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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Ep: 400, Movies They Don’t Make Anymore Transcript

May 24, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

Craig Mazin: Hi folks. On today’s episode there is some language, some salty language, so if you’re in the car with your children go ahead and stop playing it or put the earmuff’s on them.

Male Voice: What the F are you talking about?

Craig: Wow.

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

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 400 of Scriptnotes.

Craig: Wow.

John: A podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: Today on this, our quartercentenary, we are going to be talking about movie genres and sub-genres that aren’t getting made anymore, and how we can fix this. To help us out we are joined by a guest from exactly 100 episodes ago. Chris McQuarrie is a writer and director whose credits include The Usual Suspects, Valkyrie, Jack Reacher, the last two Mission: Impossibles, the next two as well. Chris McQuarrie, welcome back.

Chris McQuarrie: Thank you very much for having me.

Craig: So the deal is every 100 episodes we have worked up enough tolerance to have McQuarrie back.

Chris: You know, Craig–

Craig: Here we go.

Chris: You weren’t here for the last one.

Craig: That’s why it wasn’t very good. [laughs]

Chris: And I miss that.

Craig: I can tell. Chris McQuarrie and I have been engaged in a, what, 15-year-long argument about everything.

Chris: About everything.

Craig: Literally everything.

Chris: I don’t think it’s even much – it’s not so much an argument as it is a–

Craig: It’s a love story at this point.

Chris: It’s the duelists.

Craig: Yes, exactly.

Chris: I think that’s how you would describe our relationship.

Craig: Correct. You wake up in the morning, you go to work, fighting this man you must fight.

John: So back in Episode 300 I was talking to you and we were both living in Paris because you were directing Mission: Impossible. It hadn’t come out yet. You were in the middle of shooting it. It turned out really well, so congratulations on that.

Chris: Thank you.

Craig: Amazing.

Chris: Thank you very much.

Craig: And two more to come.

Chris: Two more to come.

Craig: So the idea is you’ll make these until they kill you? Meaning the movies are going to kill you.

Chris: It’s more likely that they will kill me than they will kill Tom Cruise.

Craig: No, nothing kills Tom Cruise. You’ve proven that. By the way, openly attempting to murder him through film. I mean, everyone knows what you’re doing.

Chris: I have been described as his enabler. He describes me as his enabler. I’m not actually trying to kill him, I’m just trying to–

Craig: Could have fooled me.

Chris: I’m trying to just – no, he would – he would be doing most of this stuff–

Craig: Movie number one, let’s drown him. Movie number two, oh, hang him off a plane–

Chris: Well the drowning I don’t think he would try to do.

Craig: Oh, hang him off of a plane. Then let’s drown him. Then let’s make him hurtle from a roof. Oh, he broke a bone. Too bad. Keep going.

Chris: Yeah, that’s true.

Craig: Wow. You’re killing him in front of us.

Chris: I’m whittling him away. But when you see him in Top Gun–

Craig: That’s right, Top Gun Deuce.

Chris: Top Gun Maverick.

Craig: Maverick.

Chris: He looks younger in Top Gun than he did in Fallout. And I can tell you it’s not surgical because there was absolutely no time in between for him to do that.

Craig: So magic?

John: Just magic.

Chris: No. You know what it is? It’s incredible. It’s diet and exercise.

Craig: No, I don’t like that.

Chris: He doesn’t drink. He doesn’t drink booze. Look, we know what the agers are. Stay out of the sun. Don’t drink alcohol. Don’t smoke cigarettes.

Craig: You just said three things that I hate.

Chris: Love what you do.

Craig: Love what you do, exactly.

Chris: And there’s a book you can read called Younger Next Year and it’s all about–

Craig: I’m not reading that shit. [laughs]

Chris: You should definitely read it.

Craig: Not gonna.

Chris: Because guys our age, we all have to read it. And essentially what the book says is once you start rounding the horn into your 50s you just start–

Craig: Dying.

Chris: Not dying. It’s decay. And that the more you exercise–

Craig: Sweet decay. Sweet decay.

Chris: The more you exercise the more you hold off that decay. Tom has been on a regimen for 30 years now that’s–

Craig: I’m going to argue that none of us are going to do that. That we will be here at 500–

Chris: Sitting at this table I can tell you there are three guys sitting at this table who don’t work out the recommended one-hour a day, six days a week.

Craig: Not a chance. Nah, but you know what, we know words.

John: We do know the words.

Craig: I mean, the vocabulary between the three of us is astonishing.

John: It’s got to be a lot. All of those words. Craig?

Craig: Yes.

John: This episode is a milestone not only in that it’s 400 but it’s also the first episode we’re recording after Chernobyl has reached the air.

Craig: Yes, we are post-Chernobyl.

John: We are post-Chernobyl.

Chris: Has it reached the air?

John: Yes.

Craig: Last night.

John: We’re recording this on a Tuesday. Monday was the first night that it aired.

Chris: I cannot wait to see it.

Craig: You don’t have to wait. It’s on the air.

John: It’s on demand already.

Chris: No, I know. From where we’re sitting right now I will run home and watch it.

Craig: Very good.

Chris: This evening on HBO.

Craig: You’ve always been a big backer of the show.

Chris: I have deep personal feelings of resentment about Chernobyl.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: I wanted to make that show.

Craig: Here’s what Chris said. Chris said, “I would like to direct Chernobyl.” And I said, but Chris, you’re making Mission: Impossible. And he said, “No problem.” And I said, I think a problem.

Chris: Well, actually, before that though I wasn’t making Mission: Impossible.

Craig: Sure. And then you were again. And you kept saying–

Chris: But in the window where I wasn’t making it.

Craig: Right.

Chris: I went to HBO and said I’ll make it. And HBO, they were very polite but I could see in their eyes they were thinking, “Well if he wants to direct it who else can we get?”

John: No.

Craig: Oh no. I don’t think so.

Chris: For sure.

Craig: I think maybe what they were saying was, “So in post he’s going to be prepping a Mission: Impossible movie.”

Chris: I would have been–

Craig: I think that may have been what it was.

Chris: Is this why I can’t get a job doing anything else? This is why nobody else will offer me movies just because they all think I’m just going to be in post on Mission: Impossible.

Craig: No, it’s because I’ve gone around town just killing you.

So, Chernobyl on the air at long last. Five years. I looked in my little folder. Do you guys keep a folder of all your–?

John: Old drafts?

Craig: Yeah.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: And so the oldest document I have in my Chernobyl folder is from like May 12, 2014. Almost exactly five years ago. And it was actually very comforting because the header was “Stuff to Figure Out.” And it was just like what’s this about, who’s in it, what would the episodes be? It was just a bunch of questions that any idiot could ask. I guess they all start that way, don’t they?

Chris: No. I need to do that more often. I don’t ask myself those questions, which is probably why–

Craig: We’ll get into that.

Chris: Yeah. I will say this, the other thing I said, you remember you sent me the script. I was on the east coast getting on a plane.

Craig: Yes, you read them on a plane.

Chris: And you texted them to me just before the plane took off so I had two scripts to read. And I landed and I called you up and I said I would cut one word and I would change one word.

John: That’s why you did not get the job.

Craig: I threw a fit. How dare you?

Chris: Exactly. I guess the guy who they hired didn’t cut that word or change that word.

John: You’re not to do those things.

Craig: By the way, I tried to change that word many, many times and could never do it. I couldn’t come up with anything better.

Chris: Just couldn’t come up with anything better. Well, I could have made a suggestion.

Craig: Probably.

Chris: But more importantly that was a damn good script. Scripts. I read two episodes.

Craig: So now it’s a show and I don’t know what like ratings are per se, but the response has been very positive.

John: Part of the reason why you’ve gone for some episodes is you were talking at the UN. You were at the Tribeca Film Festival.

Craig: Yes.

John: You got to do all these amazing things.

Chris: Dear god.

John: You recorded a whole other podcast series with Peter Sagal.

Craig: Yes.

John: Which I started listening to which is great.

Craig: Yes, yes. So the idea there was because so much of what the show is about is the cost of lies and narrative and the way narrative distorts truth I felt that it was important that we hold ourselves accountable for the ways we changed things to be able to tell the story. So Peter Sagal of NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me and I recorded a companion piece. So after each episode airs on HBO or on Sky Atlantic over there in the UK then there is this little companion piece that comes along that you can download from Stitcher or Apple or any of those podcast places. I’ve learned, by the way, that Stitcher is a thing. I had to learn that for this.

And we just have a discussion about what we changed and why and illuminate other various topics of interest.

Chris: We did something like that on Valkyrie actually. Nathan and I did a second commentary track where we went through and said here’s all the things we changed and what really happened.

Craig: Why do you think people – I think it was incredibly – I thought very satisfying to do it. I felt honest and good. And I didn’t sense that, and John, you listened to it so I’m going to ask you. Did you feel like maybe by learning that some things had been changed that I had in any way undermined the experience of watching the show?

John: No. In the first episode you talk–

Chris: You mean the fact that Chernobyl didn’t really happen?

Craig: There is no place called Chernobyl.

John: It’s all made up in fairy land. For example, that a key character actually had a family and you portray him as not having a family.

Craig: Correct.

John: That is a big distinction in a character’s life, but it doesn’t change the fundamental nature of the event that happened.

Craig: Correct. And that kind of was the rule that we tried to follow which is I really did not want to change anything that would fundamentally make things more dramatic or–

John: You didn’t want to chat to make it more exciting.

Craig: I didn’t want to cheat.

Chris: Because the events surrounding Chernobyl need punching up. [laughs]

Craig: Yeah. Kind of like let’s just let the truth be the truth here.

Chris: Well, and I remember calling you and saying, OK, what of this, having done of adaptations of like what is true, what did you gin up? And we had had a conversation very early on before you started writing it.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: You were in London. We all went out to dinner.

Craig: Yes. And then I think you were on a plane to Alaska or something like that.

Chris: Yes. I was going to the Ice Cap, which didn’t happen.

Craig: As one does.

Chris: As one does.

Craig: That’s what McQuarrie does.

Chris: I was going to do research and I was on my way to the Ice Cap and from London to get to the Ice Cap you have to fly from London to Las Vegas, Las Vegas to Seattle, Seattle to Alaska, where you get off the plane and go across the airport to where the military C130 with skis on it is waiting to take you to this ice station.

Craig: Jews don’t do this. Ever.

Chris: And the Ice Cap – I got to Vegas and turned my phone on and there were all these text messages saying the Ice Cap is breaking up and they are going to evacuate the ice station and you’re not going this year. And I have never made it.

Craig: Well, at the very least it was a short flight from London to Las Vegas.

Chris: Well, I got to spend the night in Vegas.

Craig: Oh, hey!

Chris: Which is better than an Ice Cap.

Craig: This podcast is absolutely out of control. John’s eyelid must be twitching by now.

John: It’s fine. We’re vaguely on the outline still. I mean, the Ice Cap was a diversion, but–

Chris: Yes. I see on the outline it says lose the plot.

John: Lose the plot.

Craig: Exactly.

John: To get back on plot, we should also say that we actually have a live show coming up.

Craig: Yes.

John: Every year we do a benefit for Hollywood Heart, which is a great charity that provides services to homeless youth and youth with HIV. We always have great guests. This year we will again have great guests for our live show on June 13th. The big change this time is we are trying to sell out the Ace Hotel. Which is a much bigger venue.

Craig: It’s a great theater. It’s a big venue. It’s a great venue. Definitely please come see us. Buy tickets. We always deliver on the guests. Don’t worry about that. But really aren’t we enough?

John: We should be enough.

Craig: We should be enough.

John: But the guests are really the topping on the ice cream sundae.

Craig: The guests are the topping.

John: So it’s Thursday June 13 at the Ace Hotel. Tickets are available now and there will be a link in the show notes for those.

Craig: For charity.

John: For charity.

Craig: And this is a charity that our good mutual friend, John Gatins, is on the board.

Chris: Oh lovely.

Craig: So this is all part of Gatins’ world.

Chris: We love John Gatins.

Craig: We do.

John: Also in celebration of 400 episodes we have new Scriptnotes shirts. So I’m showing these to Craig and Chris right now. So this is–

Craig: Those are so great.

John: This is the light version of the shirt. This is Scriptnotes 400. It has a sort of blank VHS videotape, was the feel I was going for with these shirts.

Craig: You nailed it.

Chris: You nailed it.

Craig: That’s amazing. I love it.

John: The dark version of the shirt.

Craig: Ooh, dark is nice. Dark kind of gives me a little bit of an Atari vibe. Yeah, I love it. That’s a little bit Breakout. I love it. This is a good shirt.

John: Good shirt.

Craig: Percentage of proceeds that go to me?

John: Are none.

Craig: Consistently zero. 400 episodes.

John: Still not making any money out of this.

Craig: Still not making any money.

John: But at least you don’t have to pay money. Early on in the first like 50 episodes Craig would have to write a check for hosting fees and all that kind of stuff.

Craig: Now John drives a Rolls Royce that’s tacked on top of a Maserati.

Chris: Is it sponsored the podcast?

Craig: No, we don’t do ads.

John: We have no ads. We have nothing.

Craig: We are free in every freaking way.

Chris: In every freaking way. You do this out of the goodness of your heart?

Craig: This is the only thing I do out of the goodness – first of all, I don’t have a heart, as you know.

Chris: Or goodness.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: I was looking at John.

Craig: But I simulate – it’s how I simulate humanity.

Chris: Yes.

John: So these shirts which Craig gets no money for are available in black and white and navy. We also have hoodies this time, so check them out.

Craig: Ooh, I’m getting a hoodie. You know I love a hoodie.

John: We all love a hoodie. Now we finally get back on outline to talk about the feature topic. And so every once and a while we do a This Kind of Movie, where we took a look at a genre, a sub-genre of movie that is not currently popular and we discuss how we would make that movie in 2019 or really 2020, or 2021 realistically. As we’re recording this Disney just put out a list of all their upcoming movies through 2023.

Craig: Right. Which are all Star Wars.

John: They’re all Star Wars or princess movies. But if we wanted to try to make one of these movies what we would need to do to get those on the Disney schedule?

Chris: Oh, onto the Disney schedule?

John: Or really any schedule. Any schedule.

