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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep 416: Fantasy Worldbuilding

September 12, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this article can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/fantasy-worldbuilding).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Oh, ah.

**John:** You got it.

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

**John:** This is Episode 416 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program we’ll be talking with a senior narrative designer at Wizards of the Coast about fantasy world-building as a profession. It’s a great conversation about what is probably a lot of listeners’ dream job.

But first we have a ton of follow up to get through, so Craig let’s get at this.

**Craig:** Let’s go.

**John:** All right. So in the last regular episode before the Veep episode I was talking about this movie The Shadows that I’m planning to go off and direct. We’re starting casting on it because there’s this one very specific role that’s going to be challenging to cast. It is a 15-year-old girl who is blind. And to find a 15-year-old blind actress could be a challenge. But luckily a lot of people have sent in stuff and, you know, I’m starting to get audition reels and people out there have been really great about passing the message out there. And so it’s been really gratifying over the past two weeks to see a ton of stuff come in from people who kind of want to be in the movie or want to help find the actress for this movie.

**Craig:** That’s great. And so how are you doing it? You’ve set kind of, you know, a tricky goal for yourself. You went to America and said–

**John:** America and English-speaking countries outside of America.

**Craig:** And English-speaking countries outside of America. And you said let’s crowd-source this. Let’s see if we can do it. How has it been going?

**John:** It’s been going pretty well. So the things I did for the announcement was obviously Scriptnotes and I put out a tweet. That tweet got shared a lot which was terrific. And people sort of reached out beyond and into their networks. Now we’re doing the systematic outreach to all of the organizations we can find in the US and English-speaking countries that work with blind youth because the theory is that this actor may not realize that she’s actually an actor yet because she may not have had the opportunity. And so we’re reaching out to them. We’re sending the casting notice which you can find at johnaugust.com/casting.

But we’ve also brought in a casting director who has done a lot of big movies, but has also worked on projects that involve actors who are blind or low-vis. And she is also helping us do some more outreach there. So I’m optimistic that we will be able to find the actress for this role.

**Craig:** Great. I am, too. I’m sure you will. When there’s a will there’s a way. And, also, let’s just say, people generally want to star in movies, don’t they? It’s not you’re looking for somebody to clear out your P trap underneath your sink.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** So, yeah, I feel like you’ll get there.

**John:** I think we’ll get there. Along the way in this process people sent through this link to something that was really great, so we’ll put a link in the show notes. It’s the Hollywood Disability Inclusion Toolkit put out by an organization called Respectability. It’s a really good website that talks through what to be thinking about when you’re thinking about inclusion in your project, in this case looking at people who have different abilities. And it’s just really great. So I was happy that this thing existed. I would not have known about it if people hadn’t sent me the link, so I’m going to pass on this link to you guys. If you are writing a project that includes people who are not in your realm of experience this may be a really good place to start looking and start thinking about the questions to ask and the issues to keep in mind.

**Craig:** And it’s good that we have these resources now. I mean, it’s one thing to say to creators, look, you have to do better, right? That’s the Twitter phrase, do better. It’s the all-purpose Twitter phrase for shame on you, I’ve noticed by the way. Any time somebody doesn’t like what you say or do they just go, “Do better.” But in some cases we really can do better. We have not done well as a community on this particular topic of casting people with disabilities. And people who don’t have disabilities, writing for characters who have disabilities, even just the amount of writers with disabilities is pretty low, like a lot of our marginalized groups in our business.

But you can say to people, well OK, do better. And then they think I want to, where do I start, what do I do, how do I get there? The last thing you want to do is call up your one blind friend and say, “So can you tell me about blind stuff?” That’s no good.

**John:** That’s what I do with Ryan Knighton all the time, but yes. Ryan Knighton cannot be everyone’s resource.

**Craig:** [laughs] He can’t be everyone’s resource. And also I should say like, yeah, there’s like three phases. There’s I don’t know you, so don’t talk to me. Then there’s I casually know you so this is awkward. And then, OK, we’re friends, I can ask you anything. If you haven’t crossed all the way over into we’re friends and we have a certain understanding and trust of each other. So, it’s nice that organizations are providing these resources. And when they do they’re not only offering you help, they’re removing one of the great excuses of all time: well I don’t know where to go, I don’t know who to talk to. Well, now you do know where to go and now you do know who to talk to.

**John:** So we have a couple listener questions about this. I’m going to mash two of them together because they were both long but they covered some really good territory.

**Craig:** Mash them up. Let’s do it.

**John:** So Ian wrote in to ask, “After listening to this week’s podcast I was very intrigued by John’s movie concept and casting call for a young blind actor to play Abby. At what point does an actor cease becoming an actor. Actors exist to portray people they are not. Some examples like gay actors should be able to play a straight person. A kind, caring actor should be able to play an unspeakable evil. A younger actor can portray an older actor, especially with the help of makeup. A native English-speaking actor can portray somebody from another country with an accent, for now anyway.” That was his parenthetical there.

“A qualified actor should be able to inhabit the role of the living person, for example Queen Elizabeth.” I’ll continue on with Matt who wrote in to say, “Perhaps you and Craig could speak to the larger trend of increased casting scrutiny currently coursing through Hollywood.”

So, Craig, what do you think of these questions? Have you noticed over the past few years a change in what is considered proper for casting in certain roles?

**Craig:** Oh yeah. I think what we’ve seen is there’s a change in what is considered inappropriate casting. So there have been a couple of very high profile incidents where white actors were being cast to play characters that either were not white in source material or were not really even white in an original screenplay for instance. So there’s a sense that you do want to – I mean, look, I’m with Ian in one sense. The whole point of acting is that you’re being somebody you’re not. Just like the whole point of writing is that you’re writing somebody that you’re not. In fact, you’re writing lots of people you’re not. And the last thing we want to do is balkanize everyone so that you can only write what’s in front of your eyes. That would be disastrous.

However, in the case of acting it is reasonable and I think it’s desirable to say to people there are certain actors that are underemployed and under-utilized and they have really interesting things to offer your part that others don’t. If I am making a show about the life and the challenges of an obese woman, OK. I could hire a thin actor. You may have noticed there’s quite a few of those. And pad her up. I could do that. And she can act that. That’s doable. In fact, it’s been done.

But, when you do that not only are you taking – you’re taking something away from a kind of actor that generally is under-utilized, but you’re also robbing yourself of an actor who may bring a certain emotional depth and truth to that part that someone else wouldn’t have access to. There is an authenticity there that you no longer have access to.

So, my feeling is this. If the part could be played by somebody who is of the sort that is under-utilized and underemployed, try and find the person that’s under-utilized and underemployed. Go for that. Yes, a gay actor can play a straight person because straight actors are not under-utilized or underemployed. Can a straight actor play a gay person? I would have said, you know, it’s an interesting kind of thing. And I’m interested in what you have to say about this. Because I feel like it used to happen all the time because gay characters weren’t really people, they were characters. And then there was a stretch there where it was sort of like, OK, let’s not do that. And now I feel like there are so many gay characters that maybe – for instance on Modern Family, Eric Stonestreet is not gay and he plays a gay character. And his husband is played by an actor who is gay. There are enough gay characters where maybe you can say well that’s OK. What about Jewish characters? There are a lot of Jewish characters, so I guess I don’t mind as a Jewish person that an Irish woman plays Mrs. Maisel. [laughs] It just doesn’t really bother me that much.

But, yeah, I think if you’re talking about under-represented characters then why not try and help people that have been ignored. It only works to your benefit as far as I’m concerned creatively.

**John:** Yeah. I think it does work to your benefit creatively. And I think a thing to look through in the examples you gave, but also the examples that Ian gave in his initial question, I think it may be interesting to draw a distinction between external realities of a character that we’re seeing onscreen and internal realities of that character. And so the idea of whether a gay person can play a straight role or a straight person can play a gay role that is internal acting that is 100 percent sort of what the actor inside is doing. That is not the physical reality of how that character presents onscreen.

And so I feel like we’re in a moment as we approach 2020 and probably this next bit of time where you’re going to try to cast the person who physically can inhabit that role sort of natively and naturally wherever possible. And so that’s part of the motivation behind looking for a blind actor for the role of Abby is that I don’t want the blindness to be a thing that the character is acting. I want the blindness to be a thing that is just naturally part of what comes in that performance.

**Craig:** So that’s a purely creative justification. And I would love to live in a world where you have purely creative justifications. There is a layer of our businesses is a very public business and it’s a very publicized business. And I think part of the reality that we have to steer through, I don’t want to sound like I’m naïve or a child, we also are aware that we live in a world now where these things are scrutinized.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** And if you’re going to make a film about somebody who is say deaf, or someone who is hearing-impaired, who is sight-impaired, who is blind, someone who is in a wheelchair because they are a paraplegic, and you don’t cast somebody who has that then you’re going to be criticized wildly and heavily. That’s something that did not exist ten years ago.

Now, let me take that back. We weren’t aware of it ten years ago. So what’s been happening is people have been yelling in their own homes. Right? People have been yelling at the screen saying, “Not again.” Right? And now we all hear it. So I think that’s the difference is that we now hear it. If we are not naturally responsive to it, and I think we should be, then at the very least there are enough people in this business who just from a cynical point of view are aware that products that we make here in Hollywood can be damaged if we are stepping on people’s toes and being dismissive of needs for representation.

So, we have to take that into account. And I don’t take those things into account with my eyes rolling like, ugh, I guess we have to. No, I mean, look, all we’re doing is working for an audience. If there are people upset in the audience then we screwed up. So, why not do it the right way?

**John:** Yeah. So I think we have at least articulated three reasons why at this moment it feels important. First it’s creative reasons. Second is looking for access for actors who would otherwise not get a chance to be in these movies. And third is the realities of putting out these movies and TV shows in our environment right now and that there is an increased scrutiny which is probably merited.

So, those are three reasons why I think anyone who is looking at casting these roles is going to be thinking about with this role written a certain way how do I find the actor to best fit that role.

**Craig:** Exactly. And that’s something that happens I’d imagine in the beginning. When you started working on this I’m sure the second thought after so a blind girl, dot-dot-dot, you went, “And I’m going to need a blind actor.”

**John:** Yeah. And so as we get into this process and hopefully this movie gets made, you never know if this movie gets made, I’d love to talk more about how this all comes together and sort of the specific challenges not just with the Abby role but with the movie altogether in the next 100 episodes of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**John:** Cool. Further follow up. We had a How Would This Be a Movie where we talked about ice cream wars. We talked about Mister Softee in China and in Brooklyn. Ed in DC wrote in to say, “I’m surprised neither of you remember the 1984 film Comfort and Joy which was a dark comedy about such a turf war between ice cream companies. If you haven’t seen it it’s great. And he puts in a link in the show notes. I didn’t know about Comfort and Joy. Did you?

**Craig:** No. And I’m surprised that Ed is surprised. It’s not that I’m not familiar with the director of Comfort and Joy, Bill Forsyth, because Bill Forsyth directed Local Hero which I think a lot of people have seen. It’s a fantastic movie. But suffice to say that Local Hero was far more popular than Comfort and Joy. I’ve never heard of Comfort and Joy. Obviously it made it over here because Ed is in DC, unless Ed is Edinburgh. I don’t know. I don’t remember Comfort and Joy rolling on HBO with the same frequency as Beastmaster in 1984. So, sorry Ed.

No, I mean, I will check it out because, again, huge fan of Local Hero. You’ve seen Local Hero I assume?

**John:** I’ve never seen Local Hero.

**Craig:** Oh my gosh.

**John:** The list of movies I’ve not seen is long and embarrassing.

**Craig:** You know what John? Here’s the thing. That’s OK. No one has seen everything except weirdos. But Local Hero is one of those movies that is just a ray of sunshine. It’s just an absurdly positive, happy-making movie. It’s sweet. It’s adorable. Yeah, you will–

**John:** I’ll love it.

**Craig:** You will love it. Everyone loves it. It’s just got this wonderful whimsy to it. You’ll think it’s great.

**John:** I’m excited to see it. Jason Pace also wrote in with a link to 99 Problems which is a short film by Ross Killeen in Ireland. I think it may be becoming a feature. But his point was that it’s definitely universal. This idea of ice cream trucks which might seem so specific to the East Coast, there’s a universal quality because they’re happening in other places.

**Craig:** [laughs] Is there? So wait, hold on. There’s been a movie in Scotland and a movie in Ireland. So we’re now saying that this is a universal thing?

**John:** It is universal. Because if you have Brooklyn plus Scotland and Ireland? Come on, that’s like three different islands. So come on.

**Craig:** So how many Irelands, Americas, and Scotlands are needed to equal one India? Just out of curiosity. I think like six. I don’t think that this is necessarily indicating that we have a universal property or universal cultural point of view. But that’s OK. It’s not that everybody needs to know about the same thing. Sometimes you’re learning about them. Yeah, no, the fact that something has happened with a topic does not quite get us into universal territory.

**John:** Maybe not. But speaking of specificity and universality, do you want to do the follow up on Akashinga rangers?

**Craig:** Akashinga rangers. Meg writes, “I was so excited to hear you guys talking about the possibility of making a movie about the Akashinga rangers. This past spring at the Philadelphia Environmental Film Festival I was lucky enough to see the Black Mambas, a short doc by Bruce Donnelly about the all-woman, all-badass anti-poaching crew who patrol Kruger National Park in South Africa. It was a great short doc and it was followed by an even more mind-blowing feature-length doc, When Lambs Become Lions, which I cannot recommend enough, even if you were already expressing some interest in how to make a story about anti-poaching units. Really gripping. It is hands-down the most stunning drama I’ve seen in years.” Hold on a second. Sorry. I’ve just got to back up a second.

Meg, I’m right here. Come on. I mean, I just – I tried so hard. Come on.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, Chernobyl, I don’t know.

**Craig:** I’m not saying it has to be the most stunning drama you’ve seen, but anyway. That’s Meg’s question. I’m just joking Meg. “I was constantly forgetting that it’s a documentary because it was just so beautifully constructed to keep you right on the edge of your seat the whole damn time. Its complexity hinges on the fact that the anti-poaching units in this small Kenyan town are so inconsistently funded that many locals go back and forth between working as poachers and working to prevent poachers, depending on which best allows them to feed their families. Friends and family members can easily find themselves on opposite sides and maintain close personal ties outside of the elephant refuge while hunting each other to death within. It is completely crazy. It is a fragile system to try and wrap your head around. And by the end of the movie you feel like everything you thought you knew about anything is maybe not so certain.”

Wow.

**John:** Wow.

**Craig:** I want to watch that.

**John:** Meg wrote a good review of When Lambs Become Lions. And, yeah, I think that if you’re going to make this movie about the Akashinga rangers that’s going to be a great aspect of this where even if it’s not our central characters that we’re following, the community that they’re in flips back and forth based on just economic need and necessity. And that’s great. That’s true. That’s human drama.

**Craig:** I mean, that does actually sound like possibly the most stunning drama I would see in years. I’m feeling a little bad.

**John:** Also, I mean, I’ve been to Kruger National Park and it is stunningly gorgeous. So just imagine that against that backdrop? Yeah, it’s good.

**Craig:** Ugh. [laughs] Darn it. We have another question. This is coming in from Leann and we’ve got an audio follow up from Episode 315, 100 episodes ago.

**John:** Let’s take a listen.

**Leann:** Hi John and Craig. Over two years ago on the show you gave your thoughts on a question of mine about waiting to hear back from a producer who is considering one of my scripts. A couple months later I briefly met you, John, at McNally Jackson Bookstore in SoHo after an episode recording. I told you that the producer had indeed come onboard the project and the film was now in development. You told me to write in again when my movie became ‘more real.’ I am very pleased to say that this film, my debut feature as a writer-director, recently wrapped production and is now in post.

We’ve had a wonderful cast and team behind it and things look exciting for the film’s future. Also, before we shot I submitted a different script to the Nichol and just found out it has advanced to the semi-finals.

I mention this because both of these events are a culmination of many years, hard work, and learning and your show has played a significant role in both my screenwriting craft and my understanding of the business. So thank you very much, again, for all your invaluable guidance over the years. You truly help so many people with your work. Thanks.

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** Aw.

**Craig:** Aw.

**John:** Congratulations, Leann. So congratulations on wrapping your film. Post is a wonderful and terrifying time where you will question why you’ve made this movie in the very first place. But I hope it comes through in spectacular form and you get it to a good venue, be it a festival, be it a distributor. However it ends up in the world, congratulations. And congratulations on your script placing well at the Nichol.

**Craig:** That’s fantastic. First of all, thank you also for writing in Leann, or speaking in and letting us know. It’s really nice to hear those things. And it’s particularly great that after all of this time we can chart people’s progress from the very, very start to here you are with a movie. And I think what John’s saying is absolutely true. No matter what happens with this film, and I hope it is everything you ever wanted it to be, tons of great careers started by people falling on their faces immediately after the starter pistol went off. Like mine. Just, you know, just right away face plant. And that’s OK.

That is not a predictor of future failure or anything. It’s just great that you’re through this now. You have gotten the hardest part done. You are now one of the very few people in the world who has written a screenplay that has become a movie. You now have access to a certain experience and information that 98% of screenwriters do not have. And so take all the lessons from this. Think of this as this great opportunity to learn all these lessons and I’m very glad in particular that when you did run into John at that bookstore that he wasn’t a monster to you. Because you know that’s – I can’t tell you how many people I’ve had to talk down after they’ve had a run-in with that monster. [laughs]

**John:** The Jekyll and Hyde quality. Sometimes it’s just, ugh, it’s just the worst. I know.

**Craig:** How great would that be, by the way, if you really were a monster? Like every time people met you in person they were like oh my god he is not what he is on the podcast at all.

**John:** Yeah, I mean, it’s Matthew’s clever editing that makes me sound like a rational human being when in fact I’m just–

**Craig:** No, you’re a nightmare.

**John:** Completely crazy.

**Craig:** Nightmare on wheels. So, anyway, thank you Leann. That’s wonderful.

**John:** Hooray. Craig, I don’t think we’ve actually talked about the fact that there’s an election happening, a WGA election that’s happening for the West. So I don’t know if you’re aware of it.

**Craig:** Nope.

**John:** But it’s happening right now.

**Craig:** W, G, oh, the Writers Guild.

**John:** The Writers Guild. We’re both in the Writers Guild.

**Craig:** Here’s I think practically speaking this is my point of view about this election. Any Writers Guild election will favor the incumbents. I don’t remember the last time an incumbent ran for reelection and didn’t win, for anything. Officer or board. But this year is different because there’s quite a bit of controversy and the union has been undergoing an internal disagreement. Which I think is good.

I think there’s a generation of writers that have grown up inside a guild that has never argued. And you and I come from an earlier time when the guild would argue all the time with itself and I think that that was healthy.

I would love to see dissenting voices in the mix. I would love to frankly have more disagreement inside the room because I think when there is more disagreement ideas can be better stress-tested and evaluated and you will get better results. That’s my working theory here. That’s the board that I was on. I remember the way it functioned. In fact, in two consecutive years there were two wildly different leaderships and a consistent disagreement inside the room which was terrific.

So, I am supporting all the members of the, what is it, Writers Forward. I think they call themselves Writers Forward. They always come up with names. I don’t care about the names. Nobody cares about the names. But that, because I want to get some of those dissenting opinions in there, particularly as it regards the agency issue which I think is a terrific cause that has not been prosecuted correctly.

And so, you know, even if all that happens is everybody votes and it’s clear from the voting that a lot of people are unhappy with the way leadership has been doing things to this point that too will impact how leadership behaves following the election.

One last thing I’ll say. There has been this what I consider a very poisonous notion that has been introduced into our body politic and I’ve seen it – really this is the first time I’ve ever seen it. And the notion is this. That disagreement with leadership weakens the union. This is a terrible notion on its face. I don’t even think that people who are proposing it and promoting actually believe it in their hearts anyway. Because if Phyllis Nagy and her slate sweep the election, which is unlikely, but let’s just say that happens, those people aren’t going to immediately say, right, well we disagree with everything she says but she’s in charge now so now we have to agree with it completely. No one is going to do that. And no one should do that. That’s not what it’s about.

What’s behind the whole disagreement weakens us – the converse is therefore just do what we tell you to do. And agree with what we say. And I think that’s terrible. It’s particularly terrible for a writers’ union when the whole point is that our livelihoods are based on a kind of necessary free expression. So, I believe actually disagreement, public disagreement, rigorous discussion makes us stronger and actually makes our union mean something. As opposed to a kind of compulsory solidarity which is nothing more than a lot of people being ordered to drudge in together in the same direction.

I don’t want to be drudging in the same direction. I want us all to be running in the same direction thrilled. So, I think we get this from this agreement. That’s why I’m supporting this group. John, the floor is yours.

**John:** I disagree with this characterization that the folks who are supportive of the current agency action are poisoning everything with their trying to ask questions of the dissenters. What I’ve seen again and again is at any time that the folks on the Nagy slate are questioned or trying to hit down at specifically what they’re trying to do that theme portrayed that you are being too aggressive, you’re being too lockstep with the guild. I don’t see that actually being the case. But in terms of the folks I’m supporting, listen, I was part of the group that is prosecuting the agency campaign right now. So I’ve been in all those rooms and I sort of know what’s actually happening. That’s why I think the incumbents that I’m supporting are fantastic because I’ve seen them do the work day in and day out.

The folks who are not incumbents who I’m supporting I also saw them sort of independently reach out and do a lot of really amazing things for writers during this time. So that’s why I picked the other writers who I’m supporting. So voting is really important. I think it’s great that everyone vote and a big vote this time will show both the guild and the town sort of how active and engaged membership is.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think engagement is a sign of our power. The more we engage I think the stronger more formidable I think we are. And to be clear I would never ever defend anyone who has said, hey, you can’t question a candidate. Question them all you want. For sure. It’s just that there’s – it’s not even a support necessarily all supporters of the incumbents. It’s just a few people have made very public statements that no one should disagree openly with their leadership. I just think down that road is insanity.

**John:** I think it’s also unfair to put blame for that on the incumbents. Or that the incumbents are directing that kind of thing.

**Craig:** They are not. I would agree with you completely. In fact, I don’t think, I can’t speak for all of the incumbents but I can certainly speak for David Goodman on this because I’ve spoken with him. I mean, we talk all the time. And there’s no way that David Goodman would agree with that. I just don’t believe he would agree with that. I wish he would say it more. I wish he would directly rebut some of these people who do this in his name. But I agree with you.

I don’t think anybody that has gone through the process of being in guild leadership which you and I both know requires a certain kind of, oh, you know, magnanimity and responsibility to all would ever suggest such a thing. It’s really more kind of the people on the fringes or the edges of things. But, you know, that’s what Twitter and Facebook can do is they sort of magnify voices on the edges. And I don’t mean to say that the people are on the edges, but rather their positions where they’re staking themselves out in terms of political point of view is a bit far.

If anybody out there is feeling slightly guilty that they would disagreement with leadership please don’t feel guilty about that. You should always disagree with leadership. I’m an incredibly disagreeable person. My feeling is my job is to quiz and question leadership. I was doing that when I was in leadership. I think that’s how you get better leaders.

**John:** Cool. Two last bits of news. First off, Highland2 the upgrade to pro is on sale this week. So if you’re a person who has been using Highland2 and have been holding off upgrading to pro this is the week because it’s on sale. So you should do it. I guess it’s a back to school sale. I don’t know. It was Labor Day. We decided to put it on sale. We will do this like once a year. So this is your chance to get it for a break.

Also if you would like to order the NaNoWriMo classroom kit, so this is a kit that goes out to classes across the US, you can order it for your kid’s class or for some other class that you just want to have this thing. It’s a great program that gets kids writing in the month of November. It’s a really structured thing for teachers to use in grade schools and junior highs as well. Writer Emergency Pack is included is included in that. So if you want to get that for your school there is a link in the show notes to that.

And now it is time to get to our special guest. Alison Luhrs is Senior Narrative Designer at Wizards of the Coast where she works on properties including Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons. Welcome Alison.

**Alison Luhrs:** Hello.

**John:** Hello. Alison, where are we talking to you right now?

**Alison:** You are talking to me from a weird little phone booth thing inside of our office in rainy Renton, Washington State.

