you haven’t had because as a gay man I’ve been asked to sustain a lie and be in the closet for the first 23 years of my life. And that really is a tremendous burden to sort of carry along.

And so I think part of my reason for why I won’t check that box is because I know how much that sucks. And how bad that is.

**Craig:** Well, that’s a great point. You have carried the burden of being forced to lie unfairly for a long time and therefore whatever additional burden you might be able to make an ethical argument in favor of is going to hurt you way more than it would hurt me. And that’s real. I mean, I would still bother you all the time, because that’s me, because I’m an asshole. And just thinking about people that need blood. But that would be kind of like, OK, you would always have your ethic—

What we’re doing right now is engaging in a really interesting bioethical debate. The only reason that we have bioethics is because there is no answer to this. There is only a weighing. There is only a balance. And your personal experience is absolutely part of the balance. No question. Has to be.

**John:** So, anyway, there’s not going to be a clear resolution to this, but I feel like in more fully airing what happens being this I would say that the experience I’ve had in terms of donating blood there’s been other situations where I’ve been asked to sort of play along with sort of like this is how we do it, and I’m always questioning the just play along with it. Because I had such a negative experience with having to carry – having to live within a lie 24/7.

**Craig:** Absolutely.

**John:** That you feel it differently. So it’s a case where a person’s personal experience does impact sort of the choices that they make.

**Craig:** That’s a great point. And even if you haven’t had the burden of living in the closet, which I haven’t had to have, it’s really important for anybody who has kind of had the privilege of blithely going through life saying, oh, this is who I am, to also still question and stress test every time you are contemplating lying. And asking yourself why. And forcing that ethical debate in your head to be true. And relying on your inner sense of guilt or concern.

It’s a bioethical debate. It’s a really interesting question of what you do when you’re living in an unfair system with an unfair law that is based on absolutely no valid science whatsoever. What do you do?

And this is an interesting one. I’m kind of fascinated to see what people think.

**John:** Yeah. Just so I don’t come across as the idealist who would never, ever tell a lie, I will say one of the things that annoys Mike so much about me is that I am very good at sort of the convenience sort of short-cutting lie where if I have to talk to a customer service person I will create the crafted shorter version of the thing that actually – I will describe a scenario that gets me sort of what I need to have happen rather than the actual thing that actually has happened. So I am kind of a fabulist in that way. I will pretend that a certain circumstance has passed so that I can get to the resolution I need to get to.

**Craig:** You’re an awful person. [laughs] What you’re saying is that in your house you’re actually the least ethical one.

**John:** Yeah. I’m actually probably the Edward Bloom of our house.

**Craig:** Wow. Oh my god. So Mike is really hard core.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Geez. Well I hope he’s not O-negative.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** I’ve got to worry about that now.

**John:** Thanks Craig.

**Craig:** Thank you, John.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [WGA Rejects WME Deal](https://deadline.com/2020/12/wga-rejects-wme-deal-agency-grapple-conflicts-of-interest-1234662648/), [Judge Rejects Injunction](https://variety.com/2020/biz/news/wme-wga-lawsuit-injunction-deny-writers-1234876988/)
* [Rubik’s Cube](https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjg9nfr506axedo/RUBIK%27S%20CUBE%20-%20HP%20%26%20EC%20Visual%20Presentation%5B3%5D.pdf?dl=0)
* [Mr. Clean](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Clean): a sailor? A genie? Both?
* [Eight Sequence Structure](https://thescriptlab.com/screenwriting/structure/the-sequence/45-the-eight-sequences/)
* [John’s 2020 Year in Review](https://johnaugust.com/2021/2020-annual-review)
* [There is No Game](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_Is_No_Game:_Wrong_Dimension)
* [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 Rajesh Naroth ([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/483standard.mp3).