Craig: Witchcraft at this point I think.

Chris: Not true.

Craig: Oh, here we go. Oh, look, I’m having an argument with Chris McQuarrie.

Chris: It’s not an argument. An argument would be a conflict of two different opinions.

Craig: He’s arguing about us having an argument. [laughs]

John: No, no, we’re not having an argument. You don’t understand. This is not an argument.

Craig: How dare you?

Chris: I’d like an argument please.

Craig: I love that sketch.

Chris: See, an argument would be if you had an opinion and I had an opinion, but you’re not allowed to have an opinion anymore.

Craig: Ugh.

Chris: If you just avoid opinions and stick to facts.

John: 100 percent facts.

Chris: Yes, then I can’t get into any trouble.

John: Chernobyl.

Chris: Don’t have an opinion. And that’s why we are not arguing.

Craig: The truth matters. The truth matters.

Chris: Because I’m right.

Craig: Let’s get back to the topic at hand. It’s turning into The Morning Zoo.

John: In previous installments of this segment we have saved romantic comedies. I mean, I think we can all agree that romantic comedies were dead and then we brought them back to life.

Craig: We did. We resuscitated them.

John: I think we also did some work on westerns.

Craig: They’re back.

John: So I went on Twitter and asked people for other genres or sub-genres that need saving.

Craig: That have been sort of underserved.

Chris: So I have a long suffering script. A script that’s been sitting around for years and years and years. I don’t own it. I was commissioned to write it by a producer. You would put it in the category of it’s a redemption story, personal drama, you put it in that kind of Verdict sort of–

Craig: Oh, OK. What is the genre-genre?

Chris: It’s a drama.

Craig: Just sort of people?

Chris: It is a female-driven drama. Woman goes to prison.

Craig: OK, prison.

Chris: No, beginning of the story she goes to prison. Two scenes later she gets out of prison 14 years later and is trying to reconnect with her sister who was four-years-old when she went into prison and has been lost in the system.

Craig: OK.

Chris: OK. So the kind of movie that in 1973 would have been released every other weekend.

John: Totally.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: And Netflix. Post Mission: Impossible Netflix said we want to do this. And what Netflix is after now, they’re fairly genre-agnostic. They’re really looking for, A, content.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: They’re frantically trying to line their pockets with content.

Craig: That appears to be the case.

Chris: Before Disney fires up the whatever they’re doing. But also building relationships with talent. And they looked at this thing and said this is imminently cast-able. There is now, I can’t say who but there is a great actress interested in the role. And Netflix is just standing by and they’re going to do it.

Craig: That’s awesome.

Chris: The kind of movie that even two, three years ago would have been inconceivable. Another project that I was briefly attached to, I’m attached to it now as a producer, was a WWII movie, but a WWII drama. It’s not a WWII–

Craig: Shoot-shoot-bang-bang.

Chris: It isn’t Saving Private Ryan. It’s a guy behind enemy lines personal drama. Again, the kind of thing, you hear WWII and you just start falling asleep.

Craig: Even if there were explosions it would be a hard sell.

Chris: Yes. It’s dead in the water. And so you have with that mechanism if you can attach the right elements to a piece of material–

Craig: You can get yourself on Netflix or Hulu or Amazon or HBO.

John: With each of these categories I want to talk about venue basically. Is it still a big screen idea or is it something that is more designed for a smaller screen, be it streaming, be it some other way to do it. But also I want to talk about what is the essence of this kind of movie. What is the biggest difference between making this movie now versus when it was originally popular? Who are the characters and then with those characters who would you cast in this kind of movie? Who writes it? Who directs it? And what are the big obstacles getting in the way of making this kind of movie again?

Craig: All right.

John: So, let’s start with sports comedies. Sports comedies used to be incredibly popular.

Craig: The Ron Shelton area.

John: So Ron Shelton had Bull Durham, White Men Can’t Jump. But we also have things like Dodgeball. Happy Gilmore. Major League. Caddyshack. Bad News Bears. A League of Their Own.

Craig, I’ll start with you. What is the essence of a sports comedy to you?

Craig: Underdogs. Generally speaking we have underdogs. And usually there’s somebody struggling with a – you know, there’s a term in baseball, I don’t know if carries to other sports, the yips. Oh, yeah, actually in golf too the yips are when you just psychologically are struggling with something and so your game falls apart. So typically in these movies somebody with innate skill is struggling with something and so–

Chris: Tin Cup.

Craig: Tin Cup is the best example because it’s literally about a therapist helping a guy with the yips.

Chris: Bull Durham.

Craig: Bull Durham. I mean, all of them. All of them. There’s a romance falling apart in White Men Can’t Jump. And Caddyshack which is I guess probably the broadest of these there’s still a romance at the heart of it that goes bad and has to be put back together. So it’s really about – the essence of these things is an athlete’s personal life is disrupting their game. And they have to fix their personal life to fix their game.

Chris: Wow.

John: I think that’s a fair assessment.

Chris: I hate to say this. Craig is right.

Craig: Hold that. Repeat it.

Chris: Pains me. Pains me to say it.

Craig: Put it on a loop.

John: What’s so interesting is the sport itself is incredibly important for the marketing and sort of what the visual language of the movie will be, but it’s probably not very important for what the actual story will be. The sport rarely has a very direct connection to what the character’s journey is. The unique thing about that sport is probably not a big factor. I guess whether it’s an individual sport versus a team sport that’s a big factor. But, you know.

Chris: It can’t rely on the sport.

Craig: Right.

Chris: Somebody who doesn’t know anything about the sport ideally would be able to watch the movie.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: Which means you generally–

John: You teach them the rules of the sport.

Craig: And one of the stock characters in these movies is somebody that doesn’t know the sport.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So they are the people that are asking questions or just looking around going well none of this matters, but that personal part matters.

Chris: Yes.

John: So looking at the biggest difference between doing it now versus doing it then, one of the things as we list these movies is they’re almost all male characters driving this. And so–

Chris: My next question.

John: So I think honestly centering this around a female character is going to probably be your best way in. Whether the whole team is women or it’s unusual for a woman to be in that sport. Something about a female athlete feels more promising.

Chris: Is that going to alienate the men as well? Are you trying to make a four-quadrant movie?

John: That’s a great question. I mean, I think we always use to think about big screen comedies needed to, if not four-quadrant than sort of broadly successful. But if you’re making it not for a big screen movie maybe it’s even better that it’s not kind of for everyone.

Craig: A League of Their Own was pretty much four-quadrant.

Chris: Without question.

Craig: Of this list it’s maybe my favorite of them.

Chris: Well, and Tom Hanks is a hugely important character in the movie.

Craig: Yes, he’s part of it.

Chris: And quite wisely not the dominant character in the movie. It’s also a movie directed by a woman.

Craig: It is. And so you can obviously if you’re centering your new sports comedy on let’s say a female, like a Bend it like Beckham which is a female sports comedy, which I think a lot of male footie fans enjoyed, you will have male characters. The fascinating thing about this list to me is how white it is.

John: It’s super white.

Craig: I mean, sports are one of the areas in American culture where people of color dominate in terms of numbers they’re far over-represented. And yet in this list they’re almost nowhere with the exception of White Men Can’t Jump. I mean, it’s crazy now that I’m looking at it. It’s pretty white.

Chris: I’m wracking my brain.

Craig: It’s kind of nuts. And if you keep going you’ll see it more and more and more. Like a lot of baseball movies take place in the distant past, so when Roy Hobbes is out there in The Natural it’s sort of like, you know, there they are, the nine white guys. And Dodgeball is just sort of lily white. I mean, it’s not lily white. That’s not true. Because Chris Williams is in it.

John: Yeah, but it’s goofy.

Craig: These are largely white casts. And it seems like they’re largely for white guys.

John: So I think we’re talking sort of women, non-white characters centering. Also, you know, there’s a chance that maybe the sport you’re picking is not a sport that is currently popular in the US. So if you’re to make an American cricket movie about like a cricket team that needed to sort of – that was part of the obstacle they overcome. Like they don’t even know what cricket is or sort of that aspect.

Craig: So it’s kind of like the – what’s it, the Jamaican bobsledding team, Cool Running. So Americans try and go to cricket but they’re basically in India or Pakistan getting their asses handed to them.

Chris: Adam Sandler is working on this movie right now. Yes, he’s working on this movie.

Craig: Cricket!

Chris: But when you’re pinpointing these things, you know, about women and diversity, are you suggesting the way to make an outlier or to get it made? Because I have to imagine–

Craig: I’d go get it made on that one, for me, because I actually feel like – I mean, it’s not that you can’t make a movie like this again in the same mold. But it will be in the same mold. There’s something so familiar about it.

Chris: Oh, of course.

Craig: And this list barely even scrapes the surface of what there is. So, it seems like something new would be great in some way or another. New is good. And I think in this category–

Chris: So the Bad News Bears, but done–

Craig: Well, I mean, and they tried to remake it.

Chris: But they tried to remake it–

Craig: They did. They remade it.

Chris: They remade it and they remade it kind of in the same mold but with none of the things you could do.

Craig: Well, that’s the thing.

Chris: The spirt of it.

Craig: This is one of those interesting areas where over time we’ve gotten less permissive. You could not make the actual – I mean, the Bad News Bears was Rated R. There was alcohol. There was smoking. There was racism. And they were children. That’s not doable now in any way, shape, or form.

Chris: No. Because it in no way reflected reality and movies have to reflect reality now.

Craig: Hold on, let’s wield the soap box on.

Chris: No, no, this is what I read. I got the email.

Craig: There it is.

John: But here’s what I’ll say. I feel like a sports comedy is still a movie. And that it’s more of a movie than it is a TV show, than a series.

Craig: Yes.

John: Because I feel like a game of sport, whatever sport you want to pick – I knew you were going to laugh, I said a game of sport.

Chris: Remember there was a TV show. Do you remember Ball Four?

John: I do not remember Ball Four.

Craig: Oh, based on, what’s his name, Jim Bouton’s book.

Chris: Jim Bouton’s book. Lasted for about seven episodes.

Craig: It turns out that in sports there is this built-in ticking clock. Are you going to win or not? I mean, there’s a big game in the beginning, there’s a big game at the end. There’s a big fight in the beginning and there’s a big fight at the end.

John: And Friday Night Lights is an exception but it’s not a comedy. It’s an ensemble drama that is centered around a football team.

Craig: Correct. About family life.

Chris: And the culture. And it’s high school. So it’s not pro and it’s–

Craig: But it started as a movie. Started as a movie.

John: It did. Next category, ensemble dramedies. So we used to make things like St. Elmo’s Fire, The Big Chill, Breakfast Club, Big Fish, Terms of Endearment. So we used to make things that had big casts, where a bunch of folks came together, where characters did grow and change but it was an ensemble. It wasn’t sort of one character’s story. Is that a thing we’re going to be making on the big screen soon? We’ll start with what is the essence of that kind of story. What is the essence of an ensemble dramedy?

Craig: Let’s make McQuarrie take a shot at that one.

Chris: It seems to me as I’m running through the list that you just – nostalgia is a big part of it. It’s my understanding that somebody did a breakdown of why people go to see movies and the number one reason was to have a nostalgic experience. An emotional nostalgic experience. I think that probably plays into sports as well, especially plays into why a lot of sports movies seem to go–

Craig: Back in time.

Chris: Back to that. And you look at The Big Chill. The Big Chill was very much a nostalgic movie.

John: It’s a reunion of friends who had separated. St. Elmo’s Fire, while it wasn’t a nostalgic movie, they were at a specific turning point in their life. They were kind of looking back at—

Craig: See, to me that’s it. We have a group of people that represent some kind of contemporary arrangement. Whether we’re catching them later or they were contemporary or we’re in their contemporariness like for instance The Breakfast Club. But they are at a moment where things are changing.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: And we watch that happen. That to me is the essence of these things. But for the love of god I cannot imagine anyone putting this on a screen anymore. It just doesn’t seem like they will. It’s a bummer.

John: Yeah, it’s tragic. I mean, on a big screen. I think you can absolutely make these for streaming.

Craig: No question.

John: But in so many ways though the one-hour series have sort of taken, even like short series have taken the place of these, where you can see those characters grow over the course–

Chris: Oh, This is Us.

Craig: This is Us.

John: This is Us as a movie.

Chris: Modern Family.

Craig: Correct. And interestingly Dan Fogelman–

John: Yeah, he tried to do it as a movie.

Craig: He sort of tried to do it as a movie. He tried This is Us as a movie and it didn’t connect with audiences. But he’s obviously incredibly good at it because tens of millions of people watch This is Us and it gets all these awards. There is something, I don’t know, we used to be able to go and watch this – maybe it’s just that we used to expect less. You know, we would go to the movie theater and we weren’t asking to have our brains blown out the back of our skulls.

Chris: I went to see Hell or High Water.

John: Oh, which is fantastic.

Chris: Which I loved. And I was talking to Tim Talbot shortly thereafter and I said did you see Hell or High Water? And he said, “Yes.” And what did you think about it? “That was a great movie.” In 1987 that would have been a good movie. But he’s right in that that sort of stuff – I remember going to the movies every weekend. It was not an event. Now when you ask anybody under the age of 25 why they go to the movies they will say in one form or another, “Because I have to go.” They want to be part of a discussion.

I tried to get to see Avengers, which I finally saw yesterday, as quickly as I could because I was tired of having a self-imposed media bubble. There were things in that movie I really didn’t want ruined. Getting to that state. Whereas the stories that we’re talking about, what television does so well now especially is there is a collective history.

If you tried to tune into Game of Thrones now you don’t understand and it wouldn’t – the number of people who are saying three years into Mad Men going, “Yeah, I tried to get into that show and I just couldn’t.” It’s like, of course not, if you turn middle of season three none of this makes any sense.

Craig: Start at the beginning. That’s true. But I do think that one of the problems for – like I remember going to see St. Elmo’s Fire. And my expectation was that I was going to see a group of people that were somewhat older than me dealing with problems. And I knew at some point somebody was going to like, I think Rob Lowe was going to light a torch on fire with some hairspray or something, and Demi Moore was in a corner super dramatic. And I think thought, OK, I’m going to see some sort of human drama. That would not do it anymore. Now when people go to the movie theater it’s like, well, this is going to pin me back and it’s going to blow my mind. And I’m going to see stuff and it’s going to be an event.