**John:** So Renton is near Seattle?

**Alison:** Yeah, it’s about 20 minutes south of Seattle. It’s sort of its kind of ugly cousin to the south. But I live in Seattle and commute down here.

**John:** Fantastic. So I introduced you as a Senior Narrative Designer. What does that actually mean? What do you do for a living?

**Alison:** So my job is to advocate for characters and story inside of the games that we make. So, it can be in the tabletop space for the tabletop version of Magic: The Gathering or Dungeons & Dragons. But right now I work for digital publishing. So it’s my job to be in charge of expressions of story within the digital games that we’re currently working on.

**John:** Great. So you’re a storyteller. So like most of the people listening to this podcast you’re involved with characters and worlds and story, but in a very different sense than sort of a normal 120-page screenplay. You are dealing with whole giant fantasy worlds and then populating those worlds with characters.

**Alison:** For sure. It’s super esoteric and weird. So I kind of do everything from actual writing of scripts and barks and different communications between characters in the game as well as doing a ton of documentation on the designer’s end for what is the overall arc structure. What are the different narrative choices that can happen in the script? As well as world-building. So coming up with what are the rules of the world. What does it look like? What is the structure of the different cultures that inhabit this place? And using that documentation to hand off to the folks who are in charge of actually doing the art and the audio and the creative verticals for game design.

**Craig:** So basically you have the coolest job ever. I mean, that’s what I’m hearing. You have the coolest job in the world.

**Alison:** It is the coolest job in the world and I had no idea it existed until about five or six years ago. Yeah.

**Craig:** Now one thing that I imagine you have to deal with that would be blow my mind – I mean, you know, John and I both love Dungeons & Dragons and my son is a huge Magic player.

**Alison:** Awesome. Nice.

**Craig:** So we’re Wizards of the Coast people.

**Alison:** We’re all nerds here. Yes.

**Craig:** Yeah. We’re all wizards here. But I would imagine that one of the things that you have to deal with as a kind of burden is this massive quantity of canon and lore that you need to consistent inside of. How often do you run afoul of this where you step on a landmine you didn’t even know was there? Or you create a character and someone says, “Oh actually there was a character.” I mean, what’s that like?

**Alison:** It is something that is constantly on my mind. And luckily we have folks in the building who I can go to as the experts to ask. Like, hey, have we already done this 25 years ago? And usually the answer is yes. One of the nice things about working on properties like Magic or Dungeons & Dragons that have been around for so long is that there’s only a certain point where you can really be specific to everything. You know what I mean? Like you can only match canon so much of the time.

And so one of the ways that we kind of approach this is by recognizing that canon is something that has to grow alongside your audience. There are things that we would do for an audience today enjoying one of our games that we wouldn’t necessarily do 25 years ago, or wouldn’t even really be on our mind. So, when we are producing a new character or producing some sort of new world or new work the question that we ask first is how is this appropriate for the audience that’s playing it today. If there’s a way to tie that into the old lore without stepping on anything, cool. But if it does step on something that’s a point to pause, talk to the experts inside the building, and say how can we make this work. Or, what do we need to actively address and actively shift to move forward.

So we never really want to get pigeon-holed into wanting to be dogmatic about sticking to canon. Canon is the most important thing of all. Instead we have ways to work alongside it and move it forward to a modern audience.

**John:** It sounds like what you’re saying is that canon is an incredibly useful resource. You have all these characters and all these worlds and in the case of D&D decades of history going back to like these characters Mordenkainen who was back there from the very start.

**Alison:** Yeah.

**John:** But you have to always be asking what is that helpful for the game right now.

**Alison:** Exactly.

**John:** How does that character fit into the universe that you’re establishing right now and the stories that you want to tell.

**Alison:** Right. Mordenkainen is a really good example, too, because what’s his personality? Origin story? What are the bits about this character, one who has been around for forever? There isn’t necessarily a lot that’s been written about the guy.

**Craig:** He’s a spell brand name. I just think of him as he’s got his magnificent mansion. He’s put his name on spells. Him and Mordenkainen.

**Alison:** Yeah. They’re both very busy dudes.

**John:** But I can imagine looking through the more recent hard cover books you’ve done on Mordenkainen is it’s a character who kind of feels like a Doctor Strange in the sense that he’s an incredibly powerful magic user and also bridges between different universes within D&D lore. So, he actually seems to have an awareness that there are other dimensions and other possibilities. Like he can talk about the elves in this universe versus the elves in that universe. So it’s a way of sort of bridging across things.

**Alison:** Absolutely. Right. And the really convenient thing as a creator is that that’s about as much as we have on him. With D&D specifically there’s a huge breadth of knowledge about these worlds and about all the space that D&D has to play in. But it’s very flat. There isn’t a lot of depth that’s been done about specific places. Because it’s been added to so many times by so many hundreds of creators, it’s very horizontal and not necessarily deep. So even though there is a lot of different things that you can cover, because there’s so many different things there’s a lot of chances to go really deep on character. So even though there hadn’t been too much written about Mordenkainen before, a lot of the textbooks about him recently came out, it was a chance to really explore the depths that hadn’t been established yet.

**John:** Let’s talk about the work you’re doing. So what kind of documents are you writing? And are these things that are just internal? Because we’ll put in links to some of the stuff that shows up on the web. So these are short stories you’ve written. They are explanations of new Magic: The Gathering cards or sort of the backstory behind this new character that you’re introducing into the world. But does the actual document look like? What application are you in? What is your cursor blinking in as you’re doing most of your work?

**Alison:** Sure. So when we’re developing a new set for Magic: The Gathering or a new world for D&D a lot of the work that we’ll do is creating the world guide. So the world guide is documentation not just for us narrative designers but it also guides our visual artists, our game designers to help come up with mechanics later. And these world guides are around 40 to 60,000 words. It’s kind of a Wikipedia article. The imaginary world that we’re coming up with.

So the world guide will go over not just visually going through the different cultures and environments and biomes look like here, but what are the cultures that live here. What are their real world inspirations? How do they function with inside the world itself? How do they operate with different cultures? What are the economies that work here? It’s really just like picking up on a Wikipedia article about a country and then translating that to a fictional place.

So even though it sounds really minute that we would need to know the tiny specifics of how an imaginary culture works within this world, we’re creating experiences that our fans will enjoy for 60 hours at a time. So we need to have all that information in our back pockets so that we can develop those long experiences they want to come back to again and again.

**Craig:** So you’re leaving room ultimately for everybody participating to do their own storytelling. I mean, that’s kind of the point of Dungeons & Dragons. So you’re creating all the details and the playgrounds and then people can come along and sort of grow inside of those things.

**Alison:** Exactly.

**Craig:** But there is – I mean, I know they’re trying to make a Dungeons & Dragons movie. And they tried that for a while. And there are some properties where I guess you can – you have two spaces. You have the space where people make their own stories inside of like the world guide. So I understand right now we’re running Dragon Heist. So, I can—

**Alison:** Oh fun.

**Craig:** Yeah. So I can tell these guys a lot about the city because I have the guide to Waterdeep and I can walk them through things. The stories inside obviously I’m playing off of the narrative prompts, but they’re kind of making the story as they go. That’s how Dungeons & Dragons works. You know that. I’m just telling it for people at home. But then there’s like living next to that is the opportunity to do fixed narrative where you’re telling stories, beginnings, middles, and ends, and people are absorbing it passively like they would a movie. Do you have interest in that? Do you think that Wizards is going to be doing more of that? Or are they going to kind of stay in that sort of hybrid space where they create a world and then they invite you to tell stories within it?

**Alison:** Our plan is to feature a variety of trans-media experiences. There’s going to be a world where we do have beginnings, and middles, and endings for experiences. And in narrative design the thing that makes it different from sitting down and writing a screenplay or writing a novel is the element of choice. There always has to be room for our audience to choose what happens to them. And the trick as a narrative designer is finding ways to make all of those choices feel like they were intentional and feel like they’re part of the experience.

And so the way that you nail that is by aiming for tone and theme rather than for specific arcs. So that way you can build in lots of different endings for your player experiences but they all still feel like they were intentional and part of the experience because they match the same tone. So, when we do end up doing some kind of TV show or a movie or whatever for any of our properties we would be aiming to match that same tone that we have when you sit down at the table to play with your friends. Or when you are playing a game of Magic against somebody else.

But the trick is managing to find a way to replicate that experience without having to have the same pitfalls. Like I said earlier, because D&D is so horizontal we don’t really have a ton of named characters. Those characters that everybody knows off the top of their heads. And so there’s our chance to establish that when we do eventually go down that path. But until then it’s my job to make sure that we’re maintaining the same tone that you have when you are playing at your kitchen table with your friends as when you sit down to a console game to play D&D or to play Magic.

**John:** So obviously in the fantasy space we think back to Tolkien who wrote the novels Lord of the Rings but also really did the rest of the world-building there. He was drawing his own maps. He was sort of figuring out everything around that, even if it didn’t necessarily directly fit into the books. Here it’s sort of the reverse situation where you had a lot of the landscape and you kept filling out the landscape, but now you’re trying to find who are the characters and what are the stories that are pulling us through this.

I feel like so many of our listeners probably kind of want your job rather than our job, because it’s a chance to sort of just really – you have this giant sandbox so you can just build and build and build and build and there’s not this responsibility that everything has to fit neatly into a two-hour chunk of entertainment.

**Alison:** Absolutely. Sometimes the challenge with doing this is remembering that you have to create a 60 to 80-hour experience. You know? Like there are people who play campaigns for years at a time. Or folks who return to the same Magic set again and again and again. I think that a lot of folks who want to create for the sake of constantly creating would thrive in this career. I had no idea this existed until a couple of years ago when I was inside the building.

There isn’t really a class structure that you can take to get in here. There’s no real college course to major in narrative design. It’s still a really young field. And what my job looks like from company to company is vastly different. So even though I’m writing world guides here inside of Wizards, if I were to go to another study I would likely be doing a much different job just because these two companies are different. And the value of narrative design inside of videogame design is still really undervalued. It’s usually not something that’s added to a game until it’s nearly out the door.

Narrative is the most flexible part of game design. You can change what the word in a sentence is while you’re having a conversation a lot more easily than you can change the mechanics of a how a videogame is actually played. So frequently a narrative designer won’t even really be brought in until they’re at the very end of the process of development.

**John:** Yeah. They may have figured out the art before they actually figured out the story that was really behind that art. And that’s a huge mistake. That’s an opportunity that’s missed.

**Alison:** Absolutely. Yeah. And I mean one of the secrets to Wizard’s success is that we include story from the very beginning. So my job has to always be ready to adapt to whatever the developers change. It’s kind of my job to sort of think on my toes and change whatever I need to change at a moment’s notice. So I can imagine that would be a little off-putting to someone who is more used to having story be the thing that’s driving the car.

**John:** Now talk about sort of you’re working with a team because some of what you describe sort of sounds like the experience of being in a TV writers’ room where there’s a bunch of people and there’s probably a whiteboard and you’re thinking through stuff. But I’ve also done some work with videogame companies and ultimately they might sort of – you describe it as sort of being like a Wikipedia article, ultimately their source of truth is this internal Wiki that basically lists everything and every character and everything that’s been established.

Obviously it’s collaborative, but is it collaborative with a bunch of folks in the room together, or is collaborative in the sense of someone breaks off a chunk of the world and goes off and does it and it falls into a bigger document? What is the work flow?

**Alison:** So the way that we work internally is that I typically will do world-building alongside other members of different creative verticals. So I’ll usually do it alongside maybe a member of the D&D team or the Magic team, but also our lead art director and our lead producers and the members of the creative team who are going to be involved with creating other aspects of the project. I want to make sure that their brains are in the room because they’ll usually be thinking about something that I’m not necessarily.

So, when we do those big brain-stormy meetings I’ll usually take the notes and then go back into my desk and dive in the writer hole for a few hours. And emerge, you know, days later with a couple 10,000 words worth of stuff that we just discussed.

My goal is to usually have that documentation finished early that way when folks are developing stuff later on they can refer to it and hopefully I was smart enough to include something that they’ll need an answer to later on. But if not they’ll come to me directly and say, hey, we want to have this kind of feature in the game. Can you find a creative reason why it makes sense we would ask the player to do X. And so it will be my job to kind of figure out, OK, what’s the high level creative of what we’re asking the player to do. How can we fit that in to what we’ve already established?

**Craig:** So I have a question about your audience, because I think that every writer should be and naturally is consumed with what the audience is going to think. You have a very particular audience. And I mean they are particular. At the same time I feel like Wizards is doing a really good job of kind of progressing. They’re moving the ball forward. I mean, classically speaking all of the kind of Dungeons & Dragons stuff was an echo back to European Middle Ages, just like Lord of the Rings was. So white guys with swords. And scantily-clad women being rescued from mythological creatures.

And it’s not that anymore. But as you—

**Alison:** No it’s not.

**Craig:** But as you go through and you tell your new stories how do you manage – this is really a personal question. It’s not about the company. It’s actually just about you as you’re writing. How do you manage the kind of push and pull knowing, well, I’m dealing with some people that may be resistant here so I have to figure out how to move the ball forward without freaking people out? But still I don’t want to be regressive. Talk me through that process.

**Alison:** I believe in listening to what the audience at large wants. We often talk inside the building about the bell curve of fans. So, on the left side of a bell curve that will be folks who don’t really have any knowledge of the lore or the stories that we already tell inside the building or in our games. And on the far right end you’ll have the people who know absolutely everything about it. And the bulk of your fans are going to fall a little bit to the left of center in this curve. Most people don’t know everything. And most people know a little bit more than the folks who don’t know anything about the game. But the folks that we’re aiming for live in that part that isn’t going to be angry at every major change and isn’t going to be upset that we aren’t featuring women being rescued in every single adventure that we have and having every single major character be played by a white guy.

What we’re aiming for is what the culture at large is moving towards. And I like to hold an audience responsible for keeping up. It’s our job to make sure that we bring in more people and we do that by listening to what the trend of the audience is moving towards, not trying to hold on to what it used to be in the ‘80s and the ‘90s.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that’s great. I mean, I’ve noticed even as we’re running Dragon Heist that there are characters that are just casually gay couples. And what I liked is it wasn’t part of the story. It’s not particularly relevant.

**Alison:** No.

**Craig:** We just make note that he works as a blacksmith and his husband is in the back helping. So it is interesting to see how in a strange way – and I don’t know why it is that in imaginary world – imaginary world should be more progressive than our world. I mean, that’s the point, right?

**Alison:** Yes, they should. Absolutely. The last thing I want to do when I’m playing pretend is imagine that I’m in a world where I have to deal with sexism on a daily basis.

**Craig:** Right. Exactly.

**Alison:** Why would I want that to be part of my fantasy?

**Craig:** Right. And there’s more room in a fantasy world to do these things. And yet oddly, traditionally fantasy rooms have been more restrictive and more regressive in that regard because they were, I don’t know, this is like strange fake nostalgia for a time that really didn’t even exist.

**Alison:** No, that’s totally what it is. And a lot of it, too, has to come with who was creating that fantasy and those worlds. When you have creators who are from a background that hasn’t been traditionally represented you’re going to have fantasy that is more deep and more complex than you ever would if it was written by a specific kind of person.

**Craig:** Yeah, no, it’s great.

**John:** So, Alison, there’s maybe a new world or a new sort of section of an existing world that you want to sort of explore, so maybe thinking about it for a campaign or for some other materials. It could be based on some sort of world mythology or some idea that sparks for you. What would be the process of pitching that idea internally? Would it be just you coming in with an idea? Do you enlist artists to help you draw stuff up? What is the process of developing a new world or a new section of world inside the company?

**Alison:** Yeah, so we’re fortunate enough to have a couple of concept artists inside the building. So if I ever have an idea for something I’d like to do in the future usually I’ll find a concept artist that I get along with and sit down for a couple hours and just jam out some ideas. Like think what are some different visual approaches that we can use. What are some cool narrative approaches? How can we marry these together so we come up with an elevator pitch that everybody thinks is super rad?

A couple times a year we’ll have opportunities internally to pitch those kinds of ideas depending on what game that you’re doing. We usually plan out our products a solid three or four years into the future. So, when we are pitching and developing these ideas it’s for way, way, way down the line.

But that collaboration between narrative and art is what makes for a really cohesive experience. And so after we come up with the pitch for what a world could be we’ll typically bring on a game designer fairly early so we can try and figure out, OK, what’s a cool mechanical hook based off of these things that we know are happening creatively. And from there it can ideally enter into the development process for whatever game that we’re attaching it to.

**John:** Yeah, so for example if you want to bring back a Psionics mechanic there might be some interesting world in which the Psionics makes a lot of sense even though it’s not most of what we’re seeing in Fifth Edition.

**Alison:** Right. And Magic is really easy for this, too. So maybe I could go back and say, hey, you know what? I miss Morph. Morph was really cool. Let’s find some way to bring it back for a different setting. And then we’ll use that as kind of the jump-off point for, OK, we know that we want to use this kind of play style or this kind of mechanic, what creatively facilitates that in a fun and interesting way. And sometimes that’s how different world ideas start off.

**John:** So I bet we have a bunch of listeners who are eager to get your job. Let’s talk through how did you get hired into doing your spot? You were a community manager? What was your responsibility before then?

**Alison:** I was. I did social media management for my day job. But my background is in theater. So after I graduated from college me and a couple friends of mine cofounded a theater company up here in Seattle. And so while I was doing my crummy day job of slinging social media tweets and dealing with the masses, in my evenings I was playwriting and I was collaboratively creating. And I was working alongside a team of different artists to create and write different things.

So, I was playwriting. I was writing long-form fiction. And once I got inside the building at Wizards doing social media I remember learning that there were people who were paid to write about dragons and elves. And I said, well, I can do that. That’s easy. And it’s only because of all that time I’d spent creating with a team and grinding my narrative skills on my own and with my own play groups that I was able to kind of bring to the table and say, hey, I can do this too.

There really isn’t a straightforward way into doing narrative design professionally. You kind of have to do your own thing on your own and then make opportunities happen for yourself by applying smaller gigs and working your way up. I think a recommendation if someone wanted to start doing narrative design would be to just start DM-ing. Start running your own play groups.

**Craig:** DM-ing.

**Alison:** DM-ing will only make you a better storyteller no matter what medium you are writing in. You will learn everything you need to know about narrative by sitting down and forcing your friends to play through whatever you came up with.

**Craig:** And then being accountable to whatever they come up with.

**Alison:** Yes. Learning how to listen to other people’s ideas and respond to that and find ways to solve narrative problems. It’s the most valuable skill you can have. For something actionable that you can do right now if you want to practice using choice as an element of writing, Twine is a really excellent program. It’s free to download and you can use it to make sort of text-based adventures. So you know like Choose Your Own Adventure style narratives? It’s basically that. When hiring for narrative design jobs often we’ll ask people to just submit a short like 10 or 20-minute Twine game. And usually that can show how good you are at integrating choice into the narrative experience. And showing that you understand how different trees of narrative work.

So, start building a Twine game. It’s super easy and super-fast. And it’s industry standard for applying for a job.

**Craig:** I want to do it now.

**John:** It definitely feels like we’re at a moment—

**Alison:** Do it, yeah!

**John:** We’re at a moment where there’s a tremendous intersection between what we think of as cinematic writing, with film and television, and game writing, and comics, and other sort of fiction stuff, where people are building out these bigger things. And university programs haven’t quite caught up. USC’s School of Cinematic Arts has game design and has some aspects of this, but it’s really much more steered towards videogames.

**Alison:** Programming, yeah.

**John:** Programming and sort of animation and that aspect of it. But it’s really this meta concept of a sort of what is the universe of this idea and then what are the physical things we’re going to see come out of it. And balancing those two things is tricky but I think we’re going to find a generation that has less of a distinction between this person is this kind of writer or that kind of writer. They’re all working together to sort of make a cohesive thing.

**Alison:** Absolutely. It’s just different mediums. And being able to understand the rules of one will only make you stronger in the other. It bums me out that there aren’t a lot of opportunities, especially for college kids, to really learn these skills and develop them if you aren’t going to a game design specific school. But as far as like what kinds of writing that you can get good at if you want to do the things that I do, dramaturgical writing which is something that a lot of folks outside of theater don’t really know about is probably the closest thing.

So dramaturgy is the person in a usually well-paying show whose job is to research the time period that it takes place in or the world that the play is set around. And come up with a sort of similar document that I do for that specific experience. Weirdly enough there’s a lot of crossover between the skills that are necessary for theater and live performance and for videogames. And I think it’s that presence of choice or presence of an audience that you’re always trying to work around into your experience.

But, yeah, dramaturgy weirdly enough has a lot of crossover. I would also recommend studying screenwriting as much as possible since that’s still kind of the format that most people in the game industry use for writing scripts and such. But instead of a fairly easy to hold in your hand script we usually churn out one that’s a couple hundred pages long rather than a couple dozen.

**John:** Cool. Alison, thank you so much for this overview. I think we’re going to have a lot of follow up questions for you down the road. But if people need to find you on Twitter where should they reach out to you?

**Alison:** My handle is @alisontheperson but I usually answer work-related questions @alisonthewizard.

**Craig:** Of course you do.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** Of course you do.

**John:** We do a segment on the show called One Cool Things and so I’m going to start with my One Cool Thing. It is a book I just finished called Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language by Gretchen McCulloch. It is just terrific. It is a look at sort of how English is changing with the rise of the Internet. And in a weird way you’d assume like, oh, it must be changing faster because of the Internet, but she also points out things like spell check are slowing down some of the changes that would naturally happen. So it’s just a really great funny overview of what’s happening in our language right now, the rise of meme culture. So, Craig, you will love it because you love John McWhorter. Through him I found this book.

**Craig:** I do. And I read a fairly thorough article by her that was sort of I guess a chapter and it seemed great. By the way, did she talk about Grammarly? Because if I see one more damn ad for that stupid thing I’m going to lose every ounce of S in my body. I’m trying to stay Internet safe here. I can’t handle it.

**John:** Craig, we should put the transcripts of this show through Grammarly and see if they have suggestions for improving it.

**Craig:** F-in Grammarly. It’s like “Writing is hard. Sometimes you…” Shut up. Shut. Up. Also, your stupid program isn’t going to change anything. If you don’t know how to write you don’t know how to write. I swear to god. So, anyway, there’s my umbrage for that. I haven’t gotten angry in a while. Weird that I would pick a—

**Alison:** No, feel it. By all means.

**Craig:** Now Grammarly of all things is getting it.

**Alison:** Stand in your truth, dude.

**Craig:** Thank you. Thank you. Freaking Grammarly. So, the first thing I do when I install a fresh copy of Word or something like that on a computer I’m like turn off the stupid green underline. I don’t need you to tell me how to structure a sentence. How dare you, Microsoft Word.

**John:** How dare you.

**Craig:** How dare you. My One Cool Thing this week, it’s a little pricy. I’m just going to be honest. It’s a little pricy. But Thanksgiving is not so far off. We’re a couple of months away. Three months away. Why am I starting to talk about it now so early? Because if you were going to get a Heritage turkey you would need to think about ordering it now. What is a Heritage turkey? Have either of you had one for Thanksgiving?

**John:** I’ve had a Heritage turkey. It was delicious.

**Craig:** Alison?

**Alison:** I have. Yes.

**Craig:** Great. Well, you two are freaking cool. So here’s what’s up. The regular turkeys that you get in the store are – and I didn’t know this – there’s a name for them. They have a breed name and it’s called Broad Breasted White, which sounds—

**Alison:** Typical. Typical.

**Craig:** Yeah, it just sounds dirty. So, Broad Breasted White turkeys were literally manipulated in a laboratory by USDA scientists and the point of them was basically Americans like white meat turkey. Apparently. I’m kind of a dark meat guy myself. But regardless, they like white—

**Alison:** The same. It’s a shame.

**Craig:** It’s a shame. They like white meat so let’s come up with a turkey that has this massive breast and also grows really fast so we can make a lot of them and they’re huge. And that’s what they’ve done. These companies that sell Heritage turkeys, they’re basically unmanipulated turkeys. They’re the original breeds. They tend to be a bit smaller. Well, some people think of it as a gamier taste. I think of it as a more flavorful taste. There’s less white meat. There’s more dark meat. There’s lots of different kinds. They come in all sorts of sizes. But they’re expensive.