Chris: An event.

Craig: An event. I just think people go to the movies for a different reason now.

Chris: But don’t you think also what you can get from television is very different than what we could get from television.

Craig: No question.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: No question.

Chris: You could not make Game of Thrones as a feature film. Any of the content in Game of Thrones would be NC17.

Craig: Nor could you have made it for television prior to this kind of strange change.

Chris: Yes. It’s the networks. As soon as basic cable met the British model of television which was you make a good television show and when it stops being good you – when it reaches the end you stop.

Craig: Isn’t that nice?

Chris: Yes, it’s lovely.

Craig: You know what? This is going to be six episodes long. Great.

Chris: Yeah, or six episodes this season instead of 22 every season.

Craig: Which is why I take my hat off to people like Derek Haas who are still doing it, not just on one show, but multiple show. I mean, the amount of story that has to be generated by those guys is bananas. But, yes, the format has become not just flexible but there is not format. It doesn’t matter.

Chris: Yeah.

John: Let’s get back to movies. Next let’s save the legal thriller or the courtroom thriller. We’ll put these things together. So, obviously we have all the John Grisham based ones, The Pelican Brief, The Firm, The Client, A Time to Kill, The Rainmaker. We have Michael Clayton. We have Primal Fear.

Craig: Love Primal Fear.

John: Love Primal Fear. Presumed Innocent. Disclosure. A Few Good Men.

Chris: The Verdict.

Craig: The Verdict.

John: The Verdict. I hadn’t thought of The Verdict.

Chris: One of the all-time–

Craig: Well, and 12 Angry Men.

Chris: Yes, oh my god.

Craig: Which is sort of the [unintelligible] courtroom drama.

Chris: Well, 12 Angry Men and And Justice for All.

Craig: And Justice for All.

Chris: We can probably go on.

John: We can.

Craig: Yes, I think we could.

John: So what is the essence of these kind of thrillers? So traditionally I think you have an authority figure who is generally the prosecutor or could be working for the defense who is very smart at the law who has to intercede in a specific situation. They generally didn’t commit the situation. They’re there to solve a problem and in trying to solve the problem they uncover something remarkable that puts themselves either in moral jeopardy or literal jeopardy. We don’t make these. We haven’t made them for a while.

Chris: No. Well, when we were talking about 12 Angry Men and The Verdict, both Lumet movies. 12 Angry Men is a morality tale, sort of a study of–

John: And it feels like a play.

Chris: Yeah, feels very much like a play. The Verdict is a redemption story. The Verdict is in a lot of ways a boxing movie.

Craig: Mm-hmm.

Chris: It’s the palooka who comes back for–

Craig: And I think that that’s a good distinction because some of these movies like A Few Good Men also feels like a boxing movie where basically a guy whose dad was a great boxer and who has decided to throw fights instead for a living is going to come back and take on the all-time champ and go down dying if he has to. So, there are those.

And then there are these movies that are they turn on grand questions of justice. What is justice?

Chris: That’s And Justice for All.

Craig: And Justice for All. Or A Time to Kill is very much like that. So those are two different, I mean they always have fireworks. They always have the certain venues that we know. And there is a verdict that is a little bit like the game in the sports movies.

Chris: The Verdict actually ended without the verdict.

Craig: Without the verdict. Well.

John: But here’s a distinction is like a sports movie they want to be a single movie because it’s not a thing that’s going to continue well over time. And so like Murder One was an attempt to take one case–

Craig: Kelley I think.

John: Over the course of a whole season and it just didn’t work. It wanted to be part of one thing.

Chris: I don’t want a mystery to last that long.

Craig: Right.

John: No.

Chris: And first of all the struggle in television, they referred to it for years as the Twin Peaks problem. That you can only lose audience. You couldn’t gain audience. Because when that show was on unless you videotaped it you couldn’t catch up on Netflix, you couldn’t binge it. And there was something fascinating about that. To think about it now, that television actually just spilled out into the universe and that was it.

Craig: And you either caught it with your hands or you missed it. It was gone on the floor.

Chris: Yes. It comes back to urgency. The urgency, how and why one watches a television show or a movie is very different now.

John: I think people should write a legal thriller, I mean, I feel like it’s the kind of movie that you could still imagine making today. I mean, what do you need to make a great legal thriller? You need a star. It is actually a star vehicle. It’s that person you cast as the central lawyer is great. You look at, you know, I think you can make Primal Fear at any point where you also have a great supporting character. Like you look at Edward Norton–

Chris: Well that’s a thriller, like that and Jagged Edge.

John: Oh, of course. Oh yes.

Chris: Have you watched that recently?

Craig: Yeah, it’s amazing.

Chris: I’ve been going back and watching the–

John: He is innocent!

Chris: Yes.

Craig: So great.

Chris: And the other one I went back and watched recently, which was fascinating artifact is–

Craig: Artifact.

Chris: Basic Instinct.

John: Oh yeah. We’re going to get to sexual/erotic thrillers. And that’s there.

Craig: Thank god.

Chris: Can we just skip to that?

John: We can skip to that next.

Craig: I think that there is some space for it, the problem is it is the most trod-upon ground. Because we have 4,000 episodes of Law & Order. And it will never stop. Neither will CSI. NCIS. That arena, the courtroom procedural aspects of it have been just beaten to death. So the question is how can you do it – I think you could go back all the way to 12 Angry Men and that kind of idea.

Chris: Yes. If you ask what they all have in common as I’m sitting here [unintelligible] is the discovery. There is some reveal. There is a hidden secret that sort of turns the case. Those are hard to do.

Craig: What’s the Dershowitz one with–?

Chris: Claus von Bulow.

Craig: Yeah. Claus von Bulow.

Chris: Reversal of Fortune.

John: Reversal of Fortune.

Craig: “No one shook Sunny.” That’s my favorite line.

Chris: And what I love about that is the reversal is the last line.

Craig: The reversal is the last line of the movie.

Chris: “You have no idea.”

Craig: “You have no idea.” And then weirdly Alan Dershowitz has had his own fascinating reversal. But that’s for other podcasts.

John: Absolutely. But I think we can make a legal thriller. And so do you make a legal thriller for the big screen? Maybe. A really good legal thriller I think could also be an awards contender. The same way like The Post was a journalism thriller. That was back in that space.

Craig: Yes. It has be specifically crafted for the Academy Awards. I would think you would need two huge stars. I could see—

Chris: Let’s talk about who those huge stars are.

Craig: Streep v. Washington.

Chris: Regardless of our genre.

Craig: Meryl Streep v. Denzel Washington. Two lawyers going head-to-head over something that is actually legitimately relevant to our society now.

Chris: Well, you’d be talking about abortion, gun control, really hot topic issues.

Craig: Police brutality.

Chris: Police brutality. And then the trick of making that movie is making a movie that is for both halves of the audience, not one.

John: Yeah. I don’t know that you need like a marquee issue. So if it was about sort of corporate control, some way to do it–

Craig: Yeah, you know, he’s not wrong.

John: Because you want a thriller. You still want the thriller. You also want the legal drama.

Craig: You still want the thriller aspect. Because the truth is the thing at the heart of A Few Good Men is not a hot-button issue. There’s an interesting theme to it, but it isn’t a hot-button issue. And maybe it would actually be better without one. Maybe I just want two people – you know what also was really good? The Insider.

John: You know who would also be really good in this? Tom Cruise. Tom Cruise could do a good job.

Craig: Well, he’s done it though.

John: He’s done it.

Craig: Can he come back and do it again?

Chris: Well, I would love to see Tom do a version of The Verdict. I’d love to see him do the broken down. Jerry Maguire is his Verdict.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Oh my god. We could talk about Jerry Maguire forever.

John: We can.

Craig: I’ve got huge love for that script.

Chris: Talk about a weird. What’s the pitch to Jerry Maguire? I’m going to make a movie about a sports agent who is having an emotional crisis.

Craig: My pitch for Jerry Maguire is imagine a man whose life is deeply flawed who has a moment of clarity where he describes exactly who he should be. And that’s the beginning of the movie. And then the entire movie is him trying to become that guy.

Chris: But would you have picked a sports agent?

Craig: No, but that’s fun. I get it.

Chris: No, I mean, it’s such a – the fact that the movie works and resonates–

Craig: There’s comebacks. Makes sense.

Chris: Well, that helps.

Craig: Finding a scum-baggy kind of job like sports agent. I don’t know any sports agents. I apologize.

Chris: Well, yeah, so you just blanket called them all scumbags.

Craig: A little bit. Sorry.

Chris: It’s the whole agent thing.

Craig: Should we go to the erotic thrillers.

John: Erotic thrillers.

Chris: Erotic thrillers.

John: We’ve got Fatal Attraction. We’ve got Basic Instinct.

Chris: Now what does an erotic thriller need? What’s the central elements of an erotic thriller?

Craig: I believe boobs are high on the list.

Chris: Yes.

John: Color of Night. Killing Me Softly. American Gigolo. Gone Girl I would say is an erotic thriller. Or has aspects of that.

Chris: Yeah.

Craig: Well…

John: It’s definitely a thriller. There’s a sexual aspect to it.

Craig: I don’t think of it’s an erotic – I don’t think of it as–

Chris: It’s a neurotic thriller.

Craig: Neurotic.

John: But it’s pulpy in the way that you want an erotic thriller to be.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: Sea of Love. Nice pull. So I’ve got to go back and watch that one.

Craig: It’s good.

John: So erotic thrillers, at the time it was sexual content on screen that you just couldn’t see other places. You certainly couldn’t see it on TV.

Chris: And now you can’t see it in theaters and there’s nothing but on television.

John: That’s absolutely true.

Craig: Or your phone. You can just see it on your phone.

Chris: Yes.

John: Literal pornography.

Craig: There should be a list of – there’s probably a website that has a list of perfectly reasonable civil Google searches that will absolutely blow your mind with the images that come up. I just feel like old people are always, you know, like–

Chris: There’s no parental control strict enough–

Craig: They’re just like, oh, I’m just searching for something normal. Yeah, and then look what just came up.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So what distinguishes an erotic thriller from just–?

Craig: Porn.

John: From porn or from things that have–?

Chris: Sexual obsession.

John: Sexual obsession. All right.

Chris: Sexual obsession. So in Jagged Edge it’s the forbidden nature of the sexual relationship. There is an inappropriate boundary that is being crossed. Michael Douglas is investigating Sharon Stone so he should not be having sex with Sharon Stone.

John: Yeah.

Chris: And Glenn Close is representing Jeff Bridges so she should not be having sex with Jeff Bridges.

John: You know what we left off this list though is Fifty Shades of Grey which really would fit underneath this general category. So it’s romance–

Craig: A thriller?

John: But, I mean, it actually has thriller elements. There’s bad people doing bad stuff in it, too. Her life is in danger.

Chris: Yes.

John: So I think it would fall into this general category. So there clearly is a market for making that kind of movie. We just don’t make it–

Craig: Yeah. I mean, look, this kind of old school classic ‘90s, or early ‘90s/late ‘80s erotic thrillers were weirdly in their own way Puritanistic because they would basically reinforce that transgressive sexual behavior would automatically lead to blood on the floor. It’s all basically a lesson in staying monogamous and don’t get out of your lane and don’t give into temptation.

And people who were overtly sexual are equated with evil. And you see it come up over and over and over. If there’s any reason why we don’t make these now beyond the obvious, which is that there’s kind of no market for them, it’s probably that our sexual mores have kind of come further than anything else.

John: Yeah.

Chris: Can I point out one common thread? There are these erotic thrillers that are starring men as the protagonist and erotic thrillers that are starring women as the protagonist. The ones starring men, the men are kind of bastards. Fatal Attraction, Michael Douglas is sort of perfect in that role. You have a character who is violating the audience’s trust.

Craig: Yes.

John: Cheating on his wife.

Chris: If Tom Hanks was in Fatal Attraction and made the decision that quickly to have sex with Glenn Close you’d be like, what, Tom? Whereas Michael Douglas you kind of believed it.

Craig: Yeah. A little lizardy.

Chris: Yes. And I’m looking at Richard Gere who in that stage of his career loved playing an abrasive bastard. There was almost something where he was antagonizing the audience. Cruel Intentions, Ryan Phillippe in that movie is playing a version of Valmont and is enjoying being a bastard. Al Pacino in Sea of Love, that’s like The Verdict meets erotic thriller. He’s that drunken messed up cop. An element that I’m seeing in this is the casting and the writing of the male character they all seem to be – and, by the way, Douglas comes back in Basic Instinct – a little bit of it seems to be the audience enjoying watching this guy get his comeuppance for having broken the rules.

Craig: Right.

John: Yes.

Craig: Morality plays.

Chris: And casting the right actor in a morality play is a big part.

Craig: But they also in some way start to turn these men into passive movers. Because these women come along and tempt them and turn their heads and confuse them. You know, I don’t know, I just think it’s all a bit old-fashioned.

Chris: There was nothing confused in Michael Douglas’s performance in Fatal Attraction. They’re out having a drink after having had a meeting and he makes a decision instantaneously.

Craig: Sure. Yes, he does. But then the movie basically says, OK, fine, that happened. But look how crazy she is.

Chris: Have you watched it recently?

Craig: No.

Chris: Go back and watch it. There’s the whole thing that she’s pregnant. And all he’s trying to do is shut it down. She’s definitely got issues.

Craig: She won’t be ignored.

Chris: But Michael Douglas is not – he handles it the way a panicking male would, not the way the hero of a movie would. The other great thing about that movie is Anne Archer.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Amazing.

Chris: Anne Archer is this–

Craig: I do remember her being like–

Chris: She was the ideal. And for Glenn Close, that’s kind of an unconventional role for Glenn Close. And it’s interesting that she is in almost back-to-back erotic thrillers. And if you go back and watch, look at those two movies which are shot within a few years of each other. And by the way, The Natural was right in there, too. So you look at Glenn Close playing three–

Craig: This like luminous angel.

Chris: Yes, she’s the Madonna. She was this tough lawyer, a little bit corrupt, kind of compromised. And then playing that woman in Fatal Attraction.

Craig: Sort of on the edge, mentally on the edge.

Chris: Who you cast in an erotic thriller is a big, big deal.

Craig: Well, Glenn Close is pretty, pretty good at her job. I think we can all agree on that.

John: Although we’re probably not casting her in the next erotic thriller.

Chris: Expecting great things.

Craig: I don’t think we’re going to be seeing the likes of those.

John: Craig, can we skip ahead to something that you know especially well? Spoofs and parodies.

Craig: Spoofs and parodies.

Chris: Spoofs and parodies.

John: So movies like Airplane, Spaceballs, Not Another Teen Movie, Scary Movie series, MacGruber, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Superhero Movie. Tropic Thunder. Shaun of the Dead. Vampires Suck. Austin Powers. Blazing Saddles. We’re not making many of these movies now. And I have a theory why, but I’m curious what your theory is why we don’t make these movies.

Craig: As David Zucker would repeatedly say, “Spoof is dead.” And his thing is that he would say spoof is dead, he said it before spoof came back. Spoof was dead. I remember Jim Abrahams saying that he was mixing mafia, a Jane Austen movie, Jane Austen’s Mafia.

Chris: Jane Austen’s Mafia.

Craig: And he walked down the hall where they were mixing and on another mixing stage they were mixing There’s Something About Mary. And he just sort of watched a few minutes of it and then went back and said, “Yeah, we’re fucked. Our time is over.”

And it was over. And then the Wayans Brothers brought it back with Scary Movie. But following the success of Scary Movie, and 2, and 3, and 4, there was this sudden – suddenly they were everywhere. And the marketplace was flooded with a lot of cheap stuff. And honestly as one of the people that wrote Scary Movie 3 and 4, I mean, the pressure that we were under from the Weinsteins to make those movies as quickly as possible was brutal. And we couldn’t do them as well as we wanted to do them. And we did them with David Zucker and Pat Proft and Jim Abrahams.

So by the time all that unraveled it was mostly I think killed at the moment by just the marketplace being flooded. But also you got the sense pretty quickly that the Internet was essentially mooting the entire point of this.

John: Yes. That was my instinct.

Craig: Because every joke, I mean, we used to be like, OK, you want to make fun of this movie. Well, four or five nights from now Leno is going to do the joke. Well, now they’re doing the jokes while they’re watching things. There’s no more time. It’s over.

Chris: That’s very true.

Craig: It’s over.

Chris: Everything is – yeah, the Internet is a spoof.

Craig: The Internet is essentially a spoof machine.

John: There’s no way to make the movie quick enough to do it. And even like on YouTube they can do the crappy effects version of that joke anyway.

Chris: But Blazing Saddles is on this list. It is a spoof but it is a spoof with a higher purpose.

John: So it’s not a spoof of any one movie, it’s taking genre conventions–

Craig: Of a genre.

Chris: Of a genre.

John: And Shaun of the Dead is a great example of like taking the genre conventions and upending them in a way that’s—

Chris: Well that’s a mashup.

John: Yeah.

Chris: And a great one.

John: Fantastic.

Craig: It’s still I would say really hard now. I mean, Airplane was a direct spoof of a movie called Zero Hour from 1956 or something, or 1955, which no one had seen. That was sort of the oddity of Airplane that they just did this random thing. But somewhere along the line spoofs became connected to either genres as a whole or when it got really bad pop culture. And that’s when it just all to me absolutely fell apart.

There’s probably room for somebody to make a spoof of some weird movie that has been forgotten.

Chris: Well, but and Austin Powers is taking shots at movies along with Bond. Matt Helm. And some really–

Craig: In Like Flint.

Chris: Yeah, In Like Flint. When the phone rings, that’s directly taken from In Like Flint.

John: But you look at the ones of these that we feel like you could still make is that these films actually have individualized characters who sort of have an arc and have a point of view. And the movie doesn’t exist just to make fun of the movie that came before it. The character is existing within a world and is consistent within a world. So Austin Powers is a spoof of another kind of character, but is also a character himself. And Dr. Evil is a character himself.

Chris: Yes. And it’s a time travel comedy in a way. They both are, at least two of the three, are.

Craig: I mean, the people that kind of come the closest now to doing spoof and parody in their own way is Chris and Phil.

John: Lord and Miller. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah. Lord and Miller in a weird way do. I mean, Lego has certain spoof aspects to it.

John: Their Spider Man also has aspects of like it’s an awareness of where this is fitting inside the culture.

Chris: Meta.

Craig: Yeah, it’s Meta. Their Jump Street movies are kind of spoofing Jump Street.

John: Oh yes.

Craig: Like it’s a self-spoof. But it’s different. It’s not like, I mean, thank god, by the way. Because honestly nothing is harder than writing those things. I will never work harder in my life than I did writing Scary Movie 3 and Scary Movie 4. It was just—

Chris: It’s one of the reasons Chernobyl is not as funny.

Craig: Yeah, I know. It took the jokes out.

John: It took all the comedy out of me.

Chris: You didn’t make the effort. I know.

John: Let’s take the jokes out of biblical epics, and/or sword and sandals movies. So things like Gladiator, Ben-Hur, Noah, Passion of the Christ. King in Heaven. Spartacus. Ten Commandments. Braveheart, to some degree. Lawrence of Arabia. Like we used to make these things. That was actually a staple of original Hollywood. We have the giant ranches here because we used to make these epics.

Chris: Giant movies.

John: Giant movies. We don’t make them anymore.

Chris: No.

John: So here’s–

Chris: Because they don’t win awards anymore.

John: They don’t win awards anymore.

Craig: Precisely.

John: Even though Game of Thrones is being show on smaller screens, it is that kind of sword and sandals thing.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: Yes.

John: And so we’re making them, but we’re making them for smaller screen.

Craig: TV. No question.

Chris: But is TV – I have a very large television. It’s not terribly expensive. I would imagine a lot of people have maxed their credit cards for a large TV.

Craig: You’re comparing your large TV to the TV you grew up, which was like the TV I grew up. That 9-inch black and white thing in the kitchen, with the single antenna shooting out.

Chris: It was a letterbox.

Craig: Correct. But my kids only know those TVs. But those TVs are still not – I mean, they’re not movies.

Chris: No.

Craig: It’s not a movie screen.

Chris: No. But most people, the way their viewing habits are now, we’re making a Mission: Impossible. We have an IMAX segment in it. And people are saying well why don’t you just shoot the whole thing in IMAX.

Craig: No one is going to watch it.

Chris: It’s never going to be seen again. You’re making this balance. And there are times I’ll be framing a shot and Cruise will walk up to me and go, “You know when this is on the big screen and I pull my phone out of my pocket—“

Craig: Here it is.

Chris: This is the screen now. It’s not that it will only be watched on television, but for the life of the film.

Craig: For the life of it. Primarily.

Chris: The theatrical lifespan of a movie is 12 weeks.

Craig: Whoa. 12 weeks. What is this hit movie you’ve got that’s in there 12 weeks?

Chris: I’m talking like by the end it’s in eight theaters

Craig: Yes. Correct.

Chris: I’m giving a conservative—

Craig: Really it’s four weeks is what it is.

Chris: Four weeks. Yeah.

Craig: It used to be months.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: It is now about four weeks.

John: So what is the essence of these biblical epics we’re talking about? So, if you’re talking about a Gladiator or a Ben-Hur, it is a character in a long ago time, typically a Roman time, who is coming up against an authority system. He is leading, it’s always a he in these movies, is leading–

Chris: It’s a Christ figure against Rome.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Christ figure against Rome.

Craig: That’s exactly what it is. Every single time. Christ figure against Rome. Doesn’t matter what you do.

Chris: Doesn’t matter if it’s Rome or not Rome. Doesn’t matter if it’s Christ or not Christ.

Craig: That’s what Braveheart is. That’s what Ten Commandments is. Even when it’s Jews it’s still a Christ figure against Rome. Some hero will rise in a kind of faded destiny way, usually out of nothing. And they have special powers, special abilities. They are spat on, tortured, hurt. Their family is killed. They are persecuted. And ultimately they do some incredibly self-sacrificial thing and the world is saved. And the last scene is people sitting around going, “God, he was awesome.”

Chris: He was a great man.

Craig: He was a great man.

Chris: And it’s always a man.

Craig: And it’s always a man. Patriarchy.

Chris: As a matter of fact there’s a biblical epic with a woman. Mary Magdalene is coming soon.

John: Yes.

Craig: Really?

Chris: Rooney Mara.

John: Rooney Mara plays that.

Craig: Wasn’t there already one of those that like [Murray Bowen’s] company did? Didn’t he do? Oh, I thought he did.

Chris: Maybe we’re talking about the same one.

Craig: No, no, that one was [crosstalk].

Chris: But, yes, I saw a trailer. Joaquin Phoenix is Jesus.

Craig: Ooh. Jesus is a phoenix. I’m down with that.

Chris: Pretty interesting. It’s an interesting Jesus.

John: Yeah. So I guess that’s the question. Is this type of movie really about the setting or is it about specifically that sort of Jesus against Rome kind of thing? Because even Braveheart you could sort of look at as Jesus against Rome.

Craig: Directly.

John: Yeah, so it’s the same concept.

Craig: No question.

John: And to what degree do they need to be big screen movies versus – in a weird way–

Chris: Time.

John: Time.

Chris: Time and distance. When you want to talk epic scale, Lawrence of Arabia is a giant event.

John: But isn’t a miniseries better suited up for this kind of epic storytelling? I think it could have been kind of a fluke that the only thing we had were movies. And so we had to tell the Ten Commandments as a movie.

Craig: And they were very long movies.

John: They’re very long movies.

Craig: Ben-Hur is endless.

John: But the better form would have been as a series.

Craig: I agree with you. I think that there is – these things will generally work better, live better, as series. I think it’s probably where they’re generally going to happen. But one of the few segments of audience that still reliably goes to movies are faith-based audiences.

John: Yes.

Craig: And I’m not a faith-based person. I don’t even really know what faith is. I mean, I know the definition. I’ve just never felt it before. But regardless, they will go to these things. And so you have this other weird segment of movie where every now and then you’ll look at like on Deadline what were the top five movies this weekend and number four is, wait, what the? What? It’s a Prayer for Jimmy? And what is this?

Chris: And it’s why they made that last remake of Ben-Hur.

Craig: No question. Oh yes, yes. Ben-Hur was—

Chris: Was a direct calculated aimed – it was very much targeted at that group.

Craig: I mean, nothing is more cynical as far as I’m concerned.

Chris: No, no, The Passion of the Christ caught everybody off guard.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yes.

Chris: Nobody expected. And that was kind of the thing. And remember it came out at a weird time of year. It was January, when January was–

Craig: A cold, dead January.

Chris: That’s the place where movies went to die.

Craig: January, February. By the way, is there any month now where movies go to die? I don’t think there is.

Chris: Yes. Back to school week. The first week of September is still – somebody’s going to do it. But that is–

Craig: Actually a great idea for just a movie is back to school week, let’s go see every movie. It’s just one horrible movie where all of the junk gets dumped.

Chris: Oh yes.

John: All right, let’s maybe wrap up with buddy cop, which was a frequent suggestion. Buddy cop, come on, there have been amazing buddy cop movies. 21 Jump Street. The Other Guys. Hot Fuzz. The Heat. Bad Boys. Men in Black. K-9. Lethal Weapon. White Chicks. Shanghai Noon. That idea that you have two mismatched people who have to work together to solve a crime and to do things. It’s a classic paradigm. You know, Abbott and Castello. We’ve always seen these two, this [unintelligible] go through things. But we’re not doing a lot of them now. So what’s – how do we get to it?

Craig: Well, you know what? I think the Too Fast Too Furious, I just always give Derek Haas credit for that. And let’s so also say RIP John Singleton, the director of Too Fast Too Furious. But the Fast and Furious franchise is kind of a buddy cop writ large with multiple buddies.

John: True.

Chris: Dragged Across Concrete is coming out.

Craig: Yeah. I think they still do these.

Chris: I don’t know that that’s a comedy.

John: Central Intelligence is essentially a buddy cop movie.

Craig: That’s right. That’s buddy cop. And there was just a movie, wasn’t there a movie with Regina Hall just out and – I think that they keep making these.

Chris: Oh, well the Sandra Bullock, Miss Congeniality.

John: Oh, The Heat.

Craig: Oh, that’s way back. But then there’s The Heat with Melissa McCarthy. Yeah, I think they still make buddy cop movies.

John: So I think we may need to step away from the idea of cops. So as long as there are two people who are tasted in a professional job of doing some kind of police-y thing.

Chris: The Odd Couple with guns.

John: An Odd Couple with guns. Thank you.

Craig: Odd Couple with guns. That’s pretty much what it is.

Chris: What it boils down to.

Craig: And they become each other’s family.

Chris: Yes.

John: And so as long as, you know, you can make them for the big screen. You have to have a certain production value and a certain size to make them for the big screen. Weirdly you don’t see as many of them in TV shows anymore. So I guess right now on the air we have MacGyver, we have Magnum PI which is sort of–

Chris: Yeah, cop shows on TV are definitely more dramas.

Craig: Procedurals. Well, because the essence of the buddy cop is that they don’t start as buddies and they end up as buddies. But you can’t end up as anything on a serialized show. You have to keep going. So it kind of has to be a movie.

Chris: Yes. A lot of this conversation seems to be about how technology has disrupted what we imagined the plain of cinema to be. There seems to be a really clear shift.

Craig: And just wait.

Chris: From no home video, to home video, to no home video again. Now it’s home theater. Now it’s home – it’s content. That’s where I think the line is blurring. It’s big screen/small screen.

Craig: And the amount that’s available now is – and the resources that are being poured into it. I mean, better or worse, however you want to chop up the money, there was just way less money. I mean, there were five studios and they gave you some studio. And there were three networks and they gave you some money.

But now we’ve got just billions and billions rushing in to make more and more stuff. It is transforming things. But there aren’t that many more screens. In fact, I’d probably argue there are fewer screens than there used to be.

John: Well, there’s not more time. There’s not more time for people to view things. And so even though we have new people coming in and new distribution outlets, we have new money chasing new things–

Craig: Time is a flat circle.