So it’s a little bit of a thing. If you’re feeling fancy for Thanksgiving, you know, I honestly say I think they’re way better. Brine it. You know, brine it. Because they can tend toward the dry if you don’t. But lots of places to buy them. I won’t recommend any particular place. I’m sure they’re all excellent. The one place do not get a Heritage turkey from Grammarly. Because you know what? Screw Grammarly. Honestly. How dare they?

**John:** I think we’re going to do a search through the transcripts to find how many times Craig has brought up turkeys on this podcast. Because I feel like it’s got to be at least 10 where you’ve mentioned something about Thanksgiving or brining turkeys. It feels like it’s a subtext for so many episodes.

**Alison:** It’s a really important topic. I’m glad someone is talking about the turkeys.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**John:** Someone has to talk about them.

**Craig:** Well Alison and I have our own podcast called Brinecast where we just—

**Alison:** Brinecast. Absolutely.

**Craig:** Where we talk about different brines. Wet brines. Dry brines. There’s a lot of different kinds.

**Alison:** Buttermilk.

**Craig:** Thank you.

**Alison:** Apple cider vinegar. There’s a million different things that you can pour on your dead meat.

**Craig:** Correct. And you can also kind of go sous-vide to maybe avoid the brining. That’s an episode.

**Alison:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** That’s our show.

**Alison:** It is.

**John:** Alison, do you have a One Cool Thing that you can share with our audience?

**Alison:** I do. Yeah. So, Airbnb has a search function where you can look for offbeat houses. So eight of my friends just went to Ireland for a friend’s wedding. He went to Dublin, found an adorable Irish lady, and they got married. Yay for them. And we just came back from staying in a castle for two or three nights. So, on Airbnb you can search to stay in an actual castle. And with eight of us staying in the same place at the same time it only came out to about $110 per person per night.

**Craig:** What? [laughs]

**Alison:** Yeah. It’s way more affordable than you think. You can live and sleep in an actual castle. Please do it.

**Craig:** Hold on a second. Is this castle like the one where Sauron is slowly regathering his strength? There’s got to be a reason that—

**Alison:** No. It was like a cozy Downton Abbey style. This used to be one tower and then someone added on a fancy estate. We had the whole run of the place. So we got out the nice goblets and celebrating in the dining room.

**Craig:** Did you guys LARP? I mean, you were in a castle.

**Alison:** No, we did not LARP. We did play hide and seek. Yeah. Had a really, really fantastic time celebrating in a fancy ass castle. Highly recommend it.

**Craig:** Wow. All right. That’s way cheaper than I thought it would be. Nice.

**Alison:** I know. I know. That’s why we did it.

**John:** Nice. Cool. And that’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Rajesh Naroth. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also where you can send longer questions. But for short questions I’m on Twitter @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. Alison you can find @alisonthewizard.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. You can also find transcripts. Those go up the week after the episode airs.

Alison, thank you so much for talking through your job. I think there’s going to be a whole new generation of senior narrative designers in the making who are going to be coming after your job hard. But you helped inspire them. So thank you very much for talking through.

**Alison:** I look forward to sharing the stage. Thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thanks Alison. Thanks.

**John:** Thanks. All right. Bye.

Links:

* [The Shadows Casting Call](johnaugust.com/casting) John is looking for a 15 year old blind actress for the lead role — please help by sharing this link with anyone who might be a good fit!
* [The Hollywood Disability Inclusion Toolkit: The RespectAbility Guide to Inclusion in the Entertainment Industry](https://www.respectability.org/hollywood-inclusion/)
* [Scriptnotes, Ep 315: Big Screens, Big Money](https://johnaugust.com/2017/big-screens-big-money)
* [NaNoWriMo classroom kit](https://store.nanowrimo.org/products/d5ce724ee44c89b2d2240da73f117eebf329e3364f629f8f-23)
* [Comfort and Joy](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0087072/)
* [99 Problems](https://www.99problemsfilm.com/) by Ross Killeen
* [The Black Mambas documentary](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8430900/)
* [Wizards of the Coast](https://company.wizards.com/)
* [Twine](https://twinery.org/)
* [Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language](https://amzn.to/2Z4gpLg) by Gretchen McCulloch
* [Alison Luhrs](https://twitter.com/alisontheperson?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) on Twitter or [here for game related questions](https://twitter.com/alisonthewizard?lang=en)
* [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))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_416_fantasy_worldbuilding.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Ep 415: The Veep Episode

September 12, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-veep-episode).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 415 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

We are going to skip the usual bits because today we are joined by two of the executive producers of HBO’s remarkable and award-winning comedy series Veep. David Mandel serves as showrunner. Julia Louis-Dreyfus stars as Selina Meyer. It is such a pleasure to have you both here talking with us about your amazing show.

**Julia Louis-Dreyfus:** Thank you very much.

**David Mandel:** Thank you. Thanks for having us.

**Craig:** How about this? We are coming up in the world. I’ve got to be honest with you, John.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve had Alec Berg a couple of times.

**Craig:** Which is not great.

**John:** No, but I mean–

**Craig:** Not great.

**John:** But to have the better HBO comedy.

**Craig:** Well, so Alec Berg used to work in a three-part writing partnership with Dave Mandel and Jeff Schaffer.

**David:** A three-headed monster.

**Craig:** Correct. And as everybody used to say, Alec Berg was the worst of them. So we would always get the worst. And now we have – and I guess Schaffer is in the middle.

**David:** I mean, show 600 you might get Schaffer.

**Craig:** We’re working up to Schaffer. Working up to Schaffer. But now we have world famous television star Julia Louis-Dreyfus. And we have the greatest of all Mandels in Hollywood. Sorry Howie.

**Julia:** Hey, you know what?

**David:** I’m a fan of Babaloo. But anyway.

**Julia:** Mandel means almond. You know that right? OK.

**Craig:** It’s true.

**Julia:** I forgot to tell you that I took pictures of packaging at the grocery store where it said Mandel Mandel. Anyway, never mind. You can cut that part of the show out.

**Craig:** No, no, that’s staying.

**John:** That’s crucial.

**David:** Leave that in and let’s expand on it.

**Craig:** Mandelbrot.

**David:** Expand and sort of improv.

**Craig:** If you were fully Jewish, we had a little discussion of our Jewish provenance which happens when you’re discussing comedy. Mandelbrot is almond bread, right?

**David:** It’s kind of gross.

**Craig:** You know what? Like most Jewish pastries, disgusting.

**David:** It is a treat that is not much of a treat.

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s a treat relative to the things we’ve suffered as a people.

**David:** Like they gave it to us at Hebrew school and, yuck.

**Craig:** Here you go. Doesn’t this remind you of something good? But it’s not.

**John:** I hope that today we are going to talk with you guys about some things—

**David:** This is of interest to screenwriters, yes?

**Julia:** Yeah, really.

**John:** That do not include almonds. You probably don’t get asked so much about the process of writing your show and putting together your show, so we really want to dig into some process stuff. I want to talk about tone and likeability, which is a thing that Craig and I get hit on a lot.

**Craig:** Yeah. The number one complaint that I have about notes, whether it’s from a studio or a network, or when people ask us what do I do about this, the big complaint is my character is not likeable enough. And I always think like good, you’re on the path to success.

**Julia:** That note is a red flag to me. Likeability is overrated as a virtue. In fact, it’s not a virtue – certainly when it comes to writing comedy.

**David:** It’s blandness. It’s literally blandness.

**Julia:** Or drama for that matter.

**Craig:** Agreed. Agreed.

**David:** There was some executive back in the day in the Seinfeld days, not connected to Seinfeld, but the writers who had come from other shows and what not. And I literally don’t even remember who it was, but I just remember there was an impression of this person giving a note which was sort of like having listened to a script and then going, “Mm, I don’t like our guy.”

**Craig:** “I don’t like our guy.”

**David:** “I don’t like our guy.” And that was this sort of—

**Julia:** Oh, I know who that was.

**Craig:** Well, we’ll take that off the air.

**David:** OK. Fascinating.

**Craig:** But it is essentially a torpedo aimed at your work because the entire purpose of drama or comedy, and I think it’s particularly clear in comedy, is to underline the absurdity and the brutality of the human condition. And I’m not interested in doing that with people who are nice. I don’t mind people who are truly good. Those are interesting characters. Like Saints can be interesting in their own way. It’s like that line from Into the Woods, “You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just nice.” It’s such a bad note.

**David:** They just want to round those sharp edges off. And like I said I just keep going back to blandness.

**Julia:** Well, also, I mean, very fundamentally if you’re really reading a good story or watching a good story, dramatic or comedic, conflict is what you need, right? Aren’t you looking for that? And how does likeability fit into conflict?

**David:** Yeah, conflict. And I would add to that and then choices. Choices based on who you are.

**Julia:** Right.

**David:** And if you’re just likeable or whatever, well then what are your choices? What are you faced with? And it just seems like it eliminates a lot of those things, too. Or at least interesting choices I guess.

**Julia:** Right.

**John:** Julia, can we start with you and start with the sharp edges of Selina Meyer and sort of where that all came from and the initial discuss of this character Selina Meyer, the idea of doing a show. Can you take us back, that’s 2011. What is that initial conversation about the show like?

**David:** It was drinks with Armando right?

**Julia:** Exactly. It was drinks with Armando. It was pitched to me that – he was developing a show about a female vice president who was miserable. So I thought, ooh, that sounds like, oh, I can’t believe that this is – immediately I was drawn to it conceptually. We were supposed to meet for a cup of tea or whatever, just to chat it up. Anyway, three hours later we’re still yacking and we got along really well and I was pitching to him in this meeting ideas about behavior and in that meeting a couple of things I pitched were then worked into the script actually that were fundamental. Like the bending of the spoon that was made out of cornstarch and so on and so forth.

And so we got along really well. I was familiar with his work because of In the Loop. I had seen the movie. I did not know The Thick of It, however, which was this series about parliamentary politics. And so then he wrote the script and he folded it in and then I remember getting this script and loving it. Although at that point they hadn’t made a deal with me, so I was like, god, I hope they’re – some of my ideas are in there and I hope they include me in this show. But anyway, they did. And it was fabulous.

**John:** A lot of our writers who are listening to this show, they’re going to be meeting with an actor. They’re going to be meeting with an actor who they want to involve in a project and it sounds like he had a general vision but he also included you in from an early stage.

**Julia:** Totally. Yes, exactly. This was his—

**John:** You felt like the match was right?

**Julia:** Yeah. And I grew up in Washington, DC. They’re in New York. But I was very familiar with inside the beltway culture. Too familiar really. And so – and also I’m active politically, so I’ve been on the campaign trail as a matter of fact. I had experience to bring to this, which I think was intriguing to him. But his style of making entertainment was really intriguing to me. Because the gritty quality of his work was something that I was desperate to do.

And then off we went and we made this pilot and we rehearsed for I want to say something crazy like two weeks.

**Craig:** Oh my god, what a luxury.

**Julia:** Oh yeah. Can I say, so much rehearsal for the pilot and then subsequent – I think we made six or seven more episodes, yeah, seven. And rehearsal for that as well. So it was just gobs of rehearsal, which was fantastic. And the cast that we put together were very adept at improvisation which was very important to Armando. He really, really wanted people who could think on their feet and work on script from an improvisational point of view.

**Craig:** It seems to me that there are some actors that writers understand instinctively they can partner with in this way. And then there are others that you can’t quite do it with. And I’m sure you’ve noticed this along your path, too.

**Julia:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** You know, some actors really are kind of receivers of stuff and they perform and they may have questions about it. But there is a writerly kind of actor. And one thing that’s always indicated that to me is an actor that has things to say about the other characters.

**Julia:** Yes.

**Craig:** That they understand everything actually comes out in relationships, not just me, me, me, but how does this work with the other person. And so early on I have to assume that you were talking with Armando not just about Selina but about everyone.

**Julia:** Oh yeah, completely. 100%. I mean, I was there for the casting of everybody other than Anna Chlumsky who had already been hired, because she worked with In the Loop, and so he was a huge fan of her. So she was on board. But everybody else we sort of went through the process and improvising and doing scenes in the audition with everybody who came through.

And in fact some of the people who didn’t get the roles as regular cast members subsequently came back as huge players in the show. Dan Bakkedahl, Brian Huskey, just to name a few.

**Craig:** You end up with kind of a theater troupe surrounding—

**Julia:** Correct.

**David:** And I know from talking to the guys that they had like – you know, Armando had done a lot of research and definitely sort of created these archetypes.

**Julia:** Tons. Yes.

**David:** But then obviously in the casting process the vision of what you think someone is going to be and then Tim Simons walks in and that’s not what you thought Jonah was, but then that becomes Jonah.

**Julia:** Well, Jonah was written as a tiny, I believe, balding, overweight guy.

**Craig:** Nailed it. [laughs]

**Julia:** Exactly.

**John:** So talk about that rehearsal and the improvisation part, because one thing I’ve heard about your show is that after a table read or during a table read there’s also an opportunity for the actors to sort of experiment. What happens in that process?

**Julia:** Well, just so you know, there was one way of doing it frankly with Armando and that worked really well, and then Dave come on board season five and that shifted. And neither one is better than the other, it just was a shift. And everybody was able to do it, which is great.

**David:** I think one led to another also in that—

**Julia:** Yes. Yes.

**David:** Because of the improv and the improvisational style of the early days which allowed I think all of the actors – this is just my take on it – I wasn’t there. But allowed the actors to imbue the characters with so much of their own stuff and really take possession of them. Then when you walk in in season five, I’m the first to say, a lot of the heavy lifting was done. And a lot of these characters were a lot more set in stone. And if you look at who the characters became in sort of season three and four they’re very different than who they were in one and two. Not in a bad way, but you can see in sort of the first season—

**Julia:** The evolution.

**David:** Everybody is a little similar. And then they start to find who they are.

**Craig:** And so you have the advantage of writing now for characters that the actors had sort of improved their way towards.

**David:** Yes. So I get this sort of slightly more – I shouldn’t say slightly – these more complete full-fledged people to play with. But I will say from talking with Armando who I spend a little bit of time with and he was just so gracious and wonderful with the handover and emailed and spoke on the phone and I flew to London. And then I think that first year I went to, he was getting an award at one of the comedy festivals – it must have been Montreal. And I went there and we did like a thing together there. And he just works differently. I mean, forget about who went first. He definitely experiments and looks to find things.

And one of the things I remember when I took over the show, it was like you have to have three editors. And I was like, OK. I don’t–

**Craig:** Seems like a lot.

**David:** Yeah. Seems like a lot. But you need three editors. And I was like, all right. And we hired three editors. And I worked with an editor and I finished a show and I went to the next set and I finished a show or whatever. And somewhere along the way I realized, oh I see, when he’s looking at all of this footage he is looking for stuff and he’s finding it in there. So he’s giving some notes in one edit room and moving to another edit room, and moving to another edit room. That’s just not me.

I am far from the most organized writer. I am a procrastinator. I have many, many bad habits.

**Craig:** We’ll get into those.

**David:** But at the end of the day the way I learned to write, which really from Seinfeld into Curb, you know, really Larry and Jerry but especially Larry, outline, outline, outline. And structure, structure, structure. And so I map the season out and it’s a pretty hard map. And things move from episode to episode, but when you look at our whiteboards, like at the end of the season it’s sort of like, oh no, no, no, it was all there. Do you know what I mean?

**Craig:** It was planned.

**David:** And so I didn’t quite need three editors. And obviously I think my scripts were certainly much more the script. But that being said, again, because I have these wonderful creatures, we would pick – maybe sometimes more pick and choose scenes to throw on their feet and try out and play with. And always good stuff came from that. And almost as a rule we always picked what I sometimes thought were the harder scenes.

**Julia:** Yeah.

**David:** And we always picked anything with you and Hugh. And you and Hugh scene was something we always almost took almost three shots at. We put it on its feet, did a big rewrite off of that and discovered so much stuff. Rewrote it, then put that back on its feet. At that point hopefully maybe even on the set. And then maybe a little fine tuning.

**Craig:** It would be a crime to not with those two together.

**David:** Yes. And so much, the physical – like a lot also the physical stuff that is never—

**Craig:** Right.

**David:** It’s hinted at in the script but it’s just not till you’re there that you get that kind of stuff.

**Julia:** Just to back up to the Armando process for a minute, when we were originally like in that first season and we were doing rehearsal and I just remember all of us were terrified. It was pretty scary. Because, you know, there was a script and we’d read it. And then he would say, OK, now just throw those out. Everybody come up. And let’s just – let’s pretend it doesn’t happen that way. Let’s pretend such and such comes through the door who wasn’t originally in the scene and needs this. And everyone was just sort of – it was scary.

But then after a while you sort of got used to it. And meanwhile writers are there taking notes furiously. And if anything works, you know, it gets folded into the stew. And this happened quite regularly. But that is to say it was also very written. So I don’t mean to imply at all that the show wasn’t written by the incredible writing staff. But it was just – we just came at it a slightly different way.

So the ability though to sort of think about a scene wholly was very much strengthened during that period of time. And it was something we could apply working with—

**David:** And I’m fascinated by that, but I would rather kill myself than work like – I just couldn’t even—

**Julia:** And by the way we tried it, didn’t we? We tried it like exactly that. That was not a good fit.

**Craig:** How was it for your anxiety level? Was it good?

**David:** Well, I’ll give you the [double] which was we read the first I think three scripts, or I can’t remember, I think we maybe didn’t read the third one. But we read the first two and we were scheduled to read three. I think it was like the Monday after they won the Emmy. And it was a goddamn disaster. And I know exactly what was wrong, but it was horrific.

And so then in a world where nothing was working we attempted our version of the Armando system because Chris Addison who had been a director in the old world and then we had him on that first episode sort of did—

**Julia:** Applied those same—

**David:** Applied the version. And to me it was just people marching in circles. I mean, I just remember going like blech. Because it was just like OK now you’re with a doctor. And the writers, the non-British writers, because three British writers had stuck around, but then I had put together this other team. And we’re all just looking at each other like—

**Craig:** What is this?

**David:** Yeah. And I knew what to fix. But for me it was just not it.

**John:** Now, back up though because both of you had worked on multicam. So in multicam traditionally the room has created a script. There’s a reading but you’re rehearsing over the course of that week. Isn’t that sort of the process that you’re getting to there where you’re trying a scene, you’re putting it on its feet, and writers are rewriting it?

**Craig:** Larry was pretty strict, right? In Seinfeld he was fairly strict?

**Julia:** Strict-ish. I mean, if we came up with shit in rehearsal and if it was good—

**David:** And you guys with Andy came up with a lot of business.

**Julia:** We came up with a lot of business.

**David:** Which became a lot of comedy that wasn’t necessarily in the script.

**Craig:** But it wasn’t, I mean, my understanding – like Seinfeld wasn’t like Curb for instance?

**David:** Well I was going to say no. Seinfeld had scripts. Curb has outlines. Although they are outlines that – and I always try and point this out. They’re like six, seven-page outlines that any writer worth his salt could take home and turn into a script in under 24 hours. It’s all there. It’s just not laid out. But it’s all there. And in some cases it’s all there plus we’ve got a couple of like secret things that we didn’t put in but we’re sort of saving for take three. So we’ve got even additional stuff.

But what I was going to say, just to back it all up somewhere, is the way Larry and Jerry ran the “writers’ room” is there was no writers’ room. Each writer was sort of individually crafting their episode, pitching their stories, and then being sent off. When Larry left Jerry rigged a sort of mini-version of the same system which was individual writers writing their episode and bringing it back in. And then in lieu of Larry and Jerry going through the script and sort of rewriting and making it better we did sort of a baby mini-room of usually Jerry, the writer, and then some combination of senior management so to speak.

But very much not the sort of group room write that I think has sort of—

**Julia:** That is the norm.

**David:** That has [ruined] the sitcom form in a lot of – you know, the reason that you’re not seeing multi-cams. But the process of, I guess, that week thing, it is different. This was really sometimes just wholesale just throwing things away and just going what if now you’re over here. I mean, I don’t know, I wasn’t there. But my one day of it, it was very loose.

**Craig:** Well it didn’t fit your—

**Julia:** It was very loose, but at the same time it was also not loose. It was a different, I mean, the looseness was important sort of fundamentally for a feeling of what you were doing. And it definitely informed, it was that gritty thing. So people talking over each other the way people do in life which you don’t normally see actually anywhere really.

**David:** Robert Altman movies.

**Julia:** Yes, exactly. Which I love. And that all stayed and we kept that in place. And in fact I would say when Dave came onboard and then moving forward from there, you know, sometimes I would say to Dave, “Is this feeling too written? We need to zhoosh this up, which is the word I use for it, which is to just mess it up, zhoosh it, make it—

**David:** Especially in that world of like take five. Everybody has kind of got it down. But it’s getting a little my line your line. You know what I mean?

**Craig:** Yes. Take the polish off. Go faster. My favorite direction of all time. Faster. Something about speed people start to lose a little bit of that sense of line-line. They will start to overlap. It will – I don’t know, I just always find that—

**Julia:** Speed can be really helpful. It can open up something that you didn’t realize. It really can.

**Craig:** It’s almost now you’re flying by the seat of your pants. Your instincts start coming out.

**David:** Seinfeld was crazy fast, and Curb was faster. And Veep was fast before I got there. And I think we made it faster.

**Craig:** Speed is wonderful.

**David:** I mean, I always think about like Billy Wilder, like One, Two, Three. You guys know that movie?

**Craig:** Yes, great movie.

**David:** Just boom, boom, boom, boom. And not only do we squeeze every ounce of air out of it in the editing room. Also by the way just to try and get more stuff in. But on the set I guess in that next step of the process which is when you actually get to the set, we’re getting it on its feet for the camera blocking. We’re making changes. And any hole that’s there, how do we jam another line in? And plus the realization—

**Julia:** Or behavior. Or behavior.

**David:** By the way, both. So there’s behavior here. And Richard is throwing a line away there behind her that she never hears. And it’s just all there. And we’re jamming it full.

**Craig:** Then you get that sense, and I love this in comedy. And it’s something that you can start to do on the page, but ultimately you do have to work together as a troupe to get it done. The sense of overabundance. We’re not short on jokes here. In fact, we have too many for you. If you miss something, good. Watch it again.

**David:** Watch it again. And every time people are like, oh, I have to stop and go back I’m like great. Fantastic.

**Craig:** That’s wonderful.

**David:** And in fact when we sometimes do these screenings, we’re always sitting near each other when the audience is getting to see it. And obviously it’s so fun when you do like a screening for a theater because that level of laugh is wonderful. But we’re always a little bit upset when they miss that second joke.

**Julia:** Oh, shit, they missed it. Shut up! Shut up!

**David:** They’re laughing too much at joke one and it just blew by them.

**Craig:** Good. Love it.

**Julia:** Yeah, totally.

**Craig:** Love that.

**Julia:** But it was also this idea too of things having an imperfect veneer over it. So, forgetting a line, or saying things wrong, or whatever, we carry – I mean, we just blow past it and maybe can use it because it seems real.

**David:** Right. If somebody screws up a line or stutters on it, Julia is more likely to make fun of the character in the scene.

**Craig:** Exactly.

**Julia:** Yes.

**David:** Which then may become something but now all of a sudden she’s jumping down, whatever, I’m thinking of like Matt Walsh’s thing. Jumping down his throat. But it feels very real. The other thing, too, is – and again this ties into I think sort of the—

**Julia:** Sorry to interrupt. I think that’s where that aye-aye-aye—

**Craig:** Came from originally. Because he actually did it?

**Julia:** No. He just said something dumb and I just started making fun. [makes stuttering noises]

**David:** And then he said please don’t do that and then you’re off to the races.

**Craig:** That’s the best thing you could possibly hear. Please don’t do that.

**David:** But I was just going to say and then this sort of Veep sort of doc style, also the same thing to this messiness which is we are big and wide at times where other shows would be close. We are close but we’re on the other person. We’re on the reactions. Because so much of—

**Craig:** Where it’s at.

**David:** Exactly. It’s all reactions. And so that kind of stuff. Or obviously that moving camera thing where you’re getting a little bit of both.