John: Yes. And so we don’t have the ability to watch more things. And so we have to choose how we’re going to do this.

Chris: I’m looking at the–

John: So I skipped over some things. Is there a genre there you want to tackle?

Chris: Westerns.

John: Let’s talk about westerns.

Craig: Hmm, westerns.

John: On this show we’ve talked about Unforgiven. We’ve talked about 3:10 to Yuma. We’ve talked about sort of westerns. But what is it about westerns that you think can be suited towards the big screen. Because also we had Scott Frank on who talked about his great Netflix show.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: Godless.

John: Godless. Which was sort of exploding what a normal western—

Craig: Meant to be a movie. Written as a script.

Chris: He struggled with it for years, right? He was trying to get it down to something movie size.

Craig: Well, and he does it with all of his movies. But, I mean, look, it was movie size. It’s just that what he was struggling was to get somebody to pay for it as a movie. Because essentially people kept saying well the western is dead, the western is dead, the western is dead.

Chris: And that which is the WWII movie is dead. You hear about this all the time. And then the number of times I’ve seen a dead genre—

Craig: Everything is dead until it’s not.

Chris: Yeah. Dunkirk was a really great example of a dead genre that people don’t go to see anymore.

Craig: My favorite example is nothing could have been a deader genre than pirate movies.

John: Oh yeah, of course.

Craig: Pirate movies. Not only dead—

Chris: Do you remember Pirates with Walter Matthau?

Craig: Yes.

John: Yes.

Chris: Oh my god.

Craig: But before they made Pirates of the Caribbean we had Cutthroat Island which had sank an entire, like a hedge fund disappeared.

Chris: It killed Carolco.

Craig: Yeah, Carolco. An entire company was dead. And before that–

Chris: Killed careers.

Craig: Careers. Renny Harlin. And then – and the thought of making a pirates movie was considered almost obscene.

John: Yeah.

Chris: Yes.

Craig: And…

John: Pirates of the Caribbean. Just takes one.

Craig: There we go.

John: It didn’t start a new genre. There weren’t like other pirates movies coming after that. It was only the one pirate movie.

Craig: Exactly. Everybody else was like you know what, let’s let them have it. We’re still not making pirate movies.

Chris: We’re still not making pirate movies. And it so specifically hinges around a kind of storytelling and a character. Johnny Depp.

Craig: And a brand.

Chris: Exactly.

Craig: I mean, just built in.

John: It was also supernatural. So you had a supernatural vibe to it which is different than other stuff.

Chris: But the western, Unforgiven represented a shift towards deconstructionist from which the genre never seemed to – 3:10 to Yuma was its own darker western. Godless was its own. What I miss – what I’d love to see is—

Craig: Shane.

Chris: The Magnificent 7. And Shane. Silverado. The Big Country. Movies that are more of an adventure and more a morality tale as opposed to – watch slow west.

Craig: It’s never going to happen. It’s gone. It’s over.

Chris: I will fight you on that.

Craig: Well, look, I think as a country and a culture we have lost the ability to go back to the kind of idealized west. We just know too much.

Chris: No, I don’t think it’s idealized. I think – you look at The Big Country, it’s not idealized. The country is rough, but a man walks into it who refuses to play by those rules. And I think that’s – if you take westerns there are two kinds. There are kind of westerns noirs where the west just chews you up and spits you out. And there’s the place where one can prove one’s self.

Craig: Sure.

Chris: And it’s this rough and lawless place where somebody, you know.

Craig: Maybe a book would do it.

John: A book might do it. I mean, I think it comes back to the discussion we had with the ensemble dramedies which his that we used to go to see those movies that didn’t have a lot of high stakes in them because that was fine. We needed to go see a movie.

Craig: What the hell else were you going to do on a Saturday afternoon?

John: And so I just wonder that this non-deconstructed western that is just truly a western whether it’s actually going to get people to go out to see it on a screen.

Chris: Hell or High Water.

John: Hell or High Water—

Chris: It was contemporary but it’s a western.

John: It totally is.

Chris: It’s a bank-robbing—

John: It’s a pickup truck western and I loved it for what it was able to do. But that was not a breakout smash hit. It was a good performer, but it was not—

Chris: I think it did OK financially and it got nominated for Best Picture.

John: It did, absolutely.

Chris: Which for movies of that size is kind of the – that’s your life blood to keep in the theaters for another—

Craig: John Lee Hancock has kind of made a western in a sense with The Highwaymen.

Chris: The Highwaymen. Sure.

Craig: But, again, Netflix. I mean, and that’s where John Lee lives now. You know, those are the movies he’s going to be making now because – and here’s a guy who made, I don’t know, $14 billion for Warner Bros and Alcon with The Blind Side. And today I don’t think they make The Blind Side for theatrical. That’s what’s happened. I fear that we have lost something kind of permanently in the economics of making these movies.

And it may have literally just come down to the cost of marketing. Because—

Chris: That’s everything.

Craig: Right. I mean, Netflix, the way they market their movie is they don’t. It’s just there.

Chris: When you turn on Netflix they’re like, hey, do you want to watch this?

Craig: Correct.

John: Absolutely. And they bought every billboard in Los Angeles but that’s just for us.

Chris: But here’s the upside to that. Here’s the less than dystopian way of looking at that. In the current culture where the business is suddenly waking up to the fact that they have to diversify, this is something I experience a lot on the movies that I get called in to come in and do fixes on. The business was predicated on a male director makes a $5 million movie that makes $50 million. Let’s give him $200 million in hopes it makes $1 billion. Women were not afforded those same undeserved opportunities.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: Which they are now.

Craig: And were punished—

Chris: And were punished – exactly.

Craig: If they didn’t do the impossible.

Chris: Whereas the way to look at Netflix is Netflix could be the farm system. Now there’s many more movies being made for lower budgets creating – and I see lots of women directing television now.

Craig: Way more opportunity.

Chris: The director lists that I’m now being handed for the TV shows I’m working on are 50/50 and you’re actually looking at, oh, that person is being hired for the quality of their work, which is very encouraging. Is it possible that what we end up with is – you know how the Oscars have sort of divided into—?

Craig: Yes.

Chris: You know, there’s Oscar movies and there’s money-making movies. Now could there be there’s Netflix movies and there’s feature films? And that the feature films because of marketing requirements need to be bigger movies that make more money. And then Netflix becomes the farm system that teaches people how to do stuff.

You could live within the Netflix bubble and make a 14, a 25, and a $60 million movie.

Craig: Yeah. I think we’re there. I mean, I think that’s where we are. The real question, is there any kind – well, question number one. Is there mobility from Netflix type of movies or other TV movies to the big ones? Or do people even want to go? Because here’s the thing. I think a lot of filmmakers don’t – you know, we were talking to Mari Heller about this. Mari Heller made this incredible movie, Diary of a Teenage Girl. It was amazing. And people came to her and they’re like here’s this huge superhero movie, you want to do it? And she was like I feel like I’m supposed to, because we’re trying to advance the cause of female directors and we’re trying to get into those big seats, but I don’t want to.

I want to do this.

Chris: Well, there’s no point in making it if – you look at her and that dilemma knowing that – having nothing to do with who is directing a movie how those movies get made. The script is not ready.

Craig: Yep. [laughs]

Chris: The movie is going in three weeks.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: You’ve never done anything like this.

Craig: The actor is kind of in charge.

Chris: The producer, whose name is on a bunch of giant movies, will not be there.

Craig: Correct.

Chris: And this is all going to be your fault. Do you still want to do it?

Craig: It is really terrifying.

Chris: Correct. And again, it takes a special kind of director to get into that kind of trouble and then accept the help when they bring it in. Because you are essentially now, it’s very embarrassing. You’re at a point where you’re in way over your head. And not because – this is not hubris. They’re promised support, and then it’s just not there. So now suddenly you lose control of your movie. It takes a lot having never been through the process to know that it’s all going to be OK in the end. When the movie works you’ll still get credit.

Craig: That’s a lot to have faith in.

Chris: It’s very wounding. So I can see somebody looking at that and saying—

Craig: Nah.

Chris: But there’s the other side of that is the grass is always greener. You’re going to have people making big giant movies. Michael Bay made Pain & Gain because he really wanted to make it. Michael Bay, some part of Michael Bay – I don’t care, any filmmaker you can name at that level – some part of them wants to make their little movie about—

Craig: Their podium movie.

Chris: [laughs] They want to make their podium movie.

Craig: They want to make their podium movie.

Chris: Yes, and the same thing I would imagine is just – the Duffer Brothers have some big feature they want to do.

Craig: Big ass dumb movie they want to do.

Chris: Yes, they’ve got some big ass.

John: Well, I think Duffer Brothers are a great example because Stranger Things had an effect on popular culture which was terrific and because it was a really popular series. But if that had just been a one-off movie I don’t think it would have had that effect on popular culture—

Chris: No.

John: The way that a movie that’s released on big screens can actually bend culture in a way. So Black Panther can bend culture.

Craig: We have proof of that. Because even though I admired it, Super 8 is Stranger Things.

John: It is.

Craig: And it just doesn’t work as a movie the way Stranger Things works as a series.

John: Yeah. And that was the case where J.J. Abrams wanted to make this smaller movie.

Craig: Well, what do you say we wrap this up by heading into One Cool Things?

John: Craig, do you have a One Cool Thing this week?

Craig: I do have a One Cool Thing. I hope that you have a One Cool Thing.

Chris: I have Two Cool Things.

Craig: Well, it’s called One Cool Thing, Chris.

John: He can do two. It’s the 400th episode.

Chris: I have to pick one?

Craig: No, you can do two.

Chris: One of my Cool Things is in the other Cool Thing.

Craig: OK, fair enough.

Chris: Neither of them may be cool.

Craig: They’re nested.

Chris: They’re nerdy.

John: Kangaroos.

Craig: My One Cool Thing this week is a recommendation from grand crossword nerd Trip Payne. And it is an app called One Clue Crossword. Very clever. So you get a little – it looks like vaguely a crossword. It’s not like a proper crossword. But there are no clues except for a picture. And all of the answers—

Chris: I’m already obsessed.

Craig: Are things that are contained in that photo.

Chris: Oh, come on.

John: Oh great.

Craig: And you’ve got to figure out what goes where in the interlocking grid.

Chris: Genius.

Craig: Starts off easy, gets harder and harder and harder.

Chris: By the way to everyone listening, this is the guy who does The New York Times Crossword Puzzle in 2.5 minutes on every Monday. You are like Mr. Crossword.

Craig: No, Trip Payne could – this dude literally was once the actual champion of all crossword puzzles. He’s amazing.

Chris: But it’s you and Megan Amram and David Kwong and Rian Johnson.

Craig: Shannon Woodward and Rian Johnson and Chris Miller.

Chris: And I was a fly on the wall watching you guys and looking at my time. I can’t type that fast. I don’t know how, right?

John: I tried, too, and I can’t.

Craig: Practice.

Chris: If you gave me all the answers.

John: I couldn’t fill it in.

Chris: If you were standing over my shoulder going, “Just type this,” I couldn’t. I couldn’t do the Wednesday in two minutes.

Craig: There was a great, one of the great, great crossword constructors of all time was a guy named Henry Hook. He would make crosswords for The Boston Globe I think. And he was notoriously fast. And one guy once raced him with a crossword, except the twist was that the guy had written the crossword. It was his crossword. And he lost to Henry Hook. Yep.

Chris: That’s amazing. So don’t you think that there’s some sort of a physical hand-eye component?

Craig: You get faster as you. What can I say?

Chris: Well, I definitely – because you’re able to track it on the app. Yeah, my times have improved but I’ve hit a wall. There’s no—

Craig: Yeah, you started too late man.

Chris: That’s the problem.

Craig: You’ve got to get in there when you’re a kid.

Chris: The brain is just rusty. You’re right. I should have done it.

John: So my One Cool Thing, this winter I had a cold and so I had my humidifier out. The humidifier worked great. And I found that I was still using the humidifier because I kind of liked the noise it made.

Craig: Nice white noise.

John: White noise. But like I didn’t need to have this thing out in my room and this fan spinning. So I ended up finding a really good white noise machine. I went on the Wirecutter and picked their best white noise machine. And you know what? They were right. It’s a really good little white noise machine. It’s called The LectroFan High Fidelity White Noise Sound Machine. $46 on Amazon. It’s a small little hockey puck that makes really good sound.

And the thing I learned is that some of these machines they just have a sample that they’re playing, a sample sound. This one generates it algorithmically so it’s always completely random.

Craig: That’s really random. Because I use an app.

John: For traveling I use an app.

Craig: And the app is on a loop. And what will happen is if you’re having a bad night—

John: You’ll hear the loop.

Craig: You start hearing the loop. And now you’re F-ed.

Chris: That’s got to be like delirium.

Craig: No, it’s super bad.

Chris: Horrible. Do you have trouble sleeping?

Craig: Not the way I used to. Not the way I used to. As I get older I find that actually I’m looking forward to going to sleep. I used to dread it. And now I’m like, oh yay, I get to give up.

Chris: Ooh, it’s nighttime.

Craig: I get to quit on life and just unplug.

Chris: I never realized that insomnia was just refusing to embrace surrender.

Craig: No question. For me, insomnia was always just like do not die.

Chris: In your sleep!

Craig: In your sleep. What are your nested Cool Things?

Chris: My nested Cool Things are I brought this computer bag.

John: It’s a good-looking computer bag. It’s a black bag.

Chris: It is a black bag. It is made by a company called eBags. And you can see how there’s one strap. There’s actually two, but you can undo this and tuck it in and it becomes—

Craig: Like a briefcase.

Chris: Like a briefcase bag.

John: Nice.

Chris: And usually the two-in-one king of thing really turns me off. This is great in terms of all its many pockets. My favorite one being this rather large pocket at the bottom.

Craig: Or?

Chris: The case itself comes with a hard shell so you can store all of your cables in here. I took it out and this is where I put my toiletries when I travel. Because you have to take all of your liquids out.

Craig: Right. You’ve got to pull out that stupid clear bag.

Chris: Yes. And this bag just places you right through security.

Craig: That’s great.

Chris: It’s a great bag.