**Julia:** Pieces of this.

**David:** And not necessarily ending the scene on a joke, or at least a joke-joke. Sometimes even just maybe an angry storm out that just sort of Peters out with everybody feeling—

**Craig:** Avoiding the traditional rhythm.

**David:** Yes.

**Julia:** Yeah. And we are always very careful, because we got burned a couple of times, actually I think just once, to get a hyper wide shot. Because the wide was our friend. And also in so doing I would add we got away with a lot of broad performance. Because if you’re hyper wide you can do it.

**David:** You know, and occasionally you have a line and you go, well, that’s feeling a little jokey, you pull back about ten feet it’s a lot less jokey.

**Craig:** No question.

**Julia:** Right.

**John:** Can we talk about Selina as the center character what she wants seems to drive everything. It drives the whole ambition of the series. But within every scene it’s so focused on sort of what Selina wants. The thing she’s trying to get someone else to do. Or that she’s hungry. Or that she needs this thing that’s in her bag.

**Craig:** [laughs] She’s hungry.

**John:** So as you’re writing scenes is that pretty much always top of mind. Sort of like what she wants, what each of the characters want in that moment, what they’re trying to do?

**David:** I don’t know if it’s specifically that. But I guess I’ll go macro for a second which is – especially in the first season Armando had sort of written it into this sort of exquisite corner which was the Electoral College tie. So, so much of coming into the show – and this goes back to when Julia and I first sat down with this idea of maybe I’ll come in and do this – obviously we were talking so much about Selina and really the bigger picture of just how badly she just wants the presidency. And so in some ways I can’t say that we’re sitting there going, no, no, it’s all about what she wants in any individual scene. But that paintbrush, even in the season where she wasn’t in the White House just drives everything.

**Craig:** She’s defined by her wanting.

**David:** Yes. Exactly. And that’s definitely something we’re just always thinking about. Plus, I guess just a general, again, this for me goes back to Larry, which is just every scene has to move things forward. Something has to move forward. You can’t just—

**Julia:** Masturbate for a while.

**David:** And in our first season—

**Craig:** What a shame.

**David:** Once we got going and we sort of rewrote those scripts and everybody was very happy and we solved it all and we went going we reshot one scene from the first episode which was a scene of – Selina had this giant stress pimple from the tie, sort of the way George W. Bush had gotten sort of his own weird boil thing. And we shot of scene of her with the doctor, the president’s doctor. A very funny actor whose name is escaping me right now, but he was really funny. And there was some funny weird energy between him and Tony Hale, being possessive of each other. And this very funny way that like a lot of fans thought—

**Craig:** They were into each other.

**David:** It was all to do that was wonderful. But the scene was sort of dead on arrival.

**Craig:** It didn’t change anything or move.

**David:** Yes. Exactly. And we ended up – and it was something that kind of slipped through the first time, because there was fun dialogue and stuff about the pimple and all that kind of stuff. Second time through and it wasn’t until like sort of again you sort of realize it watching it in the editing room it’s like we know how to fix this. And it was just like add three more characters and add some—

**Julia:** Other conversations.

**David:** Yeah. There’s a disaster in the Midwest.

**Julia:** Flooding or—

**Craig:** Which led to a background thing that’s going on.

**David:** Which led to a funny conversation about favorite disasters.

**Julia:** Favorite disasters is unbelievably irreverent to say the least.

**David:** And just a whole bunch of other stuff. And the doctor dialogue and her dialogue with him and the Tony stuff, none of that ever changed. It’s just now—

**Craig:** Takes the pressure off of that stuff to be funny on its own.

**David:** The fear of trying to continue to govern, to be presidential, to seem presidential. That all now comes into this scene. When it was just talking to the doctor you lost – even though the scene was in the Oval you lost that, again, that feeling of she is obsessed with how do we get through this tie. And those things all come through.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well it does seem like once you have a character that is defined by this wanting that you’ve learned something about her which is – it’s too limiting to say that a character really just wants to be president. That’s a person that just wants. Right? So that never goes away. We kind of have this sense that people that really want to be president are trying to fill a hole that will never be filled. So everything is trying to fill the hole and it will never happen.

**David:** And one of the great things, and again I think this connects a little bit to coming in in season five that maybe you don’t do in season one is coming into the show as a fan of the show, but also now it’s season five, again, some of the stuff we started talking about right in that first sort of – and there was a series of them. I feel like – I don’t know, two or three lunches. And it sounds silly, but a lot of those conversations just informed the three seasons we did together.

**Julia:** Totally.

**David:** We didn’t know how long anything was, but the journey, the losing the tie, then ultimately the idea of losing the tie to another woman. Then the notion that the show would transform yet again into former president of the United States and then into the window opening and her throwing things away. All of these ideas, I mean, were in those early conversations. And we were so simpatico about like what to do with this thing. But in there was this initial idea that ended up being the fourth episode of the season which was Selina’s mother who had been mentioned – and again the fan, I remember thinking about these things.

**Julia:** Mee-maw.

**David:** Mee-maw had been mentioned three or four times.

**Craig:** Mee-maw.

**David:** As this hateful character. And we sort of had this idea of like she dies. And now season five we’re going to start digging into where do these wants come from.

**Craig:** Right. What’s the origin story here?

**David:** Why is she like this with her daughter? Well I’ll tell you why she’s like this with her daughter. Because her mother was even worse to her. And what’s her relationship with her dad? Well she thinks it’s good, but why is she with so many shitty guys? Because it wasn’t so good. And you get this chance to kind of dig in. And I do think – and again, it’s not good or bad or better or worse, it was sort of I think the three seasons we did together we got to kind of dig into that stuff in a way and start to – I hate to say it was home life, but you got a little more into the characters.

**Julia:** And I apply that, too, to other characters on the show. We were able to dig into Gary Walsh’s life.

**David:** We met his parents.

**Julia:** Anna Chlumsky’s life. My god.

**David:** Mike having babies.

**Julia:** Amy Brookheimer. Yes.

**David:** All of these things.

**Julia:** It was fun to delve.

**David:** And it was just a chance to kind of, because that’s what – I guess I’ll simply say I was both – that was what I was interested in. And it was an opportunity to also make it a little different.

**Julia:** Widen it out.

**Craig:** Yeah. Because they had already done the stuff that you have to do first.

**David:** A thousand percent.

**Craig:** Because there’s no context for it.

**David:** The second episode can’t be Selina’s mother’s funeral.

**Julia:** Nobody gives a shit.

**David:** But four years in–

**Craig:** Nobody Gives a Shit. That would have been a great title for that episode.

**David:** You start to kind of go, oh, this is interesting. Yeah.

**John:** Let’s talk about the plans for this season. So the blue sky-ing of what’s going to happen this season. Because you could have had a plan for like these three seasons, but then there was a break and there’s a new president. A whole bunch of stuff has changed. So when it came time to really think about what are the episodes of this season what is that process like for you, for the two of you together? What was the discussion like?

**Julia:** Well the first big discussion was are we doing seventh season and out or an eighth season and out. And that took a lot of personal, you know, there was turmoil in our hearts and souls over that. But we made the right call because I should say we did have an idea if we were going to do another season what that trajectory was if we were to do a season eight. So then when we decided it’s a season seven it was a question of crunching those ideas into season seven.

**David:** And again a lot of this all just starts with us sort of either, just phone calls sort of in the offseason, or even occasionally an email. But usually leads to a phone call. And sometimes she’s calling me going I had this thing that was funny. This could be a Selina thing. And I’m going, hey, I’ve been thinking about this thing of like this. And so a lot of it just starts like that during the sort of maybe – during the editing process. When I’m editing and we’re seeing each other to go over cuts and stuff. But it’s free form ideas as these things do.

But I always – this is for me – I always like to – when I go into a season I like to kind of know what the first scene is and I like to know what the last scene is. And that last scene also secretly informs the first scene of the next one if that makes any sense.

**Craig:** Absolutely yes.

**David:** And so we started talking, again, about how do we end this, how do we figure this out. And I will admit in my own mind I was pushing for two. It’s a good job. I like it. I like working with these people.

**Craig:** Sure. You have a lot of debt. Gambling debt.

**David:** Gambling debt. But as the show often does it was like – it was like one of those things where you start putting it up and it’s like, oh, it’s one. And it just was.

**Julia:** Yeah. Story dictated it.

**David:** Yeah. So we talk through a lot of stuff. I start meeting with the writers. We have a lot of special guests. We bring in all these people. It’s almost like a little salon.

**John:** Let’s talk about some special guests.

**Craig:** I was one of them.

**David:** That’s right.

**Craig:** I was a special guest.

**John:** What did you talk about?

**Craig:** Ted Cruz.

**John:** All right, oh great.

**Julia:** Oh.

**Craig:** The worst politician in the world – well, second worst politician in the world.

**David:** Exactly. He’s looking really good now.

**Craig:** Let’s not get crazy.

**David:** But when Jonah became a congressman, when he won, and then we were going into the notion of what’s next for him, and it led to his sort of mini Tea Party revolt. And we were sort of definitely kind of stealing a little Newt Gingrich, a little Ted Cruz and whatever, we brought in the Ted Cruz expert. Because we had this idea that we wanted Jonah to be the most hated member of the House of Representatives. And so we thought the most hated member of the Senate would be a good reference point.

**Craig:** No question.

**Julia:** In its inception the show relied tremendously, heavily on research. So, in the very beginning we went to DC and met with this person and that person. I mean, you can’t believe it. It was like field trip after field trip, in the best way. And we all did it together, writers and cast. And this happened every season and then when Dave came aboard we did another Washington trip.

**David:** When I took over we did a Washington trip as well. We took all the writers to DC. We were in the White House at like nine at night. I mean, we were in the Situation Room at like 10:30 at night on a quiet Wednesday or something.

**Julia:** We spent a lot of time meeting with consultants and lobbyists and chiefs of staff. I mean, really just a ton of people.

**David:** And the nice thing is obviously people are fans of the show from both sides of the aisle. So we had Mitt Romney in after he lost. And he was fascinating, but one of the most fascinating things for me just story wise we sort of said to him like what’s it like to lose. And he definitely – we stole a couple of lines from him. We definitely took some things. But one of the best things he said was he talked so much about—

**Julia:** If you’re explaining you’re losing.

**David:** Yes, exactly. And we just put that right into the show.

**Craig:** Wow. If you’re explaining you’re losing.

**David:** There were little phrases. Anytime anybody used a phrase, I remember somebody said simple block and tackle politics. And it’s like Ben is going to say that. So you get little bits of dialogue that give you that authenticity. And then obviously you just get stories. So that for example the Pod Saves America guys came in and told us about Obama flying to the wrong airport. And we know that’s—

**Julia:** Done.

**David:** Literally opening scene of the season.

**Craig:** Can’t not do that.

**David:** Sorry, back to Romney really quickly. He talked so much about the comfort of this large and extensive family sort of giving him solace that it was so clear like, oh, Selina would have no solace. It was sort of like a—

**Craig:** They were going to leave her alone.

**David:** Yes. It was just like oh my god she’s going to lose her mind. And we started the season with the notion of her coming back from basically the looney bin. And in those things you just get these wonderful pieces of reality that go into the stew.

**Craig:** That’s great.

**John:** Can we talk about the second episode which is the Aspen one, the Discovery Institute? What was the genesis of that idea? Just getting you out of the normal backdrops?

**Julia:** Well, I mean, because it’s a reality. These – what do we call them – retreat conferences led by billionaires.

**David:** Or you hear about these weekends in the Hamptons where like Kamala Harris is going to the Hamptons and she’s throwing a giant party.

**Craig:** Jeffrey Epstein used to attend quite a few of these.

**David:** I’m sure he was quite the guest.

**Craig:** Oh yeah. Not anymore.

**David:** And so again these things come at us and it seemed like just again obviously an interesting thing and this is – I’ll throw this out which is we started with a ten-episode season that was so complicated from a production standpoint that the episode shooting went from six-day shoots with three cameras to eight-day shoots with four camera.

**Craig:** Four?

**David:** Four.

**John:** Four cameras.

**Craig:** What do you do with the fourth one?

**David:** Our DP David Miller, I mean, he found usage—

**Julia:** Killed it. He killed it.

**Craig:** To be honest with you I’ve never seen a single cam four cam.

**David:** It was incredible. And it allowed us to – especially now that the group was back together, so you’re in a table or an office scene.

**Craig:** That makes sense.

**David:** That fourth camera is picking up extra coverage.

**Craig:** Tables are the worst. The worst.

**Julia:** Yeah.

**David:** But not with four cameras. Four cameras makes it a little easier. But as it grew and we ended up going, OK, I think from a – I hate to say – budget reality we’re going to crunch the season a little bit. I think in retrospect I do wish maybe one or two of the people hadn’t been at that retreat and just maybe a little less of a – it was almost a bottle show. And that’s not a bad thing. But in a seven-episode season when I look back on it I wish it maybe wasn’t quite the bottle. I wish maybe – and again the perfect writer’s hindsight. I wish maybe we had moved Amy and Dan going off on the abortion into that episode, taking them out of. I think it was a luxury in a ten-episode season. Again, this is all hindsight.

**Julia:** It’s all right. It’s all right, Dave.

**Craig:** No, I think you should torture yourself over it. Forever.

**David:** I will. I will. Do not worry.

**Julia:** He is.

**David:** But again it came out of this reality. It came out of this notion of—

**Julia:** Money driving politics.

**David:** Trying to show money. Exactly.

**Julia:** Money. Money. Money.

**David:** Basically we have that line in there somewhere, Ben says to you, “You’re going to have money so dark it’s going to get shot going into its own apartment.” And that was, if you had to pick a line of what is this episode about, that is what that episode is about. It’s about the money and all of–

**John:** And setting up the season. It’s also going to be the Chinese influence and a lot of other things that’s going to happen. Basically asking the question is there anything Selina Meyer won’t do. And the answer is, of course, she will do anything she absolutely—

**Julia:** The China thing by the way was set up in season five.

**David:** We were setting that up in season five. I don’t think we necessarily knew obviously, well A, we didn’t know the Russians were going to interfere in our election. So I can’t say to you we 100 percent knew how it was going to play out. But all of that Tibet stuff has been a constant thing.

**Craig:** It worked out great for both of our shows in its own way.

**Julia:** Yeah.

**Craig:** What I did not predict was that the Russians would explode another nuclear reactor and lie about it.

**David:** And lie about it for about, what, eight days or so?

**John:** HBO did really well by you getting that to happen.

**Craig:** And then have Scandinavia detect it.

**David:** Again. Almost the same way.

**Craig:** Sort of embarrassing.

**David:** A little smaller.

**Craig:** Thank god.

**David:** But where I was going to bring this all back around to was, so, let’s back up. Summer 2017, yeah, Summer 2017 we mapped these ten episodes out. When I’ve got it on the board, maybe not perfect-perfect, but at that point Julia has heard most of it, but not all of it. And then she and I go through it together and she adds her stuff and we move some more things around. And then at some point we get HBO to kind of sign off on it. And then we start writing the episodes.

And I think we had read like three or four episodes when it was September and we won the Emmy and the next day—

**Julia:** Breast cancer arrived.

**John:** Ugh.

**Craig:** Yes, yes, yes.

**David:** And we ended up shutting down.

**Julia:** How do you do?

**Craig:** Hello, breast cancer. Welcome.

**David:** And I don’t want to gloss over that period but I guess jumping forward when we were shut down Trump enters the second year of his presidency and as I sort of think about it he got very comfortable. Like all of a sudden like if you go back to that period he really steps on the gas. The lies go up. The craziness goes up.

**Craig:** All of his minders have been eliminated one by one.

**David:** Exactly. And so year two is where he really goes crazy. And as bad as it was in that kind of like it can’t get any worse, it started to get a lot worse.

**Craig:** Every day.

**David:** Yes. Every day.

**Craig:** There is no bottom.

**David:** And so now as this is kind of happening and I can remember these feelings in January and I will also say it also ties into, I think January is when you – forgive me if I’m not remembering exactly right – but somewhere towards the end of January you kind of got a thumbs up on the chemo had gone well and things were good.

**Julia:** Yes.

**David:** So knowing all is well and we’re going to – I don’t know when we’re coming back, but we’re coming back, it’s like what is this show? So many of the staples of what we did and talked about–

**Julia:** The bad behavior. In the pilot episode the big scandal is she says hoisted by your own retard. That’s the pilot episode.

**Craig:** Yeah. That wouldn’t even be a blink today.

**Julia:** That’s nothing.

**David:** It almost cost her her career.

**Craig:** Right. And that’s nothing now.

**David:** And the construct of Selina being constantly hoisted on her own petard, or retard, is a constant throughout the show in a way that it affects her. But it just seems like consequences have gone out the window. The notion of this is how we are secretly, but in public we’re different.

**Julia:** Public we’re somebody else.

**John:** So all of these sort of Veep staples go out the window.

**Craig:** He’s blown them up because you can’t compete with him because he’s real and he’s worse than you’ll ever possibly be.

**Julia:** Correct.

**David:** And then let’s go further. Our incompetent staff seems like geniuses compared to who he hired and vetted.

**Craig:** And this kind of goes to an interesting thing about comedy, we’ll go back to unlikeable characters, unlikeable characters aren’t stupid characters. In fact, you need to be rational in some way to be funny. Your rational pursuit may be insane. In other words the thing you want may be crazy. And the depth you go to and the lengths you go to. But it makes sense at least internally.

**David:** Or at least you can function to realize I’ve screwed up.

**Craig:** Correct. You have a sense of shame.

**David:** And that can create fear. Shame and fear.

**Craig:** This guy would be the worst character in a show ever because he just makes no sense. He doesn’t remember anything he did. He feels no shame or guilt. He would be a C or D character. I mean, he’s not even – he doesn’t even have what Louie De Palma had in Taxi. Like every now and then Louie would have a conscience.

**Julia:** Yeah. He’s too broad.

**Craig:** He’s too broad.

**Julia:** He’s too broad.

**John:** And he’s running the country. Yeah.

**Julia:** Yeah.

**David:** So all of this happens.

**Julia:** Ugh.

**David:** And now we’re starting to be able to get on the phone every now and then a little more. And I remember having this conversation of like I’m worried–

**Craig:** How do we compete?

**David:** And we were worried even when he won, but we kind of got away with it because it was our she’s not in office season.

**Julia:** Right.

**David:** We had shot most of that season, we were in the middle of I think our sixth or seventh episode, the Georgia episode. I can’t remember the order. We were mostly through the season when he won. And when we aired that season thank god she wasn’t in office because I honestly believe had she still been president—

**Julia:** We would have had a real problem.

**David:** And we’d been putting up these episodes of Mike doing bad press briefings.

**Craig:** It would have been embarrassing.

**David:** Yes. We would have looked very out of touch. And so my fears were not just what are we, what is our relevancy, how do we not seem out of touch, how do we not seem old fashioned, but also how do you deal with this, because so much for us when we are mining interesting real political history we have distance. Even when we did the Florida recount, I mean, we had distance. And we’re living in this thing. So it was a full reevaluation of I guess taking a darker paint brush and just going if we’re talking about the quest for power and this is now the example of just this insane, insane quest for power, and if Selina Meyer truly was willing to throw away love at the end of season six, what else is she prepared to do? And where can we go? And also why should she lose? Because our original version of it was she was going to lose the presidency yet again and then eventually become a vice president to Sam Richardson.

And so why does she lose when horrible people all over the globe are winning?

**Craig:** Correct. In fact, yeah, that’s the trend right now.

**David:** And dare I say some sense that I guess maybe was wistful but now I don’t necessarily think is true which is I guess early on I had this vision sometimes that at night he went up to his room and maybe was a little scared or like what am I doing here, which I now no longer think that’s even possible.

**John:** Oh no.

**David:** But that inspired at least the notion of let her make these decisions and then suffer consequences.

**Julia:** The consequences. Right.

**David:** And so we changed – I don’t want to say we changed everything, because on a story point of like where we went and the things a lot of it stayed the same.

**Julia:** But actually certain fundamental things really changed. I mean, people got shall we say killed off episode by episode until at the end of it we’re—

**David:** We got very Godfather and Godfather Part II. Which is by the end the family ain’t around anymore. And this idea which was at the end of the season she would be with no one we knew. I mean, we knew them but none of the regulars would be with her.

**Julia:** None of the core group.

**Craig:** She’s killed her whole family.

**David:** Yes. And she has to kill Fredo. Because as we started to think of well what can she do that’s bad, talking about her passing bills and what not, or burning down a forest, it’s relationships. And so who is the person she would never – and you get there. But it was a process and a real journey. And then, of course, if we’re playing all this darkness how do we also keep it funny? So it got very brutal but it got very funny in a really dark way.

**Julia:** And it got pretty dramatic, too.

**Craig:** Which is why it all kind of comes together and ends well.

**David:** Thank you.

**Craig:** I mean, not for necessarily the character—

**Julia:** No, no.

**Craig:** But ending a show is really hard. I personally, I don’t care, I love the last episode of Seinfeld. I do. At least I think I understand what was happening there which was essentially the show was saying these people you’ve enjoyed all this time are terrible and they deserve justice. They deserve it. Because they’ve done terrible things. And I thought that was wonderful. It was like a great way of a show kind of accounting for itself.

**Julia:** I could never really get an opinion about that for myself. I had never had an opinion about the final episode other than I enjoyed making it so much. Which I did. But in fact I know it was a controversial episode for a lot of people, but I think we were sort of set up in such a way that people would be disappointed regardless.

**David:** It was sort of a Game of Thrones of its time.

**Craig:** It’s hard. It’s really hard to end something that is designed to not end.

**Julia:** Yeah, yeah, yeah.

**David:** At the time I remember thinking, or the one thing I took from it and sort of I guess applied to us, which was it was what Larry wanted. Forget everything else. It’s exactly what Larry wanted. And all I cared about was there was a moment sort of like as we were finishing the cut of like we really like it. And the rest will happen or not happen as the world goes.

**Julia:** Yes.

**David:** Both in every phase, just the stories, the outlines, first draft, second draft, on its feet, rough cut, locked cut. And kind of we like it.

**Craig:** You’re accountable to yourselves. That’s the most important thing. I mean, then you can defend anything because there’s nothing to defend. We like it. We love it. We’re the same people.

**Julia:** Yeah. We like it. I think it’s funny.

**Craig:** Right. We’re the people that made the thing that you love. And we love this. So take it or leave it.

**Julia:** Yay.

**Craig:** Exactly, yay. But as it turns out I think it’s considered one of the best series endings.

**David:** When people do like it, don’t get me wrong, it’s quite nice.

**Craig:** No one likes it.

**David:** I was prepared for—

**Craig:** Sure, of course.

**David:** Like I said, to me the two most important people were me and her. And then I kind of had like a couple of my high school buddies in mind. This is aimed at them.

**Craig:** And where was I in there?

**David:** You’re like number 36.

**Craig:** That’s not bad actually.

**David:** It’s not bad. I only know about 35 people though.

**Craig:** I know. That’s still, I’m OK with that.

**David:** But I mean, I don’t know, when you make something for the world, what is that going to be?

**Julia:** You can’t do that.

**Craig:** Well I think it worked out great. It is considered, and I think reasonably so, and well deserved, a really good ending for a series that had been going for years and also had gone through so many changes. Sometimes those are the hardest things to end. When characters have gone through these wild journeys. You saw with like Dexter was sort of an infamously poorly-received ending where he had gone like seven, eight seasons, and then just didn’t quite figure it out I guess.

**David:** I think one of the things that also again going back to like you get to build on what was there in the past, I think one of the things that has always helped Veep is that despite the show being called Veep she stopped being Veep in season three.

**Julia:** And they blew up the premise.

**David:** And yet it was completely different every year and yet it was always this woman who suffered from having been the Veep. And the notion of—

**Julia:** And how we ended. She gets to be president, but something is off, isn’t it? So, she will never be satisfied. She’s a fundamentally unhappy human being. And she thinks X is going to give her joy. But she’s wrong.

**Craig:** I mean, there is a wonderful irony in somebody who is miserable because they’re the vice president because the presidency is right there. And then they get it and they still feel like the vice president. Because there must be something more. And there isn’t. And that’s when you realize you’re kind of in hell.

**David:** The life of a writer.

**Craig:** Yeah. The life of a writer. Exactly. It never ends.

**John:** So it’s the end of this series, but it’s not the end of what you guys are working on.

**Craig:** Oh no it is. They’re done.

**John:** They’re done?

**Craig:** Oh yeah.

**David:** Retired.

**John:** Retired?

**Craig:** I mean, I don’t think anybody – they’ve burned so many bridges.

**Julia:** Bonbons. Champagne. That’s all it’s about.

**Craig:** Actually sounds pretty good.

**John:** Julia, what will we see you in next? What’s the next thing we’ll see for you?

**Julia:** I don’t know. What do you got? I’ll do anything.

**Craig:** OK. Well let’s get to work.

**Julia:** I made a movie on the hills of Veep called Downhill which is a remake of Force Majeure.

**Craig:** Oh wow. Yeah. Love that movie.

**Julia:** Yeah. And I did that for Searchlight with Will Ferrell and, yeah, Faxon and Rash directed it. So I’m in post-production on that right now.

**John:** Amazing.

**Craig:** That’s a heavy—

**Julia:** Lift?

**Craig:** Well, I mean, it’s a great movie. But it’s really, that casting is fascinating to me.

**Julia:** I know.

**Craig:** I mean, I assume it’s not tonally similar?

**Julia:** Ish. Not completely.

**Craig:** Slightly funnier I would imagine.

**Julia:** Yeah. But, it is a dramatic film with comedic elements to it. But I would say it’s more drama than comedy. And it’s more comedy than the original.

**Craig:** Got it.

**Julia:** So that’s what I’m doing. And then trying to decide my next move. Maybe one of you boys has something I can do.

**Craig:** Chernobyl season two.

**Julia:** Yeah.

**John:** David, what are you working on next?

**David:** I have been gloriously taking a break and I will keep taking a break hopefully for about another month or so.

**Craig:** That’s nice.

**David:** I signed a deal with HBO and I obviously hope to create something. I’d like to start from scratch on something and then hand it off to some other schmuck later on about four seasons in.

**Craig:** Right. You want to Iannucci it is what you want to do.

**David:** Exactly. It seems like a really smart move.

**Craig:** And continue to collect money I would hope.

**David:** Oh yes. Absolutely. Absolutely.

**Craig:** God, how do you get that where you don’t do anything and they give you money?

**David:** Or I’ll get Schaffer to run it.

**Craig:** Get Schaffer to run it. Of course.

**David:** But, you know, look, everybody works hard. I was fried when we were done. And I have just recently been able to put sentences sort of back together.

**Julia:** Yeah. It was a hard show to make. I mean, we were really wiped by it.

**Craig:** That makes absolute sense. But tremendous success with it and really when I say tremendous success the only kind I really care about is creative success, because I don’t think I own shares of AT&T. So, it’s really just the creative success of it. And it is so lovely to see – that’s why we wanted you guys to come on together. To see actors and writers working together in this way where they are both writing and they’re both weirdly acting also. It’s like it all gets sort of blended together in this lovely and unique mixture that ends up with something like this. Where there’s not another show like this. I can’t imagine another one coming along. It’s got its own fingerprint. And I think that’s why it was so successful.

**Julia:** I consider myself very lucky that Dave – or I don’t consider – I am very lucky that Dave came onboard because we had worked together before, but never this intimately. It was as if we always had.

**David:** Yeah. I mean—

**Julia:** From the get go, right?

**David:** You know, I use the word, I mean I call her, she’s like my writing partner. I say that. And I will say, and I think I’ve said this in an interview somewhere or whatever, but it’s true. And I can truly remember it, which was when you were in the chemo stuff and obviously chemo is chemo, whatever.

**Craig:** No fun.

**David:** I would occasionally email you but I didn’t want to bother you also. But I was so palpably aware of how much at that moment we actually spoke every day and then weren’t.

**Craig:** You missed her.

**David:** Yeah, I don’t know what else. I mean, it was crazy. And I just realized like, oh, like we’re not speaking and I was sort of just losing my mind.

**Julia:** Ooh.

**Craig:** That’s how John is going to feel about me.

**John:** One day.

**Craig:** I’ve decided that’s how he’s going to feel about me. And I don’t want to have to go through chemo for it. Honestly. I would love just a long flu, like a two-week flu. But towards the end of those two weeks—

**David:** He starts to really miss you.

**Craig:** He’s going to feel an ache.

**John:** As I cycle through guest hosts and eventually it’s like, you know what, it’s just not the same without Craig.

**Craig:** You know man? Have the flu again. It’s working out better. For you and me. I like it when people explain to you that something is working better for you when it’s not at all. But mostly me.

**John:** Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli who also did today’s outro. If you have a question you can write into ask@johnaugust.com.

Thank you very, very much.

**David:** Oh my gosh, thank you so much.

**Julia:** Thank you.

**John:** And have a great rest of your season and a great rest of your vacation. I cannot wait to see your movie.

**Julia:** Oh god, I hope you like it.

**Craig:** I’m gonna.

**Julia:** You are?

**Craig:** Yeah. I decided. It’s happening.

**Julia:** Oh goodie.

**John:** One ticket sold. Thanks.

**Craig:** Thanks.

**Julia:** Thank you.

Links:

* [Veep](https://www.hbo.com/veep)
* [Julia Louis-Dreyfus](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000506/)
* [David Mandel](https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0541635/)
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [The Shadows Casting Call](https://johnaugust.com/casting) John is looking for a 15-year-old blind actress for the lead role — please help by sharing this link with anyone who might be a good fit!
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [Julia Louis-Dreyfus](https://twitter.com/OfficialJLD) on Twitter
* [David Mandel](https://twitter.com/DavidHMandel) on Twitter
* [John on Instagram](https://www.instagram.com/johnaugust/?hl=en)
* [Julia Louis-Dreyfus](https://www.instagram.com/officialjld/?hl=en) on Instagram
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_415_the_veep_episode.mp3)

Scriptnotes, Ep 414: Mushroom Powder Transcript

August 27, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/mushroom-powder).

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

**Craig Mazin:** Yes, my name is Craig Mazin.

**John:** And this is Episode 414 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s How Would This Be a Movie with four terrific stories in the news that maybe, just maybe, could become feature films. Plus we’ll be answering some listener questions about narrators, personal crises, and song titles.

**Craig:** Ooh.

**John:** And Craig I thought we would do the questions up front because I always feel like we push the questions to the end and we may rush a bit. So we’re going to lead with the questions with the questions this week.

**Craig:** Yeah. We can really milk the answers. I love it.

**John:** That’s what we’ll do. But, I have news and a favor to ask of all our listenership. So, I’ll post a link here in the show notes, but I am trying to direct a feature film. I think I said this on the podcast before. Part of the reason why I’m not running for the WGA board again is I’m hoping to direct a feature film in these next two years. That film is called The Shadows. The central character in it is Abby. She is 15 years old. She’s smart, resourceful, anxious, and blind. That means I need to find a blind actress who is 15 years old-ish to play this role.

That’s not going to be easy. There’s not just a list of teenage blind actors who are ready to make feature films. So, if you follow through the link you’ll see I have a casting notice up that describes what I’m looking for. It has audition scenes. My hope is that we’re going to find someone who has probably never had the opportunity to act in a feature film before or television who will self-tape and present herself as the possible actress for this role.

But if I cannot find this actress I cannot make a movie. So, if you know an Abby or you think you might know an Abby the place to check out the information is johnaugust.com/casting. That’s where you go to see all the information and the audition scenes and stuff about self-taping of yourself to possibly be cast in this movie.

**Craig:** Good URL. Appropriate. So traditionally the way this would work is casting directors would be sent out into the world and they would cast a wide net and show up in malls and things, trying to just pluck out some diamond from the rough. But now we have these things. We have podcasts and Twitter and social media. So this is a great way to get the word out that you’re looking for somebody like this and I have to presume that there are tons of kids across the United States who are acting, or acting in school productions, or community theater who are blind who will hear this and say, yeah, what about me, John August.

**John:** Yeah, what about you?

**Craig:** What about me?

**John:** So classically the casting director would send out this notice and you might do searches in malls and such, but that’s not going to work for this very specific part. So ultimately there will be a casting director to help do all the other things, but if I cannot find this person it is sort of pointless to do anything more about trying to make this movie. So, this is not the first step. The first step was writing the script. But the second step is trying to find this actress, so that’s what I’m trying to do right now.

Ryan Knighton who was on the show once or twice, a fantastic writer, actually the reason why I met him was because I was writing this script. So that’s how long I’ve been working on this. This predates the Arlo Finch books. But now is the time where I can actually make this movie. So, if you can help me find this actress I’d be much obliged.

**Craig:** Now, here’s a question for you. Let’s say you don’t. Do you scrap the movie?

**John:** We scrap the movie.

**Craig:** You scrap the movie.

**John:** I don’t think you can make the movie kind of any other way. I’ll say that as I started writing this movie it was a real concern. Like is this an idea worth pursuing knowing how hard it will be to find the right person for this part. And I decided to go for it because it’s something I’d never seen before on screen and that’s really interesting to me. I want to make the movie I want to see most, and this is kind of the movie I want to see.

So, that’s why I wrote it and that’s why I’m hoping to be able to direct it.

**Craig:** Well, I think you will find someone. I can’t imagine that you won’t. That doesn’t seem possible. Sight is not required for acting talent. It’s just not. You know, I think of all the things that we do in our business and acting is so interestingly internal. In many ways I would imagine that there’s probably a lot of acting exercises where if you are sighted you close your eyes anyway and try and relate to somebody without the extra cues. So, I would be shocked if you don’t find not just one person but a lot of people. I think you will.

**John:** I hope so, too. And I do think it will be a process of working with this person to figure out a language for how we’re going to do the things we need to do and how to sort of best make this movie happen. If this were a supporting character we might not have the time and resources to make this all possible, but this is the central character and so it’s all going to be about figuring out the best way to make this movie. So, it’s going to be a very collaborative process.

**Craig:** No question. I mean, I’m just thinking ahead to the day you’re there and you’re shooting. I mean, other than figuring out how to assist the actor with hitting a mark. By the way, people probably don’t even know – a lot of people don’t know why this whole thing of the actor has to hit their mark even exists. It’s because film cameras and even the video cameras that we use now like the Alexa and so on and so forth, they don’t have automatic focus the way your iPhone does or an old school video camera because those auto focuses are actually very slow. I mean, you’ve probably noticed that when you’re shooting things that sometimes they’re blurry and then they get – well you’re not allowed to have any blurry ever when you’re making a movie.

So there is a focus puller whose job is to constantly adjust focus depending on how far away from the lens the actor who is being filmed is. So they measure where they are and if there’s a scene where they’re moving then during rehearsal we’ll watch them and then there is an assistant camera person, the camera assistant, who watches them and where they stop that person comes over and puts a little piece of tape down or a little bean bag. And the actor now has to reliably stop there each time because that’s a distance that the focus puller is relying on.

So I could see where if somebody was not sighted you would need to have a little extra assistance there to make sure that they didn’t fall short or go too far depending on their motion. But beyond that I think it’s probably the same as everything else, right?

**John:** Yes. So focus is one small issue. I’m sure they’ll be other things that come up. But I’m mostly just excited to meet this actor and see what she can bring to the part.

**Craig:** Fantastic.

**John:** Now, Craig, you actually had an unexpected bonus episode of the Chernobyl podcast that just came out today as we’re recording this. Tell us about this episode. And I especially liked your little prologue to it.

**Craig:** Oh, thank you. Surprise episode. So this is my Lemonade. It’s a surprise. Well, we were talking and so the podcast was surprisingly popular. We didn’t necessarily imagine that Chernobyl itself was going to be quite as viewed as it was. And I really didn’t think that the podcast would be quite as listened to as it was. But it was. And that’s very gratifying. And Jared and I were talking and he suggested kind of a little bit of a bonus, OK now that the show has come and aired and has been viewed and occupied a space could we/should we discuss it.

And so we got Peter Sagal back and Jared joined us. And I think maybe a day after or two days after we recorded it all of a sudden there was this news story and, huh, a nuclear explosion in Russia that they weren’t telling us about. Well that’s familiar. So I did a quickie solo prologue and, yes, that is available this morning. So if you subscribed to the Chernobyl podcast you got a little ding on your phone this morning. But if you don’t it’s available on all podcast platforms in the known universe, including YouTube and Stitcher and all the other ones that John knows I don’t know.

**John:** And we’ll also put a link to it in the show notes so people can follow through there. Because sometimes people are meticulous and they delete subscriptions just so they don’t have old things sitting around.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So you can follow through there. One final bit of news. There’s been an issue with the app, the Scriptnotes app for the premium listeners. Folks both on the Android side and on the iOS side have written in with some problems. So, if you are having problems with the app the general advice I can give you is make sure you’re using the most recent version of it. If you’re still having a problem write into the ask@johnaugust.com account and Megana can help steer you towards some resources or at least get reported to the actual folks who manufacture those apps to make sure that we get those bugs fixed. Sorry for anybody who is having problems.

**Craig:** Was the bug that somehow some of the money was going to me?

**John:** No. It was not a money flow issue. It was simply an authorization token.

**Craig:** So that bug remains is what you’re saying? The bug of money not going to me.

**John:** That bug – that is a feature not a bug.

**Craig:** [laughs] I am a feature not a bug.

**John:** You are a feature not a bug. Some follow up. Why writes in, “As a longtime fan of the show I believe you guys have made me a better writer. But that sadly cannot be empirically proven. My body weight however is easy to accurately measure. A few months ago I listened back to Episode 50, How to not be Fat. And John’s diet, slow carb, sounded really simple and easy. Having never attempted a diet before I went in with no expectations but the change was instantaneous. Now some four months later I’ve already lost over 30 pounds. So this is a thank you for helping me to not be fat at the very least.”

Craig, can you even remember back to Episode 50?

**Craig:** No, I thought we started at Episode 51. I don’t know if we even did this. What are these first episodes? They might be other guys.

**John:** I think this was like a random advice episode. I think this was maybe not a traditional craft and character arcs. But we did talk about it. I remember discussing it and back at that time I was doing this slow carb diet which is like the Atkins diet. It’s like all these things where essentially you eat fats and proteins and not a lot of carbohydrates. And it works. And at that point I was eating a lot of black beans and eggs. And you will lose weight if you do that.

I’m not doing that right now, but I’m sort of mindful of those things and I try not to eat a lot of carbs that I don’t need to eat. So, if you want to go back and do that, great. But we’re not really a good diet and health advice podcast.

**Craig:** No. Not at all. There are four billion of those. Listen to one of those waste of times. Because we would like to waste your time in different ways.

**John:** Yeah. But Why I’m happy for you that you‘ve lost this weight. I would encourage you to find other ways other than just a diet to maintain a healthy lifestyle. Because just eating alone is not enough.

**Craig:** Yes. Meth is not recommended. You will lose a lot of weight. A lot of weight with meth.

**John:** A tremendous amount. Because teeth – teeth are heavy, too.

**Craig:** Just the teeth alone.

**John:** Those last ounces, just pop them out one by one.

**Craig:** Yeah, man.

**John:** Tic-Tacs.

**Craig:** Meth. I mean, who doesn’t know not to do meth still?

**John:** My hunch is that some people who do meth – this is me talking with absolutely no expertise.

**Craig:** I like this. Go for it.

**John:** My hunch is that people who find themselves doing meth often don’t know they’re doing meth when they start doing meth or they’re coming from some other drug and when that drug is no longer available that’s how they’re ending up at meth. That’s just a guess. I’ve done no research or Googling before saying that.

**Craig:** Your theory is that no one is really sitting down and going, right, so I don’t have drug problems and I’m aware that this is meth. Let’s go. You’re saying that’s probably not happening.

**John:** I think that’s probably not the default pathway into meth abuse.

**Craig:** Well, meth. How about some questions. Should I start with Alison from Atlanta?

**John:** Go for it.

**Craig:** Alison from Atlanta asks, “I’m in the planning phases of my screenplay and I’ve come to fork in the road about whether or not to use a narrator. I’ve heard the argument that it’s lazy writing as you’re telling instead of showing, which I understand, but some of my favorite movies or TV shows use narration really successfully. I feel like it could be especially useful when there is significant dissonance with how a character feels inside versus how they are behaving. Do you have any advice for when the narration is useful or when it detracts from the story?”

John, what’s your advice for Alison?

**John:** The only project I’ve had that I think has a narrator – I take that back. Two projects I’ve used narrators for. The first is Big Fish. The second is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In both cases they were really, really helpful. But let’s take a look at why. In Big Fish that narrator is sort of the voice of Edward Bloom, the storyteller who is bridging between the real world and the fantasy world. It starts kind of in the real world and drifts into the fantasy world. Helpful for that. Could you do the movie without the narrator? Yes. But it is useful.

Second movie is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory which is very much a fairy tale, a storybook telling of this boy’s quest and Willy Wonka. In those cases, useful.

Those are situations where I think the narrator is helpful. Unfortunately we encounter so many movies and scripts where voiceover or narration has been applied in post. It was not part of the initial conception of the storytelling. And, wow, you can tell.

**Craig:** Yeah. Narration sometimes is a Band-Aid. But I want to say, Alison, when you say some of my favorite movies or TV shows use narration really successfully, that’s the answer to your question. Anybody who makes the argument that narration is inherently lazy writing, as you “telling instead of showing” is wrong. And you should tell them to their faces that they’re wrong. And that probably everything else that they say after that should be considered invalid. Because it’s the most ridiculous thing to say. Narration is a perfectly good tool if it’s used properly.

Like you, John, I have not written a lot of things that have narration in them, but I remember the first thing I wrote with narration was a movie based on a Philip Dick short story. This is many, many years ago. And it’s one of my favorite things that I’ve written, so of course it didn’t get made. But the hero was an immigrant who did not speak English. He was an Italian immigrant. He didn’t speak English. And the story itself had a kind of romantic fairy tale quality to it so a narrator felt appropriate. He was able to kind of fill in some things when the character was alone and wouldn’t necessarily be speaking in his own language. And if he did why would we subtitle. There’s a lot of weirdness in there. But it was mostly the fairy tale-ness of it that seemed to call for a narrator.

Similarly when you talk about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it is kind of a modern fairy tale. It is clearly taking place in a world that is a pushed version of our own. So the storybook aspect of it feels worth honoring and acknowledging. So, go for it Alison. If it feels right then do it. And if you’re doing it because it’s just convenient, or solving some problems, maybe not.

**John:** I would encourage people to think about the movie Clueless without Cher’s narration. It would be unwatchable. You would not like Cher in that movie if you did not have the ability to see inside of her head. And that’s really what it is. It’s honestly kind of like giving that protagonist a song in a musical. It’s allowing you to expose what they’re not saying to everybody else in the scene. So that may be another situation where you need to use it.

**Craig:** Correct. And if you think about Fleabag which is spectacular, all of Phoebe Waller-Bridge’s little discourse to camera to us, that’s narration. That’s what that is. The fact that she’s filmed doing it but talking to us doesn’t change the fact that it’s narration. And we don’t mind it, we love it. Because it fits. It makes sense.

Goodfellas needs narration. Narration – probably the same exercise worth doing. Watch Goodfellas and every time the narration starts hit mute. It just won’t work. Or it won’t work as well.

**John:** All right. Nicole asks, “I live in one of the cities that was recently devastated by a mass shooting. As I’m sure you can imagine you the depth and breadth of emotion in the aftermath is sometimes overwhelming. I have an appointment with my therapist and we’ll work through it with her, but in the meantime I’ve got a draft due to a producer I’ve never worked with before. Normally I’m super responsible about hitting deadlines, but it’s really hard to get my head into writing comedy right now so I’m struggling to get pages out and I am falling behind. How do you overcome your personal life crises when you have to get your work done? Should I let the producer know that the draft might be delayed or wait and see if I can get back on track soon? The draft is due in about two weeks.”

Craig, what advice would you have for Nicole?

**Craig:** Well, first of all fantastic question. And I’ve been there. Happily I haven’t been there a lot. But when it happens it happens. And I think Nicole your sense that this is not mentally doable for you needs to be listened to and respected. Yeah, you could soldier through it but would it be good? And is it good for you?

When this has happened to me, when there have been incidents in my own life – I just went through one myself again with my family – where either someone is ill or there is a crisis or trauma that befalls you or around you or you just on your own without any cause slip into a clinical depression or an unmanageable state of anxiety it is absolutely fair to call people up and say I need two weeks, because I need two weeks. This is where I am. This the page I’m on. This is why I need the two weeks, without getting into super-duper detail. I will be back after those two weeks and then I will finish.

There are not many things that will work as well as a break. And what you don’t want to do is turn your work, your writing, the thing that you love and that you rely on into a burden or more fuel for dysfunction and misery. John, what do you think?

**John:** Your advice is absolutely correct. And what I would caution Nicole to do is not to wait until the actual due date to lob in that email or that phone call, because then it just looks like, oh, you just ran out of time and now you’re telling us.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, this is the time to reach out to that producer, even if it is a person you’ve not worked with before, and explain the situation. In this case you have – I don’t want to say the advantage – but because it’s a public event that everyone can see it’s pretty clear that there’s a basis behind this. That you’re not just making an excuse.

It can be tougher when it’s just your own thing. When it’s something in your own family that you don’t want to discuss. When it’s clinical depression coming up. When you’re having problems that can’t be sort of externally verified I know it’s scarier to reach out and make that call, but you got to reach out and make that call. And you need to do it before the time is up.

If you have an agent, manager, lawyer, someone else who is also on your side, a different producer if it’s about the studio, it’s worth clueing them in to just so that they have a sense of what you’re going through so that they can back you up a bit.

**Craig:** And you are working in a business that’s full of people that have all sorts of emotional issues and mental health issues. And after all you’re also working in a business that pedals emotion. That is our product. So the fact that you are a feeling person, that you have a sensitivity – that isn’t a bug, that’s a feature right?

You don’t have that thing that actors have where they can use their crisis to pump out tears on film or if they’re having a terrible, tragic day it theoretically could be turned to their advantage. Writing requires a lot of mental energy. It requires focus and attention. It’s spinning 12 plates at once. There’s a lot of logic going on. And then also all of that emotion. I think in general you will be met well by people. They will not say to you, “No, I want you to finish it anyway. You can’t take two weeks off.” Because at that point they’re kind of shooting themselves in the foot. What are they going to do, complain to you then when they get the script and don’t like it? You told them. You warned them.

Also, there’s really nothing they can do about it. You can just get sick for two weeks. If you feel, by the way, this is for anyone, that you’re working for people who truly will not get it, then lie. If somebody is so miserable as to not understand the validity of an emotional crisis then just tell them or having your agent or representative or manager tell them that you have a physical illness that is going to last two weeks. Because they can’t argue with that.

It’s a shame that sometimes you have to do that. But if somebody is going to be a total jerk about it then they forfeit their right for you to be completely honest and forthcoming.

**John:** I think that’s all true. The last thing I want to say is that just making that phone call or that email and telling them that this thing could come in late in my own experience has relieved so much anxiety on my side about the fact that I’m worried that I’m going to be late that it made the writing a lot easier. So some of what you’re actually feeling is the panic over a what if I can’t actually deliver this on time. And so by tipping them off that you may not be able to deliver this on time you’ve lowered the stress on yourself and you may actually be able to do the work that you need to do and be happy about the draft you’re turning in.

**Craig:** No question. Sometimes you say I need two weeks and they say sure. And then two days later you’re like I’m good. What you really needed was two days. And that’s the thing. You’re right. The worst feeling for writers is feeling that they have to write and yet they can’t do their best work. That’s a terrible feeling.

So, whatever you need to do to not have that feeling, do it.

**John:** Do it.

**Craig:** OK. So we’ve got one more question. This is from Seth who asks, “My question is about using a song as the basis for a movie. For example, if I decide to write a quirky rom-com about a grungy mechanic from the Lower East Side who meets a beautiful society girl from Central Park West and I call it Uptown Girl, do I owe Billy Joel a credit or money? I know that if the song is licensed that will cost. But what about the concept?” Well that’s an interesting question. Hmm, John, any thoughts on that one? We’ll be pretend lawyers for the moment.