Craig: You know what? There’s a topic, by the way – traveling for writers – that we’re going to have to cover. Because god knows I’ve done it enough this year.

Chris: Oh yes.

Craig: And I got travel wired up.

John: I’ve gotten much better because I’ve done all the book tours.

Craig: Right. Exactly.

John: You just pulled something from this. So what is this?

Craig: Is that a battery?

Chris: This is not a battery. This is a laptop stand. Because writing flat on a desk – when I travel—

Craig: It’ll screw your wrist.

Chris: It screws your wrist. This is made by a company called, I hope I’m pronouncing it correctly, AViiQ. Which is how one would spell AViiQ.

Craig: Naturally AViiQ.

Chris: And for people not watching it—

Craig: That’s everyone. [laughs]

Chris: It looks like a ruler. Right? Well I’m talking – that’s not. You guys are here.

Craig: I’m not looking.

Chris: And it’s like origami. It’s made of aluminum. It unfolds.

Craig: Oh, wow, that’s great.

Chris: And feel the weight of it?

Craig: Oh my god, I’ve got to get this.

Chris: It’s like a few sheets of paper.

Craig: And this I assume is made to fit say a MacBook Pro?

Chris: I’ve had every laptop from a Pro to an Air.

John: Oh my god, it’s so light.

Chris: Everything on it. You don’t even know it’s in your bag.

Craig: That’s great.

Chris: It’s great.

Craig: AViiQ.

Chris: AViiQ. Everybody just go and look at it online. Because there’s no way to describe it where it makes any sense.

Craig: I’m buying that. I’m buying that. That’s brilliant.

Chris: OK, good. I’m glad. And by the way—

John: It was worth the two things.

Chris: This bag, this computer bag, is like $130. It’s not extremely prohibitive.

Craig: It’s not cheap, but it’s not extremely prohibitive. It’s not made of Panda skin.

Chris: Correct.

Craig: The way one would expect Chris McQuarrie to roll.

Chris: And the AViiQ thing is like $20.

Craig: I like that.

Chris: It’s been a while since I bought it.

Craig: I hear you.

Chris: All right. It’s $10,000.

John: [laughs] It’s diamond-encrusted.

Chris: Yes. It’s made of conflict medals from—

Craig: Conflict medals!

John: As we wrap up this show we should remind people that they should buy t-shirts. The Scriptnotes 400-episode t-shirts are available. They should also buy tickets to our live show coming up at the Ace Hotel.

Craig: 400.

John: We’ll have links to both of those things.

Craig: That’s like eight years of podcasting.

John: It’s a lot of podcasting.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: It’s not even counting the special episodes, of course. So, the things that aren’t part of the number sequence—

Craig: Can’t believe it. Wow.

John: 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 the place where you can send longer questions. For shorter questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust.

Craig: Chris McQuarrie is?

Chris: Cryptically enough @chrismcquarrie.

John: @chrismcquarrie.

Chris: I’m in the midst of a Twitter moratorium.

John: It’s a good thing.

Craig: Tweet at him anyway.

Chris: Yeah. I answer questions in DMs now.

Craig: Be disagreeable with him. He loves it.

Chris: Yeah, I like being disagreeable.

John: You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up about four days after the episode airs.

Some folks have started doing recaps and discussion on the screenwriting sub-Reddit. I don’t know if you’ve seen this, Craig?

Craig: No.

John: If that continues that’s great. But basically they’re just recapping what happens on the show.

Craig: Oh, I hope they recap this very moment.

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

And if you’re doing that you should probably check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide to find out which episodes our listeners recommend most. You were on Episode 300. We already have you penciled in for Episode 500.

Chris: Yes, done. I’m there.

Craig: No question. I mean, that’s our Diamond Jubilee.

Chris: OK, great. I’m there.

John: Chris McQuarrie, thank you very much.

Chris: Thank you guys.

Craig: And you know what, John? Thank you. 400 episodes.

John: It’s been nice.

Craig: Thanks man.

Links:

  • Order your Scriptnotes 400 shirts, sweatshirts, and tanks (Light) and (Dark)!
  • Join us for Scriptnotes LIVE on June 13th at the Ace Hotel to benefit Hollywood Heart. Buy your tickets here!
  • Watch Chernobyl on HBO
  • The Chernobyl Podcast with Craig and Peter Sagal
  • Scriptnotes episode 300, From Writer to Writer-Director with Chris McQuarrie
  • LectroFan High Fidelity White Noise Sound Machine
  • One Clue Crossword
  • eBags and AViiQ Portable Laptop Stand
  • Find past episodes and Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Check out the Scriptnotes Episode Guide
  • Submit to the Pitch Session here!
  • Chris McQuarrie on Twitter
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Rajesh Naroth (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 399: Notes on Notes Transcript

May 14, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 399 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

So, this afternoon Craig and I did something different. We went over to Amblin and spoke to a group of about 30 development executives to discuss what it feels like as a writer to get notes. And to offer them suggestions for how to give notes that will actually achieve what they want.

In many ways this episode reminds me most of Episode 99 where we sat down with therapist Dennis Palumbo to talk about psychotherapy for screenwriters and the weird ways that writers process emotion. In the first half you’ll hear me and Craig sort of giving a presentation. Then we open up for discussion with the whole group. Enjoy.

Ah, so nice. So this is theoretically going to be Episode 399 of our show. 399 episodes of our show, which is crazy – crazy, crazy. And on one of these episodes Craig proposed you know what we should go in and talk to studio executives about how they give notes because we as people who get notes a lot could give them insights in how to give notes. And so Craig made this offer. Someone took us up on this offer. We went and talked to some folks at Disney.

**Craig Mazin:** Yep.

**John:** It was a good conversation. A much smaller conversation than this group. Ben, thank you for bringing us in here to talk with this larger group about our notes on notes. Because usually we’re coming in here to hear these notes and we are filled with sort of this emotional response sometimes to these notes and we’re trying to figure out how to do them.

But I thought if we talked through the process of giving notes and hearing notes we might honestly be all able to do this a little bit better. So that’s the impetus behind this presentation.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is mostly to help you guys help us. I mean, it’s always self-interest really. Because we are kind of allies, whether we realize it or not, there’s a little journey that we’re all going on to try and make something which is impossible to do, as we know. And so we are allies and that means we have to figure out how to help each other along the way. And I think sometimes in everyone’s zeal to help the opposite occurs. I won’t say what that word is. It’s hurt. You’re hurting people.

So, anyway, we know that all the intentions are good, but hopefully we can give you some practical advice just so you can hear how things filter through our minds when we have these experiences with you.

**John:** Yesterday Craig emailed me to say, “That thing we did at Disney, did we have a script? Did we have anything we were working off of?” And I said I don’t think so, I think we just winged it. He’s like, “No, no, I’m pretty sure we had some sort of script.” And then Craig texted me last night saying like, “I found it. I found the shared Google doc.” So this is the shared Google doc we’re working off.

**Craig:** Should inspire a lot of confidence in the two of us.

**John:** Yeah, absolutely. So these are the notes on our notes on notes. And it keys in with this slide show, so that’s why I was hoping we could stick a little bit on this first–

**Craig:** Yeah, let’s do it. Where should we start?

**John:** Why is it so hard to get notes? Craig?

**Craig:** Got it. So, when our work, and I include all of you – your work, everything you do – when it is exposed or critiqued we feel emotional pain. That’s common to every human being in all circumstances. I don’t think that that is a sign of weakness, even though you may have been taught that, particularly if you grew up in the ‘70s. But rather it is a sign of being human. So congratulations.

But here’s a question that might seem obvious until you really think about it. Why? Why should being criticized or critiqued make us feel emotional pain? Well, it turns out there’s a good answer. Let’s talk about a little science. This is the last bit of science you’ll have to deal with today. So Chernobyl – no – neurologists know that emotional pain doesn’t come from this part up here. So our neocortex or frontal lobe, this is all of our rational human thinking/processing/reasoning brain. Emotional pain comes from this little lump underneath called the limbic system. I can’t get there because it’s underneath. But it’s basically an inheritance from rats and lizards and birds. And all it really does is control our fight or flight response.

And this fight or flight response happens before the human smart part of our brain even knows what’s happening. A little bit like if you touch a hot stove your spinal reflex will have your hand moving back before the rest of your brain goes, ow, that’s hot. Well, similarly when you get negative threatening input the limbic system is going to fire off messages before the front of your brain even has a chance to process what has happened. And unfortunately the limbic system only has one alarm message to send. It’s very stupid. Again, it’s from rats and birds. And the message it sends to you, to the front of your brain is you are in danger of dying. That’s the only phrase it knows. You’re in danger of dying.

So, start fighting or starting fleeing. Now, that may sound a little dramatic, but if so–

**John:** Craig, it sounds a little dramatic.

**Craig:** I can make it more dramatic.

**John:** But honestly I’ve had that response to notes in a room where I felt like the floor was collapsing underneath me. And so therefore I have to do something. I have to take an action right now which is not just sitting and listening.

**Craig:** Yeah. Another writer we know told me a story once that in the middle of a notes meeting she just asked if she could take a break to go to the bathroom and then she vomited. And then she came back. This is – I understand this.

Here’s what’s happening. When you’re writing or directing or creating something you’re creating a kind of external expression of yourself. We put ourselves into these things. And what you’re doing is essentially recreating the contents of your mind on page or on screen. And the more you care the better you are at it frankly. The more you invest of your own humanity and passion and love, the more enmeshed you become with it. It becomes hard to figure out where you stop and it starts.

If you have kids, and I don’t know, it’s a pretty young crowd, but if you do have children you will understand this. The children are not you, but if they are threatened well then you will feel fear and pain and adrenaline. The limbic system is pounding its alarm system. You made the so they are you. Rationally we understand that the script isn’t us, but the limbic system sees no difference at all.

**John:** Yeah, it’s sort of the mama bear syndrome. You see your cub being threatened and therefore you must protect your cub. And so how do you get past that sense of like I must protect this thing that is partly me that is in danger.

**Craig:** Yeah. And to try and connect it a little bit to what you guys do, if you’re not also writing things, I want you think of how you feel when somebody criticizes something that is inherent to your identity or your being. There they are. I want you to think about how you feel when somebody criticizes your appearance. Your weight. Your sexuality. Your race. I want you to think about how you feel when someone essentially says you’re not good enough the way you are. I’m talking about your parents basically.

That’s why you’re here in Hollywood. You’re not good enough the way you are. Here’s a bunch of things that are completely wrong with you. Let me enumerate them and go into detail. Here’s what you should be instead. And please listen carefully.

Well, when these things happen it’s quite likely you’re going to want to run out of the room or wring their neck. It’s fight or flight. And in these instances now switching back to writers when they begin to feel emotional pain writers will get angry, they will get sullen, they will get argumentative. They’ll get snippy or passive-aggressive. Does any of this sound familiar? Have you seen this happening? It’s fight or flight.

**John:** From the writer’s perspective, this sort of is a natural reaction. They feel like they’re under attack. From the outsider’s perspective it’s like why are they being so weird about all of this. We all have the same goal. We’re trying to make a better movie, a better pilot. We’re trying to – theoretically rowing in the same direction. Why are they acting so weird?

**Craig:** Yeah. It’s actually a great sign. I know it’s annoying to deal with in the moment. If you’re dealing with a writer who is like, oh yes, who is reacting to your notes as if they didn’t write the script at all, that’s a psychopath. And also probably a bad writer.

But John is absolutely right. That the irony is all of that emotional pain and the response to that emotional pain has nothing to do with making the movie better. And this is where writers kind of start to circle and cycle a bit because the more emotional pain we feel the worse these meetings and encounters get, which leads to worse interaction, which leads to more emotional pain. And we could even start to become viewed as the D word. Difficult.

And it’s hard because the front of your brain is saying, “Hey, they’re going to start thinking of you as difficult.” But underneath there’s this little blurb saying, “Kill them.” And that’s a rough one to correspond. Yes, you will look at it from your side as somebody trying to make some sort of intellectual or angry defense of what they’ve done, to deny what you’re saying, to essentially negate everything you are putting into this. But that’s not what’s happening. It’s just somebody who is terrified that they’re about to die and they’re trying to stay alive, whether you realize it or not.

So, John, how do we do this better for us and for them? Can we get into some practicals?

**John:** Let’s do some practicals. Let’s talk about some dos and some don’ts, which are almost always going to be sort of opposite reflections of the natural instinct versus what’s probably most helpful at the moment.

So let’s start with owning an opinion. And so when you have an opinion and you’re sharing an opinion, really take possession of that opinion. Really feel it. Have it be a meaningful opinion to you that you think will actually improve the project. Not just an opinion you’re repeating because you’re supposed to be passing it along.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, that’s essentially why you have your jobs. You have your jobs because somebody says, “Look, you’ve got good taste. I like the way you respond and react to things.” So it’s really important that you own that opinion. But what you should not do is convert your opinion into a fact. It’s OK. Opinions are good enough. It’s just good enough. I think sometimes there’s this game that happens in these rooms. You’ve probably watched it or maybe even participated. It’s called the battle of examples.

Here’s my opinion. And someone says, “No, because they did that in this movie and it didn’t work.” And then someone says, “But, they did it in this movie and it did work.” Someone says, “No, that movie is different.” Someone says, “No, because of this.” No because of this. Everyone is trying to [empiricize] an opinion.

Here’s the deal. The first person to do something well in a movie that works – that’s original and they win. And the first person to do something poorly in a movie that doesn’t work – that’s stupid and it was a bad idea. It doesn’t matter what happened before. There is no way to turn your opinions into fact. You might as well just say it’s how I feel. That actually is good enough.

**John:** Yeah. And when you try to make your subjective opinion into an objective fact or presented as an objective fact we immediately go defensive because we can see logically that’s not actually an objective fact so then we start to doubt everything else you’re saying, too. So saying your opinion as an opinion, as your subjective take on a situation, is great. And it also reminds the writer that they’re being hired for their subjective opinions, for their subjective skills and sort of negotiating this emotional terrain. So keeping it in the realm of opinion is really helpful.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** A do. Do share your reactions and your questions. You are often one of the very first audiences for a script so share what you felt. Share what you felt as you were reading through it because as we’ve been writing a thing we’ve been living with this thing for months and so we don’t have clean eyes on stuff. You guys do have clean eyes. So phrasing what you find in what your first read was, what it felt like to you to be sitting in an audience watching it on the screen of your mind is really helpful because particularly when there’s things that aren’t clear or places you thought the story was going that it wasn’t going that’s great for us to hear.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, you guys have all been in focus groups in screenings and there are people in those focus groups who say when this happened I felt this, but when this happened I felt this. And we think, OK good, we’re getting our NRG money’s worth. And then there’s that guy who, you know, “Actually,” because he goes to cinema school and he’s thought about this during the screening. You’re like that’s useless. What we need are true honest human reactions, right?

So what you want to do is hold on to those for sure, but try to avoid announcing the conclusions of your reactions. Because that’s where you’re sort of short-circuiting a natural process. If something worries you in a script as you’re reading it or confuses you or makes you annoyed or bores you that’s really valuable. We need to hear that. Tell me where it got annoying. Like right here, or this is where I got confused. Where it becomes less useful is when people say to us as writers, “You know what, she’s too angry. This character is too angry. She’s too mean. She’s a turn-off.” That’s a conclusion. And we don’t know quite what to do with it.

And what it really sounds like is, “And that’s a fact and somehow you missed that.” When what is useful is to say, “I don’t understand why in this scene she’s so harsh with him given the circumstances. Can you talk about what you were going for because what I felt was put off?” That’s a discussion. That’s a conversation.

**John:** Absolutely. Because now you’re talking about what your reaction was to something that you read and we can discuss that moment. We can discuss what our intention was behind that rather than she’s too mean. We can’t do anything with that. There’s nothing we can write that fixes “she’s too mean.”

**Craig:** You’re kind of just inviting us to say, “Well, I don’t think she is.” And now we get into an argument over a fact that is not a fact at all.

**John:** A suggestion, speak towards the passion. What you’re interested in. Speak towards what you want. Even if it’s in the context of criticism. So always be discussing where you want things to be going rather than sort of where things are right now that aren’t exactly what you want. So speak towards what is getting you excited about the project, not what is turning you off.

**Craig:** Yeah. You wanted to do this in the first place for some reason. Something excited you about it. If the script isn’t there say, “Listen, when I got to this place I wanted it to go here. How can we get it there?” That’s a thing where you can move toward.

What we really don’t know how to process as writers is how to write away from something. There is really no way to write away from a thing. So, here’s an example. Don’t make this scene so talky. OK. You’ve probably felt that a lot of times. Don’t make this scene so talky. This scene is way too talky. That’s writing away from something. Don’t bother with all this plot language. There’s too much plot language. Less. That’s writing away from something.

And these notes are generally born of fear. That’s not a knock on you guys. That’s really useful. I mean, that fear is necessary to kind of evaluate this material. You’re scared that an audience, to whom you’re accountable to, is going to get bored, or turned off, or confused. Your fear is completely warranted. Just please keep it to yourself because we are drowning in our own fear and we cannot handle your fear as well.

And also to help us write towards something just re-contextualize these things. For instance, OK, this scene is too talky, please write it less talky. Write away from that. Not as helpful. But what you could say is, “These two characters have this great vibe in this scene where they say almost nothing, when they’re kind of just reading each other’s minds because it’s clear that their relationship works like that. They don’t need as many words as two other people might. And so they’re intimating things like for instance this point.

This scene here, how can we move this scene more toward that? Then the writer goes I know how to do that. It’s not even about buttering them up and saying, “Look, you did it really good here.” It’s not that. It’s just giving them something to write toward.

**John:** Absolutely. And you’re giving them characters to write towards. In all your conversations talk about characters and talk about the choices the characters are making. Talk about it in terms of these characters being living creatures within the universe of your movie or your TV show. And what they are literally doing. And so that way you let the focus of choice less on the writer and more on what the characters are doing.

**Craig:** Yep. Because characters are talking. Characters are boring. Characters are beautiful. Characters are interesting. Characters are illogical. What we weirdly don’t know how to work with effectively is discussion of the scene or the script, which seems odd. But the scene or the script is this other thing that is a function of characters. So, when we hear talk about scenes in scripts and stories we’re weirdly jarred out of the mindset, the writing mindset, where we solve problems. Because where we generally solve problems is in the realm of character. Well, OK, if this isn’t working how can I make it a better function of this character? Or how can I change this character to get more like something else?

If all you do – if literally all you do – is write the notes as you would normally write them and then say now let’s just funnel this through a filter of characterize it. Let’s just put all these notes now within the context of character notes, you’re already going to be literally 50% closer to getting what you want.

**John:** When you’re giving notes, give the notes that can lead to meaningful changes in the screenplay. So here’s an example of the most meaningful note I ever got on a screenplay. And so this was right here at Amblin. It was Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen. I was up in their office, they were in one of the bungalows. And it was the second draft of the script. And in the script I’d written Will tells a story of how his father died, but he tells it at the funeral rather than telling it to Edward Bloom while he was in the hospital bed. So their note was what would happen if you told that story to Edward rather than about Edward. And it was just – I did have that immediate like, “oh no, they want me to change something,” but then the light went on and I was like, “oh, that is just so much better.” That is a meaningful change. It is not a huge change, it’s not a huge amount of work for me to do, but it is a huge change in sort of how this all works. And it was just – it was a fantastic note. And it was a meaningful note that changed a lot of things in the script.

There were other small things which wouldn’t have been as impactful. So be thinking about what is the thing that opens up possibilities.

**Craig:** Quality. Not quantity. Here is another kind of note which you and I have seen. This is an actual page note that I received from an actual studio. “Let’s cut Elena saying please at the end of this scene.” Well that’s just stupid. And it’s stupid for so many reasons.

But the most – I guess the most prominent reason is anybody that has spent any time on set or in an editing room knows that of all the resources that are required to make motion pictures and television the amount that is expended to add one more word to the end of a scene is zero. You are already there. That’s dumb. And when we get notes like that it kind of starts to undermine our confidence.

It may be that you think I really don’t like that she says please there at the end. Fine. When it comes time for the editing room if people have still left it in you make that argument there. That’s a meaningful note in the editing room. But it is not a meaningful note when you’re writing the script.

**John:** Yeah. And there’s some meaningful notes that are meaningful on set but not in the script. So this is an example from me. “Page 71, Aladdin’s line at the middle of the page, ‘I want to show her I’m someone worth knowing,’ feels a bit too direct and declarative. Can we find a way to say this with more subtext?”

I get why they gave the note. They were trying to be specific and kind of creative and helpful, but it had no relation to the actual we made. There is not a single moment in Aladdin that is anywhere near this subtle or with this kind of subtext. I can guarantee you.

**Craig:** I mean, that’s already way more sub textual than the rest of it.

**John:** Oh yes. Oh yes. It’s a very declarative movie. And this was like an actor line reading. Honestly it was trying to get way too detailed on a moment that was not – we just weren’t at that place. And so trying to use really fine pens on something where like we’re still kind of at Sharpie level here. And that was the wrong note for the moment.

**Craig:** We understand, by the way, that in many ways the notes process is your last attempt to exert control over this material before other people come and kind of start doing things that you cannot control. And we know that that is terrifying. But just be aware that controlling the script is really a thin substitute for controlling the shooting of the script and the editing of the script and the performance of the script and the direction of the script. It’s not going to get you what you want.

So the real thing is how can you work together with the writer to build in those protections so that you do get what you want?

**John:** How do we set up the world of the movie where this note makes sense? That’s sort of the macro.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** Do – present a unified set of notes. Try to give one set of notes to a writer rather than three conflicting sets of notes to a writer.

**Craig:** He said try.

**John:** Try.

**Craig:** Try.

**John:** And the converse is don’t pretend you’re giving one unified set of notes because that’s even more frustrating.

**Craig:** That’s the worst. Because sometimes you will get like the three groups of notes. They don’t overlap whatsoever so you are essentially paralyzed. By the way, paralyzed after reading three different documents explaining why essentially you’re stupid in different ways. So then you call up, say can you guys just agree on why I’m stupid. That would be fantastic. And then they send you an agreement of why you’re stupid and then they call you afterwards and say, “No, no, no, that’s not why you’re stupid. You’re stupid because of this, not because of that.”

And so it goes. Again, you’re trying to do your jobs. And we know that your jobs are difficult. We understand that there’s a lot going on back there. We don’t know what to do. We are – I mean, I will tell you this much: we’re naïve about how the situation works back here. And you want us naïve. You don’t want us thinking about that stuff. We just don’t get it. So if there are battles to be fought and battles to be won, fight them and win them, but do them before you get to us. Because it just stops us dead.

**John:** When you make a note stand by your note. If you truly have an opinion on material it shouldn’t change based on outside opinions or based on what worked last week at the box office. And so we’re going to believe your opinions if your opinions are consistent through time rather than they feel variable. Because if it feels like it’s a moving target it’s tempting for us to just kind of wait and see where the target is next.

**Craig:** It takes effort on our part to get past our pain to absorb the value of your reactions and your opinions, your honest thoughts and your honest opinions. Then we do. And we take them in and we become enmeshed with you and with your opinions. And then someone else comes along, like a director, or an actor, and they say, “Nah, what if we did this instead?” And you say, OK. And it’s all gone, like that, in an instant.

I’m not accusing any of you individually of doing this. But it has happened to me many, many times. And you start to think well then why am I ever listening to you about anything. If you’re not going to stand up for this, if you’re going to be so fastidious and insistent and specific with me, and then so flippant and casual once somebody else comes along, why bother?

**John:** Yeah. And I’ll say that sometimes it just naturally does happen that a director or some other powerful person has a note that directly conflicts with everything else you’ve been trying to do. In those moments acknowledge it to us privately. Otherwise it feels like we’re being gaslighted. That this was all – they never said that thing before. No, they did set it. This really is a change and this is why we’re making the change.

**Craig:** This is a really important point because I think sometimes it’s a natural instinct to think if I call up a writer and I say to them, “You know that thing that I was really on you about that I finally convinced you of that you believed in too that I just rolled over on completely?” If I call that writer up and admit that I’m going to look weak to them. I assure you it is the opposite. You only look weak to us when you pretend it didn’t happen. We know it happened. We know it happened. And we know why it happened. And if you call and say, “I fought as best I could but this is the deal, so I’m saying my powder for another bigger fight. And I apologize, but this is how it’s going.” We get it. And then we love you again.

**John:** Indeed. A do – do make it your goal to love the script. And that your notes are on a path towards loving it even more. The converse would be don’t attempt to win the who-can-complain-more game, which is a thing that happens. Sometimes it has happened in rooms where there’s multiple people all trying to fix a problem. Or sometimes it’s not a thing that I’ve written but it’s a project that I’m being brought in to rewrite and it just becomes this who can bitch most loudly about this thing that’s a problem.

**Craig:** Yeah. A little bit like those nature movies when the gazelle gets brought down and then all the hyenas come in and it’s just like fun at that point. It’s happened. The dam is broken. Let us tear this thing apart. Obviously if you’re doing it to a writer and she’s written something and everybody in the room is tearing it apart that’s incredibly traumatic. And it also begins to feel cruel.

The whole point is that we’re trying to improve something. If the point of the meeting is let’s all try and outdo each other to see who hates this more, why are you having the meeting? Just fire her and move on. You know?

But if you are going to have that meeting then you have to sort of get back to first principles. Why we loved you. Why we hired you. What we hope for you. And it may be that she can’t get there. But she’s definitely not going to get there if the tenor is a kind of one-upmanship of critique. Somebody among you must be the advocate in one way or the other.

**John:** Do ask writers how they like to receive notes. And so what is most helpful for the writer. And so you may have a process that’s your normal process and maybe that’s going to work great, but ask them first. And if there’s a way that you can actually communicate with them better try doing it their way.

**Craig:** Yeah. I mean, some of us like conversations. My preferred mode is a conversation. I don’t actually read the printed out notes. Just totally admitting it. I don’t read them. It took me a while also to realize that they’re not real. That they are a representation of a lot of – like some sort of power-brokered consensus among a lot of people. And that eventually you get to these notes and you’re like well this is a weird one. And then someone goes, “Yeah, none of us really agreed with that, but X wanted it, so it goes in.”

And the reading of it just for my brain when I just flip through and it just becomes like mush and it doesn’t work. But if I have a conversation, if I can see your eyes, and I can feel your emotional response, because those things are so dry. They’re so dry. Then I feel like I’m getting somewhere and I can have that conversation and you’ll actually get way further with me just talking than handing me the document.

But other people do not get – like the face-to-face thing tears them apart and they run into the bathroom and throw up and they really do need that document to kind of ease them into the process.

**John:** And also because we’re writers we will dwell on a specific word choice far too much. And so “it feels gloomy,” I’m like gloomy? Gloomy? What does he mean by gloomy? Foggy London gloomy? And so I end up getting on the phone and I’m like what do you mean by gloomy? And he’s like, “Well it feels like serious.” And I’m like, oh, serious, OK, serious. That’s not gloomy. It’s like you went through your thesaurus and found gloomy because you didn’t want to say serious, but–

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re bad at wordsing.

**John:** Yeah. You are bad at wordsing. So, that’s why actually conversation is so much more helpful usually than a document.

Finally, do reread your last set of notes before you get the next set of notes before you give the next set of notes because we will and we’ll remember and it’s not a good sign. But at the same time don’t feel like you have to defend your old notes with the new ones. If they’re bad ideas don’t feel like you have to defend them. You can move forward. Just make sure you’re moving forward in a consistent direction.

**Craig:** You’re allowed to be inconsistent. You’re allowed to change your mind. Just don’t pretend that you’re not. That’s the most important thing. It’s the gaslighting factor that makes us feel like we’re going insane. Just say it. I changed my mind. I change my mind all the time. I change my mind while I’m writing. I’ll do an outline and then I’ll do the script and some things are going to change because I changed my mind. It’s totally fine.

But if I was like, “No, that’s what I said I was always going to do.” What? It’s insane.

And, you know, that will kind of get you out of a lot of problems, too. It’s also OK to admit that you made a mistake in notes. Very frequently what will happen is because we know the script better than you do just because we wrote it – that’s not a knock on you – it will say, “On page 86 she says this, but she couldn’t have known that because she never ran into so-and-so.” Yes, she did, on page 5. You just missed it.