**John:** We’ll be pretend lawyers. I think you’re in real jeopardy if you call that movie Uptown Girl. Uptown Girl is a title that everybody knows. It’s very clear that it’s inspired by that song. No, Seth, no. Don’t do it.

So, if a song inspires you, so if you wanted to do a movie about a mechanic and a society girl, you could do that probably pretty safely because it’s going to be generic enough that like there’s nothing in the song that you’re actually taking from that. But you call that movie Uptown Girl and you just put a giant crosshair on your back.

Honestly, if your movie has nothing to do with the song but you call it Uptown Girl you’re probably going to be getting some heated emails from some people who are not too happy about that. I don’t think that’s a safe choice. Craig, what do you think?

**Craig:** Yeah, I agree with you. I’m not sure where the legal line is per se, but you actually don’t want to find out. They’re going to make a problem for you. The point is that usually speaking the stories of songs in and of themselves aren’t really copyright – I mean, they’re copyrightable. Of course, lyrics are copyrighted. But the story inherent to those can be duplicated without fear of infringement.

For instance, I’m thinking of a good old story song like the Pina Colada song. Escape (The Pina Colada Song). So most people know the story of that ridiculous song. A guy gets tired of his marriage to his wife, so he is looking for singles ads, or I guess he writes a singles ad. Yeah, that’s what he does. He puts an ad looking for somebody who likes the following things, including Pina Coladas in the rain, and then somebody responds back and says, “I love all those things. Let’s meet.” And so he goes to a bar to meet up with this new woman that he’s going to cheat on his wife with and lo and behold it’s his wife. And then they laugh weirdly, which would not actually happen. In real life it would be a rocket ship to divorce.

But regardless, because it’s just bizarre, but the story of somebody looking to cheat on his wife and swiping right and ending up with his wife, anybody could do that. That idea is not intellectual property. If you call it The Pina Colada movie and he’s talking about Pina Coladas in the rain then oh yeah you’ve got a problem.

So I agree with you. I don’t see the point. I don’t really think the title Uptown Girl is so important to that concept anyway. If it’s the only attractive thing about that idea, well then you kind of are leaning on the Billy Joel-ness of it all and I would think he’d have a reasonable argument to make.

**John:** So titles we talked about before are – the whole process of getting titles cleared is complicated and there’s a whole division that sort of approves which movies can have which title. But it is complicated by songs. And I’ve been through several situations on movies and other projects where a title we would have wanted is a famous song. It becomes arguable like are we using it in reference to that song or not. It becomes complicated. Don’t call your movie Uptown Girl unless you’re making a Billy Joel related movie I would say.

**Craig:** Agreed.

**John:** Agreed. All right. Let’s talk about movies we do want to make. This is a segment we do every once in a while called How Would This Be a Movie where people send us stories that are in the news and we talk about them the only way we know how to talk about them is how do we turn these into narrative feature films or perhaps TV series. This time we have four of them because there were four really good ones and I just couldn’t winnow it down.

Different people sent in different things. I’m not going to credit who sent stuff through because in some cases it was multiple people. But they’re all compelling in different ways.

So let’s start with a podcast I listened to this past week. It is by Willa Paskin for Slate’s Decoder Ring podcast. She is a terrific writer and these are really well-produced episodes. I really loved listening to the whole podcast series. The one this week was about the soft serve wars. So the Mr. Frosty trucks both in Midtown, Manhattan but also in China and sort of the war of turf, of different companies competing, and break off groups, and the history of soft serve ice cream. I thought there was a lot of compelling stuff here. Craig, how did you feel about this as story material?

**Craig:** Well, it’s an interesting world. And it occurred to me you probably didn’t have this, right? I mean, where you were growing up in Colorado?

**John:** No, we didn’t have soft serve trucks.

**Craig:** Yeah. We had them everywhere. So on Staten Island, and this extends throughout New York in every part of New York, you would have these trucks. And there were two trucks that would come by. One was the Good Humor man. So he had the Good Humor brand of ice cream.

**John:** And Good Humor was hard ice cream?

**Craig:** It was. It was incredibly hard. It was the hardest of ice creams. It was so hard. And then there was the Mister Softee truck who would come by, and that was the soft serve. And frankly I did prefer the Mister Softee. It just didn’t come by as often. And they would play their songs. They had their little jingles. And we would get very excited and run after the truck.

So, right off the bat I think one of the issues with this is that it’s not necessarily a universal experience. The notion of this kind of turf war over this particular kind of product. It does feel a little niche to me. Obviously when people are trying to do it China studios get very excited when something may appeal to a Chinese audience, because they’re greedy. But I’m a little concerned about that.

The story though that this brought to mind, when you were a kid, John, did you ever read a book called The Push Cart War?

**John:** Called The Push Cart War. Yes!

**Craig:** Do you remember that one?

**John:** We said it at the same time. I do absolutely. And they had little pea shooters and they were shooting out the truck tires I believe.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** I do remember The Push Cart War. We’ll put a link to that in the show notes. It reminded me a lot of that.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, The Push Cart War is basically a classic story of the little guy versus the big guy. And the little vendors versus the big trucks. And in this case I could certainly see a kind of comedy – I think it would have to be a comedy – of competing ice cream vendors who are at each other’s throats scrapping over the last nickel and dime. And then they have to face a common enemy which is, I don’t know, suddenly a Starbucks or some massive corporation is taking over by sending their new things in which is better and bigger supposedly. So it becomes mom and pop, little guy versus the big guy, and maybe there’s a little bit of an allegory of the way that capitalism gets people on the lower rungs to beat each other up and leave a space for the big guy to just waltz in.

But I’m not sure – I’m a little worried about the whole ice cream aspect of it because I just don’t know if people in like you say Boulder or Denver are going to say, oh yeah, ice cream trucks. I think they might go, “Ice cream trucks?” That’s a problem.

**John:** Well let’s talk about that universality. Because even in the intro here I said Mr. Frosty rather than Mister Softee because I didn’t know that as a thing.

**Craig:** There you go.

**John:** That’s how little I knew about that. But I don’t know that this lack of universality really is necessarily a problem because I think, you know, I could imagine the start of this story very quickly setting up important it is for this community and really establishing the worlds. Because so many movies we see, like I don’t know anything about sort of how baseball mathematics works, but the movie is going to teach me how to care about that.

You know, there’s so many movies involve characters who are experts in things I don’t know anything about and that’s part of the experience of watching the movie. So I’m not so worried about the lack of universality in the sense of like places that don’t have ice cream trucks as long as I can establish why it’s important for these people who are selling ice cream and these people who are buying ice cream.

There were three kind of main threads and I think you’d have to pick one of them to make a movie. There’s the guys who are trying to start a Mister Softee business in China. And so that’s – you can picture that one. You’re trying to build something within a bureaucracy which is really complicated and you’re trying to explain to people what it is that you’re doing.

It was fascinating in the podcast talking about how McDonalds and I think KFC were the only places that were serving soft serve at that point and they had separate walk up drive-thru windows for just soft serve ice cream because it was so new and unusual there at the time they were launching. So China is one possibility and the rise and fall of that company.

Then the tension between the Mister Softee trucks and the competing brands within Midtown Manhattan. It’s probably a comedy. It’s probably like Adam Sandler is the godfather. Sort of a turf war kind of thing and it seems silly but these people are taking it really seriously. That section of the movie, I don’t know about you, but I got sort of PTSD trying to think about the logistics of shooting in Midtown Manhattan and how you’re getting all these trucks in Midtown Manhattan. The filming of it freaked me out.

**Craig:** By shooting in Toronto, of course. [laughs]

**John:** That’s naturally how you would do it.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** But they’ll get the New York City tax credit. And finally the single character who is probably the most compelling and interesting is a woman they interview. She’s the ice cream woman who took over her dad’s route. He was a Good Humor man who then had a soft serve truck. And so she’s the – actually she doesn’t have a soft serve truck. She’s still selling traditional ice cream in Brooklyn.

She had a fantastic voice. She just felt like a really compelling character. For a single protagonist this woman trying to defend her father’s route feels like a through line. But I don’t know if any of these are compelling enough movies that I’m rushing out on a Friday night to see them.

**Craig:** No. I think it would require – I think you probably got closest with the idea of Sandler. Of a comedic star taking something that’s small like the Water Boy and making it into something epic. I mean, Tim Herlihy is a genius at doing stuff like that and I could easily see Tim writing a really funny movie that’s centered around Mister Softee versus Good Humor, which is just already I’m kind of giggling at it. It sounds like a funny idea.

So that’s probably the closest I would think to actually getting it made. I mean, this other last little component of this is that there is – for those of us who grew up in New York – there’s a lot of nostalgia to it. There’s a strange kind of connection to the past with those trucks when I see them walking around, even as an adult, and I would see the Mister Softee. The logo is like a cone that’s got soft serve but he’s got a face like in the cone. And just his face warms my heart. It just does. His dumb, stupid cone face makes me happy.

**John:** Yeah. I also got thinking about sort of what’s the color scheme, what’s the world, like what’s happening in the day. It got me thinking back to Do the Right Thing which is an incredibly hot day and sort of what it feels like to have an ice cream truck on that hot day and sort of like passing through these neighborhoods. What would it feel like and what does it feel like to be the guy on the truck? And it’s a cash business and so you’re always vulnerable that way. The staking out of corners. Even if it’s not done as heavy drama, it felt like there were dramatic moments in there. There were reversals. That felt interesting and I think doing it – probably knocking it back a few years and setting it period is helpful for that way, just because you get the benefit of nostalgia and a simpler time when we didn’t have Uber and Postmates and all the other things that got you your ice cream. You might be waiting for that truck to come.

**Craig:** All right. So we’ve decided. This is going to be set in the ‘70s or ‘80s. Tim Herlihy is writing it. Sandler is in it. It feels like it’s going to Netflix. Sandler has got that huge deal at Netflix. I’m in. I’m watching that movie. What do we get for – do we get money for this? Do you we get money when they? Yeah, you know what? They’ll have to send us money. Yeah. Money.

**John:** Yeah. We’ve made a lot off this.

**Craig:** Cool.

**John:** All right. So our next story is about Zimbabwe’s female rangers. It’s a story in the National Geographic by Lindsay M. Smith, photos by Brent Stirton. So this talks about an all-female wildlife ranger team, the Akashinga. And so they are the defenders of the animals within this region. It’s a non-profit international anti-poaching foundation. The Phundundu Wildlife Area is 115-square-mile former trophy hunting tract in the Zambezi Valley ecosystem.

We’ll summarize some stuff in here, but it’s worth clicking through for the photos because I thought the photos were actually one of the most fascinating parts of this. Craig, what did you take from the female ranger’s article?

**Craig:** Well, I thought that this was a chance to do something more than what it was. I actually – the value here to me is that it can be allegorical. And I do like these stories where it seems like, OK, this is pretty straight up. It’s about women who are fighting off poachers to protect animals. That’s a very nice thing. Who cannot like that? That’s very sweet. But in and of itself there’s the problem. It feels a little just saccharine. Right? Like, ah, cool, women are doing that. And they’re beating poachers. And everyone hates poachers. And they’re saving animals. Hooray.

But I think there’s probably an interesting story to be told underneath where these characters who are doing this are in their own way reclaiming something about their lives that was taken from them. This is not easy. Living in Zimbabwe isn’t always easy. That country has been under the thumb of Robert Mugabe, a dictator and a thug, for decades. And that part of Africa is a tough area to live. And being a woman in any part of Africa seems like it’s an additional challenge.

And so there is a chance to tell the story where it’s not just well-minded women go, you know what, we’re defending these elephants, but rather it’s women who have lost a certain kind of power or have been traumatized or who have been marginalized finding a way to reclaim some power and defend something of great value. And ideally – ideally – have a really positive portrayal of Africa, because we don’t get it a lot. We get a lot of Blood Diamonds. We get a lot of Ghosts in the Darkness or whatever that movie was with the lions. We don’t get a lot of this. And I think that’s really – that’s what you’d hope for.

And they do hint at this in the article. They point out that a number of these women have suffered trauma. They either were orphaned by parents who died of AIDS. Or they were victims of sexual assault or domestic abuse or abandonment. And so I think that’s where I would kind of come at it. And I do think actually this could be pretty cool. I could see this being a movie.

**John:** I could see this being a movie, too. And I agree with you that focusing on the women is clearly the way to tell this story. You want to see why they are doing this and why they are better suited for this task than men would be. And so the article does talk some about that in the sense of when they’re trained to do this they just do a better job, because they’re better able to work with the community. They have these automatic weapons but they don’t turn to those automatic weapons as sort of the first way to get a problem solved. And they work well together as a community, so that is crucial. I think that’s really the center of the storytelling.

In this short story we meet Sgt. Vimbai Kumire. So she’s one of the main women we follow in this story. But Enterprise World also meet Damien Mander. So he’s described as a “tattoo-covered Australian and former special forces soldier who has trained game rangers in Zimbabwe for more than a decade.” And he’s one of those characters who seems kind of interesting and compelling at the start, and yet I kind of don’t want him in the movie. My concern is that no matter what you try to do with this character he’s going to feel like the white savior guy. And that’s the thing I want to see least in this movie is the outsider who tells people how to do something.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So in focusing on this I’d want to find a way to tell the story honesty but that focuses on the women themselves and feels like it’s them solving this issue and not some outsider telling them how to solve this issue.

**Craig:** An alternative way to approach that is to accept the truth of it and then use that to address the white savior-ness of it. Meaning in reality this guy I assume was very useful and he helped trained them. But he’s not the one out there doing it. He’s not the one putting himself on the line. He’s not the one who is going to stay. This isn’t his country. And pointing that out I think is reasonable.

There is a limitation to the value of those people. But there is also real value to them. And that’s interesting. I think even a relationship – and I wouldn’t have it be a romantic relationship in any way, shape, or form – but a relationship between one of the leaders or a leading character of the women and him which is a relationship of mistrust and concern specifically for that reason. Because remember Zimbabwe was not always Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was Rhodesia not so long ago. And the idea of addressing certain aspects of colonialism and asking how do we move forward and how do we live or work together with this behind us is an interesting one.

So there’s an alternative point of view to embrace it and face it head on. But I agree the one thing you can’t do is this old school thing of white guy shows up, teaches black people how to be better Africans, and then leaves. That’s – we don’t do that no more.

**John:** That’s not going to work.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** So I think what we’re both saying is neither of us want this guy to be protagonist or antagonist in the story. He can be a character in the story. He can serve a function, but he should not serve one of those primary functions because that is something we’ve seen a lot and it becomes – I just get the bad kind of goosebumps when I see that.

**Craig:** Bad bumps. Nobody wants bad bumps.

**John:** Nobody wants bad bumps.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** Where does this movie go? Where do we see this kind of movie happening?

**Craig:** Well, this is a movie that if done at a certain level and a certain way could earn a theatrical release because it theoretically could be quite prestigious. I could see it being an award-y kind of movie depending on how it’s done. It could also just be a very down the middle obvious treatment of this material. With all of these movies it’s always more likely that they’re going to be done on a streaming platform because that’s the world we live in. There’s no superheroes in it. Nothing blows up.

But, there is still a space for independent film and even for major studios releasing independently made films that address issues like this, have really interesting casts. I think you can cast this really well. Now more than ever there are some awesome actors of African descent, both American and Caribbean and British. And, of course, African. So there’s a lot of really cool opportunities. I think it could actually be a theatrical movie, but it would need independent love I would think.

**John:** I think you’re right. I could see a Participant or sort of an outside financier being a key player in this to make it happen at a budget level where you can sort of get the production values you really want to see there.

I would say of all the movies we’ve done on a How Would This Be a Movie before it reminded me somewhat of the California firefighter story we read.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** About the female inmates who were California firefighters. In which you a have a setting and a world but you need to pick very specific characters within that story to follow. And we don’t have them quite yet. We have sort of a sense of placeholders for people who could be there, but we don’t have actual characters with journeys. And so any writer who is approaching this is going say like, OK, here is the backdrop, here’s the world. I need to create an entire story. I need to import a story into this or do the firsthand research to figure out what are the stories I can tell that actually have beginnings, middles, and ends and characters who go through transformations. Because we’re not seeing that in this story so far.

**Craig:** Yeah. And this may just be a matter of personal preference but I think I would rather see this movie than the firefighter movie, just because I find the subject matter more interesting and I get to see somewhere I don’t know and learn things I don’t know and be with people that I don’t know. And it’s not that I know those women, but I know California, I know brush fires, I know firefighters. A lot of this we have experience with it. It’s not foreign to us. And I’m attracted by things that are foreign because you learn more. I just do. I mean, it’s one of the reasons I wanted to do Chernobyl. It was not American. It seemed like an opportunity.

**John:** Here’s what’s also great about this story is that as you’re watching this you are aware that the danger to these women could come from any direction. So it could come from other humans in the world. It could come from animals. It could come from gunshots. It could come from poachers. There’s a lot of things that could happen and stand in the way or endanger any of the characters we care about in the story.

In the firefighter movie we’re afraid of the fire mostly.

**Craig:** Fire. Yeah.

**John:** And so we can see that coming. Where we can’t always see bullets coming. Or we can’t see that dangerous panther or tiger or anything else that’s potentially out there. So that’s an interesting difference with this movie. Our last How Would This Be a Movie comes from an advice column in The Cut as well. It’s the Ask Polly advice column written by Heather Havrilesky. This one is about a woman with severe mushroom allergies who becomes convinced that her in-laws are maybe trying to kill her. So it’s not just that they are insensitive to her food sensitivity. They seem to be finding ways to introduce mushrooms into things that have no business having mushrooms in them.

I loved the letter writer’s description, but I especially loved Heather’s response to how nuts this situation was. And she actually says that this feels like the pitch for a dark comedy on premium cable. And, yeah, it kind of does. It’s that idea of like are my in-laws trying to kill me. Maybe they are.

**Craig:** Yeah. Heather went ham, which I love. And she was right to do so. And the letter writer was so weirdly sweet about it and kind of underplayed the insanity of what’s going on here.

Now, look, we live in a world where people will say, “Look, I have this allergy to this thing,” and maybe there’s a little pushback kind of in the air, like a little silent pushback which is, ugh, everyone is allergic to something now. You can see people kind of groaning and rolling their eyes sometimes. Or if someone says, oh yeah, if you’re in a restaurant, “I want the surf and turf but instead of the lobster can I have this because lobster makes me slightly itchy.” You know, I understand there’s a certain kind of, I don’t know, self-indulgent griping you could do about people with allergies.

But the truth is that when somebody has a legitimately troublesome allergy it is life-threatening. It is terrible. As a parent it’s got to be absolutely nightmarish to be policing your own child and just every day wondering is this the day that somebody slips freaking mushrooms in. And the crazy part, the craziest thing, is when after it’s been made clear to her in-laws that she has been hospitalized over this and convulsed in an ambulance because of mushrooms they added mushroom powder to mashed potatoes at a holiday dinner.

What is mushroom powder? I’ve never even heard of mushroom powder. That’s literally poisoning. You are poisoning – you’re trying to poison her. And everybody knows it. And they say things like, you know, “Well, everyone except your wife likes mushrooms and we’re not changing what we eat for one person.” Oh my god. It’s not that she doesn’t like them. It’s that they’ll kill her. So, I think the deal is they want to kill this lady. They’re literally trying to kill her.

**John:** The fact that it seems like they want to kill her is what makes this so compelling. And I think it’s easy to feel sympathy for this woman and I find the husband character really fascinating. Like how much of a doormat is he that he’s not willing to stand up to his family for trying to kill his wife? That isn’t good. But it’s easy to imagine who that family is and how messed up that family must be and how tight that family must be to want to do this.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** I mean, this woman is an outsider marrying into a thing. It feels kind of great.

Now, this allergy by itself is not a movie. So, I think it’s suggesting a jumping off point for a movie, but there would have to be a lot of other things and this mushroom allergy is just like one sign, like a really clear sign of not just the undermining but the dangerous dislike that they seem to have for her. And that, you know, I think what’s relatable is we all kind of imagine that our in-laws don’t really like us, but to have it taken to the extremes is I think what makes it a movie.

**Craig:** Mushroom powder. So, one thing that I always try and remind myself when I read these things is we’re getting one person’s version. Now, it may be that this woman who is writing this letter and who is describing how her in-laws are trying to kill her with mushrooms, she could be awful. She could be an awful person. I’m not saying she is. But there’s a world in which she’s just a racist, nasty, abusive human being. And everyone reasonably loathes her.

Even then you can’t put mushroom powder in the mashed potatoes. You can’t. You can’t. You can’t mushroom somebody. You’re not allowed to mushroom people. There’s other ways to deal with them. You can’t mushroom them to death. That’s just wrong.

Is this a movie? No. It’s not at all a movie to me. I don’t think of it as a movie. I don’t think of it as a series. I think it could be an episode of something that’s kind of interesting. It could be a B-plot that you find out that somebody you hate is allergic to something and somehow mushrooms get – I don’t know.

**John:** I don’t think it’s a movie by itself. But I think the notion of are my in-laws trying to kill me – I think that is enough of a comedy idea that you could build something around it. I think there’s a tremendous amount more story you need to do there, but I think the mushroom aspect of it as am I crazy could work.

And a movie like Game Night comes to mind, where it’s just like it is funny but there is a real darkness underneath it.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you could do a movie where a woman marries a man and it’s one of those interesting paranoid things. And Game Night has a similar aspect to it even though it’s a comedy. There’s a certain paranoia to it. Where she discovers that her husband actually has been married three times before that she didn’t know about and all three of those women died. And so now she’s thinking – and we’re all thinking – oh, he’s a serial wife killer. But he’s not. He insists that he’s innocent and she keeps finding clues. And eventually the big twist is it’s not him. It’s his mom. She keeps killing his wives. That could be cool.

I mean, I’ve just given away the ending.

**John:** To me the pitch is more like right from the start you’re worried about the mother-in-law, but of course she’s talked down, well everyone sort of feels that way about their future mother-in-law. And there’s ups and downs, but when it becomes clear like, wait, something really nuts is happening then there has to be a further step there. There has to be something more than just like, you know, oh, she’s trying to kill me. There has to really go to sort of why they’re trying to kill her, or what it is about that.

So, figuring out what that is – figuring out what’s really behind the family – that’s probably the key to what makes this a movie versus an advice column.

**Craig:** I want you to know there is mushroom seasoning. And there’s some mushroom powder. It’s really rare. I mean it’s just not – it’s not really a thing. You’ve got to go way out of your way – way out of your way – to find like dried porcini mushroom powder or something. They’re trying to kill her.

**John:** They are trying to kill her.

**Craig:** Sorry, based on what I read. I am not accusing anyone of anything. But based on what I read it would seem–

**John:** We don’t know the real family’s name, so they can’t libel us.

**Craig:** Correct. It would SEEM that they are trying to kill her with mushrooms.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, of these four things we’ve talked through which do you think will become a movie and which are you most excited to see if it’s not the same answer?

**Craig:** The Zimbabwe female rangers.

**John:** I would agree with you. I would say that’s probably the most compelling story area. I can imagine some version of the comedy soft serve wars thing happening. That feels like the nostalgic space for that. But I’m probably most excited to see the Zimbabwe anti-poaching rangers.

**Craig:** If Tim Herlihy does agree to come onboard and do the soft serve thing, then that one. But only if.

**John:** Herlihy or bust.

**Craig:** Herlihy or bust. That’s my motto.

**John:** It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is Game to Grow. So it’s this Seattle-based company and they use specially designed D&D experiences, modules and rulebooks, to help kids with anxiety and/or spectrum disorders relate to each other better and work through skills that they can use in real life. It seems great. So I have not met these people, the Adams, but I’ll put links in the show notes to an article about them, what they do. Also a Kickstarter for a thing called Critical Core which are sort of the slimmed down rulebooks that they use to talk through what they’re doing. But you look through this Craig and you’ll obviously recognize so many D&D things you love, but you’ll also recognize some things that are developmentally useful.

So there’s this one to nine scale of developmental capacities which is so true and accurate to sort of how kids process things which is basically how to think critically, how to cooperate going through stuff, how to plan ahead. All the things that you and I do all the time when we play D&D, which I think I probably got a lot out of playing D&D as a teenager, which is so useful and transfers so well to real life decision-making.

So it just seems like a great program, so I’ll tip people towards this and it’s something I’d love to see replicated in other places.

**Craig:** This is brilliant. And I love that the age range is so wide. So they’re looking at kids from ages eight to 20. So, this would certainly be relevant for one of my kids. And, yeah, I’m going to look a little deeper into this. For sure. This looks great.

My One Cool Thing this week is the National Puzzler’s League, otherwise known as MPL. The National Puzzler’s League is, like one hand there’s a magazine, The Enigma, that comes out with lots of puzzles in it. And they also have a national convention. This is not for your casual puzzler. I’m just going to tell you.

So I have friend Dave Shucan who is a brilliant puzzler and puzzle constructor and solver and he goes to the convention and he’s kind enough to say, hey, take a look at this puzzle that I did there. And they are awesome. They are really layered. When I say really layered I mean I tried explaining one to Melissa last night and she stopped me after about 12 words and said, “Please no more. I don’t want to hear anymore.” [laughs]

It’s layers and layers and layers. They’re beautifully done. They’re beautifully constructed. So I’m going to be joining the National Puzzler’s League and the membership for a year is a big whopping $23. I think I can do that. Online-only membership is just $15. So, yeah, I’m totally into that.

So National Puzzler’s League. If you want you can check it out at puzzlers.org and we’ll have a link in the show notes.

**John:** Fantastic. That’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Med Dyer. 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.

Short questions on Twitter are great. So I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the casting notice. So, again, if you think you might know an Abby, a blind actress who is around 15 years old, I’m looking for her. So you can go to johnaugust.com/casting to find out more information about that.

You can find transcripts there as well on the site.

You can find all the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, thank you for helping me figure out whether these things would be movies.

**Craig:** My pleasure, John. Let’s do it again.

**John:** Cool. Bye.

Links:

* [The Shadows Casting Call](https://johnaugust.com/casting) John is looking for a 15 year old blind actress for the lead role — please help by sharing this link with anyone who might be a good fit!
* [Bonus Episode, Chernobyl Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bonus-episode-with-jared-harris/id1459712981?i=1000446954276)
* [Scriptnotes Ep 50, How to Not Be Fat](https://johnaugust.com/2012/how-to-not-be-fat)
* [Decoder Ring: Ice-Cream Truck Wars](https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring/2019/08/decoder-ring-explores-the-world-of-ice-cream-trucks) by Willa Paskin
* [Akashinga Women Rangers Fight Poaching in Zimbabwe Phundundu Wildlife Area](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2019/06/akashinga-women-rangers-fight-poaching-in-zimbabwe-phundundu-wildlife-area/) by Lindsay M. Smith
* [My In-Laws Are Careless About My Deadly Food Allergy](https://www.thecut.com/amp/2019/08/ask-polly-my-in-laws-are-careless-about-my-food-allergy.html) by Heather Havrilesky
* [Game to Grow](https://www.cnet.com/news/game-to-grow-the-dungeons-dragons-game-rescuing-kids-from-their-social-anxieties/?__twitter_impression=true), support on [Kickstarter here](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/gametogrow/critical-core/description)!
* [National Puzzler’s League](http://www.puzzlers.org/)
* [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 Med Dyer ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_414_mushroom_powder.mp3)

Scriptnotes, Ep 413: Ready to Write

August 27, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/ready-to-write).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 413 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to try to answer the question how do you know when you’re ready to write that script. Then we’re going to answer listener questions about rewrites and polishes and whether writing a bad script could put you on a do not hire list.

**Craig:** Do not hire.

**John:** Do not hire!

**Craig:** Do not!

**John:** But Craig, most crucially in follow up, a question a lot of people have been asking – Craig, what’s up? Are you OK?

**Craig:** I’m OK. So the last podcast was the one that you did with – and I was supposed to be there but I couldn’t, essentially connected to this same thing – you did the mental health podcast which we’ll get to in a bit. But prior to that I had to drop out of the race, the Vice Presidential race, the sexiest of all political races, vice president, because of a medical issue in my family.

So, a little context. First of all, no one is dying. I think that’s important for people to know. But I do have a kid who has multiple chronic health issues and there was – I think maybe, ugh, I want to say literally the day after I said, OK, I’ll go ahead and run for vice president we got a call that he had to go into emergency surgery for the second time in a year. And it’s a complicated surgery. It’s not the kind where they poke three holes in you. It’s more like the kind where they make a big line and go Wee. So, good news is he’s recuperating quite nicely, but he does have medical issues that we have to be attentive to. And it seemed to me not only that I was not going to be able to have the time or attention to give to the race, but even worse my ability to serve effectively for two years should I win was fairly compromised because, you know, if this happens again, or if one of his other conditions sort of acts up and that requires attention, then I just won’t be present or able to do the gig.

So, for that reason I had to drop out. But, you know, good news – to be clear – no one is dying. But, you know, it hasn’t been a great month.

**John:** Yeah. Life is challenging at times. And you and I both had some challenges as things happen. So, we’re glad to hear that he’s doing better and that you’re doing OK.

**Craig:** Yes. Yes I am. And I really appreciate. There was a wonderful outpouring of support and people were very lovely, which was nice to see. And we should. We should try and be lovely to each there is a medical crisis going on in a family, but nonetheless it was nice to see and encouraging that, you know, we all know ultimately what matters in life. There’s layers of importance and rankings of importance. And this is one of those things that’s more important.

So, we’re in a pretty decent place, but I think it was the right call to make.

**John:** I agree. Now, you also had a very bright moment of news over these last two weeks. You won a TCA, a Television Critics Association award for Chernobyl.

**Craig:** I won. I keep wanting to give it a name, like the Taco or something like that. The Taca? And I wasn’t able to go to the event and here’s why: because I had to then go to – I’ve been doing a lot of back and forth traveling – my son is at school in Utah, so we were going back and forth over the last few weeks from here to Salt Lake City. And then we had to go from here to Upstate New York to get my daughter from camp. She goes to a performing arts camp. And part of that final weekend when you collect your kid is that’s the big show. And if there’s one thing that movies have taught us, John, is that not seeing your kid in a production makes you a bad parent.

**John:** Oh absolutely. I mean, if there’s a third act lesson there, actually it’s often a first act indication that this is a terrible parent. But then by showing up at the third act moment you’ve redeemed yourself as a parent. So in the magical father wish comedy that is our life you showed up.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, the problem was I knew that there wasn’t going to be a show soon after that one, so I could have just first-acted that one and then arrived for the next one. Like, look, daddy gets it. But, no, I chose to do the right thing and go to see my child perform and it was great. So Jared Harris was able to accept on our behalf.

**John:** Oh nice.

**Craig:** And so it was great. I mean, I’ve never won an award before, I mean, in Hollywood. I’ve won things like in grade school.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Won some Mathlete challenges and such. But, no, it’s lovely. It’s a nice crystal slab and I’m very appreciative. So thank you Television Critics Association. That was super nice. And, you know, either I’m getting killed by critics or they’re giving me lovely crystal slabs. I’m confused. But it was great and very honored to receive something like that. And, you know, hooray.

**John:** Hooray. One of the things you did miss out on was this mental health and addiction panel. So that was last week’s episode we aired it. It really was just a terrific night and I’m so happy that people who have been writing in – it seems like it was meaningful for them as well. So, we talked about what it’s like to write characters with mental health problems or addiction issues, but also what writers should look for in their own lives when it comes to those two topics.

People wrote in with some really great personal stories, which we won’t share here, but it was clear that it touched a nerve for a lot of people. So if you haven’t listened to the episode yet I would recommend you go back and listen to that. Also listen to Episode 99. We will keep talking about these things in the future seasons of Scriptnotes because it’s not a problem that gets solved once.

**Craig:** It’s not. And it’s also not something that shouldn’t be talked about. We just naturally avoid it as people and we shouldn’t. We should be leaning into it. We should not feel any sense of shame. I feel no shame about my emotional issues and my mental difficulties and the medicine I take. And we do need to talk about it because our business, and particularly for writers I think the process of doing what we do as writers and then as writers for screen in particular is emotionally difficult and at times it can be extremely stressful.

And it is no surprise that a lot of writers end up with substance abuse problems. A lot of writers end up deeply depressed. A lot of writers end up with a kind of chronic anxiety that they find difficult to manage. And these are the things we want to avoid desperately, right. You can’t avoid them necessarily, but at least you can manage them and we can help each other by talking about them.

**John:** Yeah. The screenwriter classically is stressed out and isolated which is not a great combination for mental health.

**Craig:** No.

**John:** And so we need to look at ourselves and as an industry how do we do better for everyone who is facing those situations.

**Craig:** Precisely. And so, yes, we should keep talking about this and – and – John, I have an idea.

**John:** Please.

**Craig:** You know so we do nice things for charities. Maybe there’s something we could do for a charity that is involved in this area.

**John:** That would be great. So, a charity that is focused on mental health. If there is a charity that is focused on writer mental health, even better. But we will find ways to do some sort of event that could be benefiting this. I will also say Hollywood Health and Society who organized this event, they’re great. They do a bunch of stuff. And so I hope this is the first of many of these kind of panels we do on different topics.

**Craig:** Yes. And I do hope that I’ll be able to be at the next one. I mean, weirdly enough part of why I wasn’t there was because of these chronic issues, one of which is a mental health issue. So it’s something that’s part of my family and it’s something that we deal with. And we are those people that aren’t embarrassed to talk about it.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** I guess that makes us special.

**John:** Aw. Another very special institution in Hollywood is Deadline. Deadline is the website that we all feel a little bit of shame every time we open because we know it’s bad for us and yet still sometimes we open it up.

**Craig:** I mean, sometimes it’s fine. You know, it’s not all bad. Although I still have like Nikki Finke like PTSD. Because it used to be like just her going bananas. And now, well, now they do things like what they just did to you.

**John:** So, we have complained on previous episodes where they’ll take stuff out of our transcripts and call it an exclusive. Like, oh wow, it’s an exclusive of a podcast that we just recorded and put out for free in the world. I put up a blog post this past week about the myth that the WGA is not negotiating. It was a 1,088 word post that really talked through pretty clearly my thoughts. Deadline thought it did a good job as well and so they took the entire post and wrapped it around in some double quotes at times with like, “August said.” Basically excerpting the whole thing but kind of making it seem like an article.

**Craig:** I mean, you can’t really excerpt it if you take all of it.

**John:** No. So I bitched on Twitter about that and I wrote to the writer, David Robb, saying I don’t think that was appropriate at all. I didn’t say copyright infringement, even though it’s clearly labeled as copyright. Because there’s such a thing as fair use and I want to make sure that fair use is protected and it’s such a crucial institution for dissemination of ideas and culture, especially in a journalistic context.

But to take an entire blog post written by another person and just put it on your site is not really journalism. And as a journalism major back in college if I had done this for a news story–

**Craig:** Oh good lord.

**John:** My professor would not have given me credit for that. It would have been a lecture.

**Craig:** They’re screwing with you now. I really feel like they’re kind of doing it on purpose. I actually had a conversation about this with Nellie Andreeva who works at Deadline. I was talking with her at one of these HBO media events. And she admitted that exclusive was not appropriate. And she said they actually had removed that when they saw it.

But I think that you’re making a really good point about the nature of reproduction. So fair use does say, listen, if there’s newsworthy value to it you can take some of it – some of it. Not all of it. Right? So if you’re taking all of it then I think you would need to do, for instance, so the New York Times or the Washington Post if they’re going to republish say a court document, which is not copyrighted by the way, they still put it kind of in its own little box. And they say, look, here’s the document. We’re not just going to quote the whole damn thing as if we dug it up ourselves and made editorial choices about what to include and what to not include.

I just think it is a violation of some basic principles of journalism and they shouldn’t do it. Also, how about this? Just put the link on there, quote a few things like a normal person would, and put the link on and say if you want to read the whole thing to.

**John:** Like Variety did. That’s what Variety did.

**Craig:** Yes. Like a normal – correct, because that’s normal.

**John:** They made a little summary and they linked out to the article. And so that’s kind of the minimum you could ask them to do. But here’s my probably bigger frustration is that the headline for it is something like John August Sees Long Slog Ahead for Agency Deal Negotiations. And “long slog” was in quotes. And I’m like I really don’t think I said that. So I took a look at my original post, I took a look at the actual post that they had put, and they added the word long and put it inside quotes as if I’d said long slog.

So when I complained specifically about that they took long outside of the quotes, so it was clearly just editorializing that it was going to be long.

**Craig:** Yeah. That’s not right either.

**John:** That’s so wrong.

**Craig:** If you don’t call something a long slog they can’t quote you as saying long slog, nor can they describe it as a long “slog.”

**John:** Because you and I have both been through short slogs. That is a real thing where like, god, you’re grinding and you’re grinding and you’re grinding. It doesn’t mean it takes weeks. It means it’s just a really arduous process.

**Craig:** It’s tough. You can go through a slog of a negotiation for a project that they want to hire you for at a studio and it can be two miserable weeks of slogging. Where it’s back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. A long slog that’s months. That has a specific meaning. That’s not – I think they have failed twice in this regard.

**John:** So, and my frustration with this is that I got people who read – I tweeted out my link to my actual article on my blog and I got feedback from that. And then I got a whole different set of feedback for people who had seen the Deadline piece, not realizing there was a blog post, not realizing I had not said “long slog.” And I could tell they’d read the Deadline piece because it’s like you say it’s going to be a “long slog.” And I’m like, no I didn’t. I didn’t say that. Deadline did. And that’s the frustration, the degree to which it warps the conversation we’re trying to have.

**Craig:** Well, speaking of conversation, let’s have a conversation about what you wrote and your point of view, because I had a little bit of a different point of view on it, as I thought expressed by one of the great GIFs of all time. I thought I picked a great GIF.

**John:** I don’t know the source of that GIF. What is the source of that GIF?

**Craig:** I have no idea either. Nor can I even remember what words I typed into the search to get it. But it was so perfect because it was like – it wasn’t like bad it was just more like, hmm, I don’t know. It actually perfectly encapsulated my response. So, I wanted to kind of walk through it.

**John:** And I should say that my response GIF was Joey giving Chandler a hug from Friends.

**Craig:** So adorable. Nothing can keep us apart. I think it’s really important people understand this. Nothing.

**John:** Nothing.

**Craig:** Although that one person on Deadline does want you to fire me. Oh no, they were on Twitter. Sorry. They wanted you to fire me.

**John:** I don’t think you can really be fired Craig. I just don’t think it’s going to happen.

**Craig:** You can’t fire me. I quit!

**John:** I’m going to stop paying you, Craig!

**Craig:** Oh man. [laughs] So let’s talk through. So do you want to sort of encapsulate your position, or you want me to ask some questions basically?

**John:** Absolutely. Let me give the very short version. We’ll put a link to the actual blog post, not the Deadline post here. I started by saying that I think it’s incredibly important that we have robust discussion of ideas and issues but as a union it’s important to have a common set of facts. And I didn’t feel like we were having a common set of facts on this idea of no negotiation. And that this idea that we weren’t negotiating had become something of a straw man, where it was just presumed at the start and then you could argue against this idea. You know, the WGA says we shouldn’t negotiate. Well, we should negotiate. And so I cited three candidates who are saying we are refusing to negotiate and then I walked through what was actually said at the time that we said we were no longer going to be negotiating directly with the ATA but negotiating with individual agencies, and what had changed in the meantime. What actually happened in the meantime.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So that’s a very short summary of what I wrote.

**Craig:** Yeah. And your suggestion is essentially that the argument of the WGA refusing to negotiate is a bit of a straw man. And it is and it isn’t. So there is imprecise language there, no question. I guess we want to – my point of view is let’s talk about what is sort of the significant core of this complaint, even if the language is imprecise that the WGA refuses to negotiate.

The complaint is that the WGA refuses to negotiate in any effective way with the big four agencies that essentially, A, control the ATA, and B, represent the great majority of our membership. I don’t think there’s much of an argument there, is there?

**John:** I think there is an argument there. Here’s what I think is fair to say. That the WGA has said that instead of negotiating with the ATA that we wanted to negotiate with the agencies individually. Specifically in Goodman’s point he says, “The top nine agencies,” so the big four and the next five agencies. We want to focus on them. And so have individual discussions with those agencies.

So it is fair to say that we are choosing not to negotiate with the ATA, refusing – not negotiate with the ATA. And to the degree that you’re not negotiating with the big four because they are only agreeing to negotiate through the ATA. That’s not as well established. But it seems like their preference is to negotiate through the ATA.

**Craig:** Well, that’s where I’m not sure I agree on that. Part of the issue is you can say, listen, we don’t want to negotiate with the ATA anymore. We just want to negotiate with the individual agencies and that includes CAA and WME and UTA and ICM. But the problem is that when David Goodman makes that statement he is well aware – I think we’re all well aware – that because of the nature of the proceedings prior to that moment which is kind of nothing happening, they make a proposal, we do not respond in any way to that proposal. Then they come back. They unilaterally raise their proposal. And we say after some time we’re not negotiating with you anymore. That that was in effect a secession of negotiations. And that it was incredibly improbable that without some sort of significant change in something that the individual agencies would not then take David Goodman up on this invitation.

**John:** Can you wind back that last sentence? So you’re saying that it was improbable that any agency would agree to individually negotiate?

**Craig:** I’m talking about the big four.

**John:** OK.

**Craig:** And the reason I keep talking about the big four is while we have signed some other agencies, I think it’s important to say that – unless I’m wrong about this – I don’t think we’ve signed any agencies that actually were engaging in packaging fees and affiliate production in any significant manner. Meaning we haven’t done anything to change anything yet. In fact, after about a half a year what we’ve done is essentially bring back a few agencies to the state that they were in prior to the action we took. I don’t really think we’ve changed much there.

**John:** I don’t think that is accurate or fair in terms of the agencies that we’ve signed and also just the packaging deals that have not happened as a result of this action.

**Craig:** So they were packaging?

**John:** Some of these smaller agencies were packaging. Verve was packaging. As I believe Kaplan-Stahler had a package on a significant property as well. So these are agencies who I think given their druthers would love to continue packaging.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** They’ve decided to not package in order to sign this deal.

**Craig:** I will acknowledge that. But I think in turn you would probably agree that none of those agencies were packaging in any significant way, or at least in terms of the percentage of shows that are packaged. They were responsible for maybe a cumulative total of 1%.

**John:** A much smaller percent than the big four. Absolutely. No argument there.

**Craig:** And so when we began this fight – look, when Chris Keyser came on our show and the three of us were in violent agreement that we needed to do something about packaging fees and affiliate production, the three of us were talking about four agencies effectively, because those four agencies account for the greatest majority, I mean, a vast majority of all of the packaging fees and packages that are implemented and all of the affiliate production that is implemented.

So, yes, we can absolutely say we have signed Kaplan-Stahler. Or Verve. But I don’t think we can say that we have effectively engaged in negotiations with the four agencies that are responsible for the problem that we are all really angry about. I think sometimes people think like maybe I’m on the agencies’ side because I criticize the way we’re handling things, but I’m actually – it’s because I hate the stuff that the agencies are doing that I criticize the guild because I want the guild to do better.

And now we have a difference of opinion of how to accomplish that, but I think I would push back on you in the sense of, listen, yes, there was some sloppy language there, but there is a decent point to be made that because of the way we have handled things we have yet to negotiate effectively, nor have we shown a great willingness through behavior to negotiate effectively with those individual four agencies.

**John:** I would say that folks who attend the WGA public meetings will get a sense of sort of where the strategy is currently and where it’s headed to. And that the big four – negotiating with the big four agencies remains a priority.

**Craig:** Well that’s good to hear. I mean, because I’ve been pretty consistent about this all along. That is where our victory is. Some people I think – I’ve seen some things where some members of our union seem to feel that we’d be better off without them and I will just continue to maintain that down that path lies peril for us. It’s not that we’re being deprived of their wondrousness. It’s that we may be subject to some anti-wondrousness. I mean, just this week I got a call about something and I was like, ugh, and it involved an agency – not CAA – which was my agency. One of the other big four agencies. That lit me on fire. I mean, I was so angry. I was just like pouring gasoline into bottles and shoving rags and I was ready man.

And then I’m like, OK, let’s just figure out how to deal with this and stop this. But it is infuriating. Some of the behavior that they engage in is infuriating. And I want to win. And the way I at least think about winning is that we figure out how to get them back from what they’re doing into a place where they’re actually advocating for us as clients.

So, I think you brought up good points. I thought that some of the people pushing back on you brought up good points. I think that as long as we keep our eye on this – what you’re saying is a priority – I don’t know how we get to this priority because there’s a lot of now anger between these parties and a lot of mistrust. But whatever can happen, hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

**John:** All right. So let’s take a meta moment here to look back at the discussion we just had. And so you and I did not convince each other of anything, but we expressed our ideas and our opinions on sort of where things have been, where they’re going, and what the best course of action is. The degree to which we can model that behavior for other folks I think would be terrific. One of the functions I sort of see myself as a person who is not running for reelection is to remind people both in big rooms and online that we are remarkably lucky. That we are remarkably lucky that we are some of the most talented writers out there. We’re some of the most highly-paid writers out there. We’re the only writers in the world who get to have a union that gets to represent them this way.

So, we are starting from a position of just tremendous luck and luxury. And the fact that we have so many people who care so passionately about what the future is for all of us writers is great. And so let’s all approach this from a perspective of we may disagree on ideas and tactics and strategies, but the degree to which we can compassionately disagree and not question people’s motives but question people’s ideas, that’s how we come out of this in strength.

**Craig:** 100%. We should be able to stress test each other’s ideas on these things. And we should be able to do it publicly. I don’t think that asking why we are doing this or that in some way is going to damage our solidarity. Our solidarity at least to me is not a function of our allegiance to any given leadership. Because if it were our solidarity would have to kind of whipsaw back and forth depending on who just got elected.

Our solidarity is based on our willingness as members, even when we disagree, to follow our working rules and send in our dues. And what that means is when there’s an action like this one and we have a working rule that says you can’t go back to your agent until this is solved, you don’t go back to your agent. That’s where solidarity is. It’s not in agreeing with every single thing either Phyllis Nagy or David Goodman says. That would be – down that path essentially is just sort of a, I don’t know, a kind of a poverty of imagination and thought.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And I do think you’ve put your finger on it that as we go through these things to the extent that we can avoid deciding that some people are just bad because they think a certain thing about a strategy we should – it’s a shame. Because I do feel like every single person that is running in this race, every single one of them, legitimately wants to do something that they believe is best for writers. Nobody is getting a payoff or a kickback or anything. I mean, there’s been some crazy allegations made. So, yeah, let’s just reduce the temperature a bit. And I think maybe give ourselves credit for being strong enough to withstand an election which we’re supposed to have anyway.

**John:** Yep. And honestly I would rather have some disharmony than apathy. And so many years we’ve had apathy where we’ve had to basically twist people’s arms just to get enough people to actually run for the board or to run for office. So, it’s a good problem to have that we have many people who want to do this unpaid job for two years.

**Craig:** I completely agree. And one of the downsides to the – you know, we never really had uncontested elections and then suddenly we did just because we couldn’t find people to run. And one of the downsides is you start to create a generation of members who are not used to contested elections. And we can be frightened by them, even. And we don’t want that for the very reason you’re saying. We want a good competition of ideas and as long as our members are following our working rules and going by the kind of action that we’re taking then we do have meaningful solidarity. We don’t need solidarity of opinion. We need solidarity of behavior. And that’s important. And I don’t think that we should ever put something like an election in the context of hurting our leverage or anything like that.

If an election hurts our leverage than our leverage is terrible. That’s how I guess I would put it. So, you know, hopefully yeah, people can kind of just be nice to each other because they’re writers. And we deserve that from each other.

**John:** Absolutely. All right, let’s do a final bit of follow up. Back in Episode 399 we sat down with a bunch of studio executives to talk about how they give notes and how they could give better notes. Steph Cowan wrote in, Craig would you read what Steph wrote for us?

**Craig:** Sure. Steph writes, “I was right in the middle of a what-am-I-doing-with-my-life-I’m-not-cut-out-for-this moment when I heard your episode Talking Austin in Austin with Lindsay Doran. At the time I’d been working in the theater industry developing new musicals for about eight years. I’d been told that I’m too nice and cared too much to be a commercial producer and that I’m better suited for the lit department of a non-profit instead.

“Then Lindsay Doran said something like as a producer I consider myself the guardian of the storytelling. And I teared up. This was exactly how I felt. It’s still how I feel. And to hear a successful, admirable producer say it was deeply reassuring. I felt that reassurance again when Craig said I think you’re told not to be vulnerable, addressing studio executives in Episode 399. He’s right. We are, in the Broadway world anyway.

“Knowing that showing our love for the story and the team is strength gives me hope that maybe I am cut out for this. It’s also very exciting for me to hear how to give more effective notes. I can’t wait to share this episode with my colleagues.”

John, this is great. Especially because Steph comes from Broadway and we love Broadway.

**John:** We love Broadway. I’m headed to Broadway soon to see four shows in a very short period of time. But my experience making a Broadway show is that there is that function of a producer in terms of being a cheerleader, in terms of being a person who is putting a giant hug around an idea which is still forming. It is really crucial. And so you look for those ones who can do what Lindsay Doran says and sort of be a champion and a challenger and a person pushing you to make the very best thing. So, it sounds like that’s what Steph was taking out of these two episodes.

**Craig:** You know what? I’m starting to think this podcast is a good idea.

**John:** Maybe so. Maybe you should keep doing just a few more.

**Craig:** Why not?

**John:** Unless it turns out that we are wrong about the words of English.

**Craig:** Let’s find out.

**John:** “Hi Craig. I’m one of those Johnny Came Lately show listeners who have washed up because of Chernobyl. Sorry. I’m sure a bunch of people have already pointed this out but I just listened to a second podcast where you poured scorn on “heigth” specifically, characterizing it as a construction of illiterate youth. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is old school. It was good enough for Milton and it’s good enough for us, right?”

And then there’s a link, line 324 if you’re following the link in the show notes. “Cheers and thanks for a really well put together podcast.”

**Craig:** Well thank you anonymous writer. I’m glad you washed ashore as a result of Chernobyl. So, of course, I felt a little bit red-cheeked here. I mean, am I wrong? Is heigth a word? Maybe it is. If it’s good enough for Milton – that sounded like a pretty smart phrase.

So I went ahead and looked at the reference here which is, of course, to Paradise Lost, book two, line 324. And in line 324 it says, “In heigth or depth, still first and last will reign.” OK, that’s embarrassing. But I’d like to point out that five lines later it says, “War hath determined us and foiled with loss.” War is spelled with two Rs and foiled has no E. We don’t do that anymore. This is archaic. It is not applicable.

I mean, if we’re going to say that heigth is acceptable because it’s in Milton I guess we can start spelling war W-A-R-R. No. I reject this. I reject this.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. And you know what? For arbitrary reasons. Language can change. Language can grow, evolve. Absolutely. But if Craig says no, Craig can say no. And he’s just not going to use that word. He’s not going to use the heigth. He’s not going to accept it.

**Craig:** And I’m also going to continue to say that people are wrong. Unless, here’s the exception: if somebody randomly says heigth and I’m like did you just say heigth, and they said, “Well yeah, I know, but Milton,” I’ll say stop, you can do it. Just you.

**John:** So the Milton clause is what gets you out of it.

**Craig:** Milton clause.

**John:** The Milton clause. All right. Let’s do our marquee topic. This was inspired by a conversation with Katie Silberman two episodes back. Also I just saw Andrea Berloff’s movie The Kitchen and I had a Twitter conversation with Alison Luhrs who is a designer at Wizards of the Coast and she’s going to be coming on the show in a future episode. But they were all talking about the process of writing. Katie Silberman did all these pages in advance before she started actually writing. She would dialogue pages endlessly to do stuff.

Andrea Berloff was talking about the research she did for The Kitchen. Alison Luhrs was talking about these giant encyclopedias they built for these fantasy worlds that they’re doing for Match of the Gathering and for Dungeons and Dragons.

And so I want to talk just a bit about how do you know when you’ve done enough of that prep stuff and that you’re really ready to write. And Craig and I have different perspectives on this. We do different kind of advanced work. But I want to talk about how each of us feels like, OK, I’m ready to actually start writing scenes.

**Craig:** Yeah. So this may be one of those things where we talk through it and ultimately what it boils down to is we each have our own finger print about this. And what it comes down to is when are you comfortable. When do you feel like you actually can do the good stuff? Which is finding yourself in that moment and writing out a scene and feeling really good about it.

And for me, and this has been this way for so long, I mean, it’s almost getting more this way: I really love to prepare. I love to know exactly what every scene is going to be and what happens in it, even though of course I can deviate. I’m one of those people that goes all the way basically to I need to know what the script is before I start writing the script. And I guess maybe in that regard I’m probably closer to Katie Silberman than I am to you I’m thinking.

**John:** Yeah. And I’m very much not that. But I think the kinds of things that I want to know are probably similar to things you want to know, it’s just that you’re actually doing a written down version of it and I’m just carrying a bunch of stuff in my head and not writing it down.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And why it’s relevant really for this season and this moment is I think you’re just about to start writing something new, or you have already started writing something new?

**Craig:** I’m about to start writing something new. Correct.

**John:** As am I. So this is top of mind for me. Also this is development season. So this is when new TV shows are getting pitched and people are starting to write them. So a lot of people are at this moment right now in town.

**Craig:** There’s still a season to these things?

**John:** There’s still a season certainly for broadcast. We’ve been through staffing and now the folks who are generally not in a room on a show are developing for stuff and they’re going out and pitching things to networks and studios. So that still exists.

**Craig:** All right. Well, good.

**John:** So let’s talk about the idea. And so for me before I start actually writing any scenes I want to know what is this movie or show, what does it look like/feel like if you sort of squint your mind a little bit. What is the shape of it? What category is it? What does it feel like? What does the music feel like? This is the time where I might start putting together a playlist of the music that feels like the show or the movie to me. I think about the trailer. I think about the one sheet. I just feel like pulling back far out, even not looking at specific story, what kind of movie is that. And I need to know that really early on and certainly before I start writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. Obviously I’ve just sort of given my thing away, but speaking specifically of that, that’s the big one. You can – I think anyone can start whenever they want, but after that. Because I think a lot of people think that what they need to start writing is an idea. And an idea, if it’s just the plot, if it’s just the log line, that’s actually not enough.

**John:** Oh not at all.

**Craig:** Not enough. If what you have is, ooh, what if a guy woke up and every day was the same day. That’s not enough. You need to know about why that idea matters.

**John:** Yeah. A thing we talk about on the show a lot is that many ways screenwriting is making a movie in your head and then writing the description of like that movie that you see in your head. And so if you don’t have the basis for sort of like what does this look like in my head, what does this sound like, what does it feel like, then you’re not anywhere close to really starting to write. So I suspect for Chernobyl you had done the research and you had a sense of like visually what does this feel like. What is going to feel like to be watching this show? And you have to have that early on.

And to me that comes before the characters. The characters are the next really crucial step here, but I need to know sort of what kind of thing am I trying to do and who are the characters who are populating this world. Not just my hero. I need to know what are the relationships between the central characters. Where would we find them at the start? Where would they get to by the end? What is the trajectory that they’re going through?

So even though unlike Craig I’m not going to do a full outline that’s sort of going scene by scene, I definitely need to know who are these people and what is the journey that they’re going to be going on through this block of time.

**Craig:** Yeah. You can see your guide posts along the way. So you understand no matter what’s happening, even if you’re not necessarily writing from a description of what the scene should be, you understand where you’ve come from and you understand where you’re going. And if you don’t know where you’re coming from and you don’t know where you’re going, that’s when screenplays start getting very purpley and self-indulgent and talky and flabby. I mean, I’ve seen this so many times where I just think they didn’t know.

**John:** They didn’t know.

**Craig:** They were just writing their way through a forest hoping that they would stumble across something. And eventually they do, but that’s their problem. I’m not here to go on your fact-finding mission. I’m here to go on a carefully curated tour of your deep dark forest. So, I mean, you can obviously find your way through those things, but you can’t show it to anybody until you’ve–

**John:** Yeah. And the thing is you can have your general idea, you can have your characters, but unless you sort of knew what is specifically the story of this movie, which comes down to a thing we’ve talked a lot about recently which is what is that central dramatic question, what is that central argument, what is the thing the movie or the episode of television is really about. And if you don’t know that going in – sometimes you can succeed honestly. There’s been stuff I’ve started writing where I didn’t really quite know what is that thematic thing that’s pulling it all together, but I had – even if I couldn’t say it aloud I had a sense of what it felt like. I had a sense of what I was going for. What space this occupied. And it’s the scripts that you read where I just don’t think you actually know where you’re going are the ones where they didn’t have a sense of that right when they started writing.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, listening to you, what you’re not talking about is plot.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** I mean, I think this is where people go wrong. They think they’re ready to write when they know what the plot is. The plot – first of all, I don’t even know how you know what the plot is unless you know the things that you’re talking about. Because at that point then you’re probably just creating something episodic and plotty with no purpose or meaning or anything greater than that.

You do need to do all this kind of internal psychological examination of why this story should exist. I mean, when you write a screenplay you are writing a proposal for some entity to invest tens of millions of dollars into its creation. Why? Why? Why would anyone do that to your thing? Well that’s the question you’re asking yourself now and that’s the question you need to answer before you start.

**John:** Yeah. At a certain point you are going to start thinking about plot. You’re going to be thinking about what are the moments. What are the set pieces? What are the moments in the story where things take a big turn? If this were a broadcast episode or pilot you’d be thinking what are the act breaks? Where are the moments where things really take a big turn, where are the cliffhangers in the story?

Before I would start writing I would have to have a sense of what are those big really visual things that are going to show what has happened in the story. So that’s where I need a sense of what is the world like. What is the world like at the start of the movie? What are the different sort of sets or places I’m going to be seeing over the course of this story?

I say this on the podcast a lot, but Susan Stroman, director of Big Fish, said she never wanted to see the same set twice. I don’t hold myself to that, but I definitely like her sense that we should not be coming back to the same place without there having been a change. Without something fundamental having been changed about the character or that place or the situation if we’re coming back to this thing. So what is the geographic journey of this story and what is the color journey through the story. What is changing about how this looks on screen as I’m going through this story?

I’ll have that sense pretty early on, generally before I’ve started writing any scenes.

**Craig:** This goes a little bit to that notion of the dialectic. You’re creating something and then it must change. There must be a constant change happening in storytelling. If you end up in that flat space or that circular space people will start to feel bored and for good reason. You’re treading water. You’re almost wasting time. I don’t know how else to put it. You’re literally wasting people’s time.

Good stories are narratives in which people’s relationships with each other, themselves, and the world around them are constantly changing. Every single scene exists in order to create a change. So you’re absolutely right. Coming back around to some place you’ve been before is only interesting if you’re different or that place is different. And the contrast is the whole purpose, right? So, these things need to be determined. If you end up just sort of noodling your way I think you probably will find yourself in that same diner having a similar conversation again.

**John:** Yep. Let’s talk about the dangers of starting too early. And starting the process of actually writing scenes too early before you have that stuff figured out. To me it’s that in the times where I’ve done it myself I outline my supply lines, like I get too far ahead of myself and I just haven’t built the infrastructure behind me to get myself forward, to get myself to this next thing. And so, man, I wrote a great first ten pages. Man, that’s a good first 30 pages. Wow, I have no idea how to get through the next 90. I didn’t have enough story figured out or I didn’t have enough figured out about how I was going to get from this point to a point I know I’m going to head towards later on. So outrunning myself is a real problem if I haven’t really thought through where stuff is.

I’ve often found myself where I have the right hero in the wrong story. I have the right story with the wrong hero. If I haven’t done that real thinking I might have smooshed these two things together but they’re not well suited for each other. And I would have been able to figure that out if I really thought through all those other things before I started writing scenes.

**Craig:** Yeah. I also think one of the dangers of starting too early is inefficiency of storytelling. As you go through you will be incapable of writing tightly, meaning everything has been really carefully considered so that the audience has experienced a pure storytelling unfold in front of them, a kind of a pure storytelling unfold in front of them, rather than a meandering or a wandering about or any kind of circular motion. But rather everything has been carefully machined so that there is – we understand that scenes have transitions and that this scene is a reflection of a scene earlier. And that this moment recontextualizes that moment.

There is essentially craft going on. And part of craft is efficiency of craft. It’s no wasted space. No wasted cloth. No wasted movement. But rather an elegance as if this thing had landed whole and already told in your lap. And it’s hard to do that when you’re kind of making it up as you go.

**John:** Yep. Let’s also talk about the dangers of starting too late. And I don’t know if you’ve encountered this much in your career, but there have been projects where I kind of did all the prep work and I maybe overdid the prep work a little bit and by the time I started writing I kind of gotten past it. Where the thing that attracted me to it was no longer attractive to me and I was looking at this as a chore rather than a thing I was excited to write.

And so I think part of the reason why sometimes I don’t do the laborious preparation is that I’m afraid of falling out of love with something, or being distracted by something else that’s newer and shinier. I want to start writing when I’m still really attracted and excited by this property. There’s a passion to it. And sometimes if I’ve burned off that passion in outlines and other things, especially if I had to show them with other people, then the actual starting to write is no longer thrilling for me.

**Craig:** Interesting. Yeah, I can totally see that being a problem. Certainly I think one of the hallmarks of starting too late is you’re dealing from fear. Something is holding you – you’re afraid to write. I think a lot of times people abuse the pre-writing process, whether it’s outlining or research not to set themselves up for writing success but rather to avoid writing failure. They’re only valuable to set yourself up for success. They are only useful tools. They can’t forestall any trouble. So at some point you’re going to have to dive in.

For me, I do feel a little bit of a sense of exhaustion and completion once I’m done with a 50-page scriptment. But then take a week or two and then when you start writing what you find is – at least I find – that the act of now full creation of a scene is invigorating again. That rather than thinking about an entire movie and a whole series of movements and character changes and resolutions and reversals, all I have to think about is this one little short film. And that is – that kind of makes me fall in love with it all over again. And I get to do that without worrying that I don’t know what to do next, because I do know what to do next.

**John:** Yeah. That is definitely an advantage to that is – what’s ironic is that I’m a person who tends to write out of sequence. You’re more likely to write in sequence. You could write out of sequence probably more easily–

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Because any of those moments – you could take a moment from page 30 of your script and just write it because you know it’s going to fit back in. I will write something because it’s what appeals to me to write that day. So even within I think all of our suggestions about figuring out adequate preparation and that everyone is different, it really does come down to people ultimately recognize what they need to have done before they start writing. And you should try some different things to figure out what works for you so you actually get scripts written and finished that you are happy with.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, maybe a general rule of thumb is if you find yourself frightened while you’re writing, and scared of the dark, then maybe you should be putting more time in ahead of time. If you find yourself feeling a bit dry and a bit like a horse on a lead, then maybe you need to do less to start with so that you have a little bit more of a sense of play while you’re going. You just have to dial into yourself.

But listen to what your mind is telling you as you go. Because none of this is orthodoxy. It’s all really about what makes your unique brain put out its best work.

**John:** Agreed. All right, let’s take two questions. First we have Leslie from Australia. She writes, “I’m questioning my sanity because I’m currently in a disagreement with a producer over what constitutes a polish versus a draft and I’m hoping you can help shed some light on this. I was hired and paid to write a feature for this producer. He and his backer loved what I did. I gave them a couple free polishes afterwards to address some feedback we got from a mucky-muck in the industry and they were delighted with that, too.

“A second producer has come onboard and given his notes on what he thinks needs changing. The first producer and his backer now agree with him and they’ve asked me how much I’d charge for a polish, or as they put it, ‘A strong polish.’ I told them the changes they’re asking for amounted to a draft, not a polish, or even a ‘strong polish,’ whatever that is, but they disagreed. So, when I gave them a reasonable quote for a draft they rejected it. I would love to get your take on what a polish is versus a draft. I may be way off base – I don’t think I am – but I’m willing to be schooled.

“Also, I’ve never heard of the term ‘strong polish’ before. Is that even a thing?”

Craig?

**Craig:** That is not a thing.

**John:** No.

**Craig:** No. No, no, no, Leslie. That’s not a thing. That is a term invented by con artists to get you to do more for less. I mean, that’s all that’s going on here. They want more for less.

Here’s a rough rule, because there is not a ton of super specificity about this. And when you say a draft, for those of us here we would probably call that a rewrite. In my mind a polish is something that happens in about three weeks, or less. And if it’s more than that, it’s a rewrite. That’s kind of roughly how it goes. So, that’s sort of what I would say. And then the question is how much can you do in three weeks? Whatever you’re comfortable with doing.

So generally speaking a polish would not be re-rigging the plot. It would be fixing some characters. It would be maybe one or two characters need some work on their dialogue. There’s two scenes that need kind of reinventing or reimagining. That feels like a polish.

If they’ve got systematic issues that they need you to address or want you to address, that’s a rewrite. And if they don’t want to pay for it they can gaslight you all they want. They can tell you it’s a polish all they want. They can invent new phrases like strong polish. But that’s gas-lighting. They’re just trying to get more for less.

**John:** So, Leslie, even if you were working here, even if you were working in this town with schedules of minimums and things like this, you would still be dealing with this question of calling this a rewrite, calling this a polish. Them trying to get you to do more for a little bit less.

WGA has specific terms for what polish means and for what a rewrite means. Polish involves character work and dialogue. Things that change story in a major way tend to be rewrites. But functionally Craig is correct when he says it’s really more about time. That’s what we think about when we think about a polish. A polish is a matter of just a week or two, three weeks. If it’s multiple weeks and a lot of work that tends to be a rewrite.

And so Leslie I think you were right to be suspicious and I’m sorry that this didn’t work out on this draft. But whether they called that a polish or a rewrite, they didn’t want to pay you money for it and that’s where I think it comes down to it.

**Craig:** Well they wanted to pay her something, just not what she deserves. And I’ll point out you’ve already done a couple of free polishes.

**John:** Yes!

**Craig:** So this is what happens. We are not rewarded for “good behavior.” We’re punished for it. They don’t look at you as somebody who has done them a solid favor and therefore they now owe you something. What they do is look at you as somebody that they exploited successfully and so they will continue to exploit you. That’s what bullies do.

Now, when it comes to capitalism that’s essentially what capitalism is. It’s economic bullying. And they’re going to do what you’re going to do. And so you’re going to have to stand up for yourself and say no. And based on the way you’re describing this I’m just wondering where the copyright for this rests. You’re in Australia. I don’t think they have work-for-hire there. You may have more leverage than you think. I think it’s time for you to get somebody else involved to help represent you with them.

You’ve probably seen a lot of cop shows where the job of the police is to convince their suspect to not bring a lawyer in because if they bring a lawyer in it’s going to be much harder to get them to spill their guts and confess. Well, this is sort of like that. These guys don’t want you to bring a lawyer in. So, bring a lawyer in.

**John:** Agreed. Do you want to take Justin’s question?

**Craig:** Justin from Hawthorne asks, “Hello Screen Wizards.” I like Justin. “I’m writing today to see if the tales of the Do Not List from Hell exist in present times. I’ve heard rumors of this list but I can’t imagine it to be true. I’m worried I might be on it and I’m praying that the years of hard work attempts to crack open a career as a screenwriter won’t be thwarted by earnest and possibly haphazard times when maybe I was too eager or submitted my material too early? If it’s real, can somebody who is on this list ever get off of it?”

**John:** So I provided some off-mic context for Craig because this Do Not List is apparently an idea that producers or studios or other folks in town have a list of like never hire this person, or like there’s a do not list. This person is a hack and don’t hire them.

I think individual people will have their lists of writers they don’t want to hire, but it’s generally because they worked with the writers and the writers were bad for them. You writing something that wasn’t good, it doesn’t help you, but it doesn’t hurt you for a long time. It doesn’t stick around. People’s memories are kind of short when it comes to stuff they didn’t like. If they read a script that they really like of yours, they’ll hire you on to do more things.

So, I would say don’t be worried about your early work. Always be mindful if you’re sending stuff out make sure it’s good and it’s professional and that it’s showing your best light. But if you didn’t, stop worrying about it. Instead worry about writing good new stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah. When people read something that someone has submitted, an original or something like that, and they don’t like it, they throw it out. They don’t run to a special list called Oh My God This Person Wrote a Terrible Script. Because they know as well as anybody that somebody can write a terrible script and then four weeks write something wonderful. That does happen, right? Sometimes we’re working in the wrong genre. Sometimes for whatever reason it just doesn’t work.

John is correct. There are lists. First of all, there are lists. It’s important for people to know that. I’ve seen them. They exist. There are lists. And those lists are people that either a studio or a producer believes are well worth hiring and working with and they can make levels of them. I mean, the whole phrase A-list came from original list had A, B, C. And there are lists of, nope, we’re not hiring that person here. They usually don’t write that down because they don’t want to deal with any legal issues, but they are always on that list because there’s been a bad employment experience.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** Not because they wrote a bad script. If the studio hasn’t paid for it, they’re not going to blame you for it, dude. Most scripts are bad. How about that? You’re going to be fine.

**John:** Yep. He’s going to be fine.

**Craig:** He’s going to be fine.

**John:** Let’s do our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things this week. The first is a delicious cookie. It is the Oreo Thin.

**Craig:** I love those.

**John:** If you’ve not tried the Oreo Thins, they’re good and they’re so much better. And they’re crispier. So you owe it to yourself to try an Oreo Thin. Even if you don’t really love Oreos you’ll probably love Oreo Thins. They are terrific.

The second is a thin book. It is Monsters and Creatures: A Young Adventurer’s Guide. It’s by the D&D people. And what I like about it is it’s designed for young middle grade readers and they’re smaller books. They’re hardcover, but they just have all the cool illustrations of dragons and owlbears and all this stuff. Basically art work that Wizards probably had sitting around and they found a good way to repackage it and write some new text. It’s written by Jim Zub.

**Craig:** Hold on.

**John:** What a great name, right?

**Craig:** I think Jim Zub is in the monster manual. I think I’ve faced off a crimson Jim Zub.

**John:** They’re nicely done and to me it feels like if I were a six-year-old kid who was obsessed with dinosaurs I would also be obsessed with these books because it’s dragons and cool stuff. There’s other books – Warriors and Weapons, Dungeons and Tombs. So if you have somebody who you want to give this kind of gift to who is not really ready for actual D&D it feels like a good starter thing.

**Craig:** You round the corner and see in the room a giant Zub. What do you do? [laughs]

**John:** Yeah. So is a Zub one of the things where you stab with your sword and then your sword rusts away?

**Craig:** Probably. That seems Zub-like.

**John:** Zub-like.

**Craig:** It’s definitely Zub-like. Well, listen, you had two One Cool Things. I’m going to give our listeners a break and just say they deserve two One Cool Things. And also I didn’t have one.

**John:** That sounds good. So, Craig, I’ll give you half credit on the Oreo Thins because you also agree they’re good, right?

**Craig:** I have eaten them, so yeah.

**John:** All right. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Michael Karman. 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. But for short questions, on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

People do recaps on Reddit so you can check the recap for this episode and a couple episodes back if you’d like. You can find the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net or download 50-episode seasons at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, it’s good to be back with you doing a normal Skype show.

**Craig:** Very good to be back with you and we’ve got some really interesting shows coming up, so–

**John:** We do. I’m excited. And off-mic we’re going to talk about some big special guests.

**Craig:** All right.

**John:** Have a good week.

**Craig:** You too.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Myth of No Negotiation](https://johnaugust.com/2019/the-myth-of-no-negotiation)
* Deadline’s “Exclusive” on [John’s Blogpost](https://deadline.com/2019/08/john-august-wga-long-slog-agency-deal-negotiations-1202662054/)
* [John Milton, Paradise Lost](https://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_2/text.shtml)
* [Monsters Creatures: A Young Adventurer’s Guide](https://amzn.to/31xMkk7) by Jim Zub
* [Oreo Thins](https://www.oreo.com/Thins)
* [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 Michael Karman ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_413_ready_to_write.mp3)

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (73)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (490)
  • Formatting (130)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (237)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2025 John August — All Rights Reserved.