“Oh, OK. You know what? My bad.” I’ve been in meetings where they’ve been like, “Yeah, but not really.” And I’m like we’re going to change the movie because you skimmed? Nah. That’s bad policy. Yeah.

**John:** Let’s imagine some perfect notes. So if we could ever see some perfect notes in the world they might describe a movie that you want to green light, not a draft you want to read. And that’s really helpful for you talking in general about notes, it’s like always talk about the movie, don’t talk about the script. The script is a way to get to a movie, but don’t get so focused on this 12-point Courier. It’s always talking about the vision you have for a movie that’s going to be in a theater.

**Craig:** Yeah. I refer to it as the document. And I know that it’s tempting in those meetings to talk about the script, the script, the script, but in every other meeting you have you will talk about the movie. In casting, in pre-production, in budget, in hiring directors, in lighting, locations, movie, movie, movie, movie, movie. You sit in the room with the writer, document. The writer will go along with that completely. The writer will follow you right down that document hole and perfect a document. That’s not what you want the writer to be doing.

What you want the writer to be doing is to helping you perfect a movie, the theory of a movie, the imagination of a movie.

**John:** Perfect notes celebrate what’s working and not just what works in the first paragraph of notes.

**Craig:** Congratulations.

**John:** Yes, congratulations–

**Craig:** On a terrific first draft.

**John:** There’s so much stuff we love here.

**Craig:** However, we have a few remaining concerns.

**John:** Yes. I have to tell you, you know, 20 years at this and very rarely do I get notes that midway through will say like, “This is a fantastic moment. We’re so happy with this scene.” And they may feel that. There’s moments that they’ll independently say it, but they don’t ever acknowledge it in a notes session about how much they love a moment. Telling us what you love about a thing is so helpful because it lets us steer the ship towards something. And lets us know that we’re not crazy. We actually were able to do something good here.

**Craig:** This may be the biggest piece of advice for you guys. Because it does two things at once. Obviously we are desperately craving love and attention that we didn’t get from our parents. And so you can help provide that. In a very real way in the psychological phenomenon of transference you become our parents in this process and we are desperate for your approval, no matter age we are. No matter what level we are.

So, dropping those things in the middle makes us feel good. But John is absolutely correct when he says us knowing what you love is just as useful to us from a writing towards point of view as us knowing what you aren’t responding to because now we get like, OK, there is an aesthetic that we are forming together as part of our relationship. We had an opinion, you had an opinion, we’re finding points of commonality. And from there we make more points of commonality. And the notes process somewhere along the line just became a Negative Nelly list. Which is fine. We’re not running away from Negative Nelly. But we need to know Positive Patty because if we don’t all you really are doing again is writing away from something.

**John:** Finally, perfect notes inspire the writer to explore and create. The times in my career when I’ve had just great notes I’m excited to get back to that next draft because I’m seeing all the new things I can do. I don’t have the answers to things, because the notes didn’t provide answers. They provided really good questions that made me want to explore new things. And they got me past some of my hang-ups. They got me to realize like oh you know what if I did cut all of that then I’d have this space to do all this other stuff. They got me excited to build new things. And that’s what notes should ultimately do is it’s a plan for what is possible to create going forward.

**Craig:** There’s a phrase in family therapy, “Do you want a relationship or do you want to be right?” And that’s kind of how it works with this. You want a relationship. And you can be right, but through the lens of the relationship. If your goal at the end of a notes meeting is to make sure the writer has heard every single thing that you want to change, shape, control, move around, or alter, you haven’t done it right.

Your goal at the end of that notes meeting should be that the writer is excited to get back to the computer to make this new thing better. And that takes effort. And it also means you’re going to have to kind of sublimate some of your needs and your desires, too. But just keep in mind in the emotional tally sheet we’re taking it much harder than you are. Even though you’re the guys that paid all the money. We’re still emotionally taking it harder than you.

**John:** So this is not meant to be just a lecture. It’s meant to be a discussion and a conversation.

**Craig:** I wanted a lecture.

**John:** Yeah, he wanted a lecture.

**Craig:** I’m all about the lecture.

**John:** So now we’d love to talk with you guys about sort of about your response, questions you have, push back on anything you want to push back on. Who would like to ask a question or raise a hand? A silent group.

**Craig:** We also may have just been perfect.

**John:** Yeah, it’s entirely possible.

**Craig:** Oh, no, not perfect.

**Male Voice:** What do you find the note that comes up again and again most frequently in a general sense that you guys either don’t like or you don’t know what to do with? And I know that you’ve given some examples here, but something more specific that, you know, the scene isn’t working, or yeah. Go head.

**Craig:** The, and I think we’ve said this on the show before, the note I hate the most, the note I respect the least, and the note I think should be stricken from everyone’s development vocabulary is “this character isn’t likeable enough.” Good. Those are the good ones. Every movie I’ve ever loved was full of unlikeable characters. We are here – are we allowed to say where we’re doing this? We’re recording this at Amblin, the home of Steven Spielberg. Go watch Jaws and find me the likeable character. It’s wonderful.

So, it just has to go. And I know that it comes from places. Marketing has wormed their way into things and so on and so forth. But just fight back. Fight back as hard as you can. And if you can’t, if you lose that battle, then preface that note by saying, “I am so sorry to say this and I don’t believe it myself, but I am forced to say this. This character isn’t ‘likeable’ enough.”

And it’s particularly bad when it’s about a female character. I find that at that point we’re starting to drift into the whole like trope, you know, she’s got to be, you know. That one.

**John:** My biggest one is probably “faster.” Basically like can we get to this moment faster and basically like can you not do all the stuff that you’re doing to set up the world. And somehow have everything already be set up so we can get to this moment faster. And I think so often because we are rereading scripts and rereading scripts again we know what’s going to happen, and so therefore we’re always anticipating the thing happening and we forget that for an audience watching it they have none of that information. And so they are coming into it at a speed and they have to get that information.

So, I would say that we are constantly in push to get to those moments faster and faster and faster in ways that are not helpful usually for the story.

**Craig:** Yeah. The classic one is the first act is too long. And this ending is a bit abrupt. And I’m always like the first act should be longer and the third act should be shorter. I love first acts in movies. It’s when the people are meeting and I’m discovering them and this world is being built. And when I get to the climax I just want them to blow stuff up as fast as they can and get me back to the relationship because I know like, ugh, [croaking noise]. So yeah, rushing the first act in particular, I think try and fight that one as best you can. Because it does translate into movies where you end up reshooting because people don’t connect with the characters.

**John:** Funny how that works. Yeah. Moments you cut out. Other questions.

**Female Voice:** When someone gives you a note of like this is the bad pitch.

**John:** Oh yeah.

**Female Voice:** Is that a more or less preferable note in general, and also do you prefer having more specific direction or the response and then you guys decide?

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** Great questions. So I would say the bad pitch or the bad version, so the bad version is this, I can hear that and understand why it’s being said that way, which is basically don’t do this thing that I’m telling you to do because I know how incredibly cloying it is or how it is just clunky. But the effect that I’m hoping we could get to is this, so that I can take that really well. Some people will bristle more at it, but I’m actually fine with the bad version.

It’s kind of like giving an actor a line reading. You’ve got to be a little bit mindful of that. In terms of specifics, specifics help if they are giving – if it’s specific to what your response was. But if it’s trying to provide a solution then we’re going to be like then why do you need us in a certain way. So it’s trying to be really clear on sort of why you are feeling this way, you’re feeling it as you’re reading it, but not sort of like therefore this must happen.

**Craig:** Yeah. I think that that’s exactly right. It’s a little bit writer dependent. I mean, the only thing I’ll caution about the bad version is it’s the bad version for a reason. And so John’s right. You’re trying to get at kind of an effect, but just make sure that you’re policing yourself that the effect that you’re not going for is also just bad. In other words, sometimes it’s like, god, that would really solve this here and also make it boring and same-y. Right?

And for suggestions, I find that if someone says, “Here’s a solve, and take it or leave it if you want, but maybe in my proposed solve you find some interesting thing to take off and blah, blah, blah,” that’s great. If it sort of comes down as, “Here’s what I want you to do. Do this and this and this.” Then you begin to just lose your will to live.

**John:** You feel like a typist rather than a writer and that’s frustrating.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** More questions?

**Craig:** Yes, come on down.

**Male Voice:** Honestly, I kind of want to dive in more to the likeable character question, because I think I gave that note yesterday maybe.

**Craig:** Of course you did.

**Male Voice:** And it’s not that I want a perfect Disney princess as the protagonist, but I usually will be feeling that when I’m not connecting to the character. I’m not engaged in their journey.

**Craig:** Correct.

**John:** Yes.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. And so there is a mistake that happens in our brains when we are not connecting with a character and that character has qualities that are difficult or confrontational or testing we associate it with that. But those aren’t the problems. I love a great villain. I feel deeply connected to great villains. Like I watched The Little Mermaid again the other day and Ursula is the greatest.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** She’s not likeable. I mean, she’s a bad octopus lady.

**John:** You understand exactly why she’s doing what she’s doing.

**Craig:** Correct. And so the issue is how do you find a way to make that person’s unlikableness relatable. Relatable is not likeable. Relatable means that I understand it. You know, a lot of Melissa McCarthy characters work this way. And we just talked about this with Mari Heller. She was on the show talking about How Can I Ever Forgive You. Is there an Ever in there? No. How Can I Forgive You? Can I–

**John:** Can You Ever Forgive Me?

**Craig:** Can You Ever Forgive Me? Will she ever forgive me? And the entire process was managing someone who is not likeable. And about finding moments where you can relate to the not likeableness because all of us go through our lives having moments. I mean, unless one of you is just a saint everybody has moments. And so you don’t want to push things into likeable. You want to push things towards relatable, meaning make me understand and sympathize with the conditions that make her or him unlikeable.

**John:** Yeah. Mari Heller was also talking about Diary of a Teenage Girl and how important it was for that character to have a voiceover at the very start, or not even a voiceover, where you’re picturing the world through her eyes so you can see how she perceives herself before she tells you that she’s having an affair with her mother’s boyfriend. So, you know, that is an unlikeable character thing to do is to have that relationship, but we loved her before we sort of knew that thing that was happening. And so it sounds like what you’re describing in this note that you said unlikeable is that you were having a hard time connecting with the character to see the movie through that character’s eyes and to really want to sign up for the journey with that character.

And so Bill Murray’s character in Groundhog Day is very unlikeable.

**Craig:** The worst.

**John:** But also funny.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** And because he’s funny you’re willing to go on this journey with him and sort of see him grow and change. So, phrasing things as not being able to click into them is I think going to be much more helpful to than saying unlikeable because then a writer is going to be like, “Well, can I just spackle something on them? Can I just spray a little likeability perfume on them so that they’ll pass the test?”

**Craig:** Or sand off the edges. Unsharpen the pencil.

**John:** Exactly.

**Craig:** And then everything just gets sort of generic and soft. And we just lost interest.

**John:** Or you give them a puppy to make them likeable.

**Craig:** Give them a puppy.

**John:** Give them a puppy. Other questions or things you want to push on?

**Craig:** You can tell us we’re wrong. We’re OK with that. You can give us notes.

Yeah, so the question is what do you do when you’re developing a comedy and people, meaning the producers, the executives, don’t like the jokes versus the story. So that comes down to sense of humor. And there is no note. The note is we don’t think you’re funny. The note is you’re fired, I’m pretty sure.

Now, there is obviously a lot that goes into a comedy, but I’ve always felt from the work that I’ve done that if the plot and characters aren’t connected inextricably with the sense of humor and the comedy and the jokes and the set pieces then just something is wrong. I don’t know if you can properly write a comedy using somebody over here dumping character and plot sauce on it and someone over here doing the jokes.

I mean, I’m sure you guys have been in a lot of those roundtables where we do like the punch-up. And everyone just laughs for six hours and maybe get one usable joke out of there because none of it is connected to anything. It’s just floating on top. Like that goop on top of soup. So, I think in that case the note is you’re fired. I just feel so bad about saying that, but I mean why torment somebody. They’re not going to become funny the way you want them to be. I don’t think that’s how it works.

**John:** No. The other thing to remember about comedy is that if you’re reading the same script ten times, 15 times, it’s going to stop being funny. And nothing changed about the jokes, it’s just that it’s not fresh to you anymore. And comedy is about surprise and unexpected twists and characters doing things you couldn’t expect. And once you expect them it’s not funny anymore.

I’ve been to so many test screenings where suddenly the audience is laughing, they’re like, oh that’s right that was a joke. I completely didn’t remember that that was a funny thing, but that’s a joke apparently. And that absolutely happens.

One of the most edifying experiences for me was I did the Broadway version of Big Fish and I’d have to swap out jokes from one run to the next run to the next run. And you’d just see like what gets a laugh and what doesn’t get a laugh. And you just don’t know until you try it. And that’s the hardest thing about comedy. You won’t know if that script just in 12-point Courier is funny until you get it on its feet and sort of see it with people. That’s why if you can get a reading together that’ll help.

**Craig:** I will say for comedy features that generally speaking the people that write them are technicians. And so they’re way more concerned about getting laughs than you guys are. Way more concerned. I mean, every first screening of a comedy I’ve ever done I’ve gone with a Xanax in my pocket, right here, and I’ve had to take it a couple of times because when you’re not getting laughs it’s the worst feeling in the world. So, partly I would say if they have a track record trust the track record. If they’ve made people laugh in a dark room before, they’re going to make people laugh again.

You may not necessarily see the connection from the page to the room but they’re working it and they know what they’re doing in theory. So, some of it is an act of faith. Which is scary.

**John:** So the question is what are the best practices for when a writer is brought on to rewrite a different project. How can you set them up for success as an executive? So what I always tell writers who are being brought on to a project is if at all possible talk to the previous writer. And that way you can sort of know where the bodies are buried. What things were tried that didn’t work? It’s a cleaner handoff. It won’t always be possible. Sometimes it’s not a happy situation and it’s just not going to be realistic.

But for you as an executive who is like bringing in a new writer to the project I think having a discussion about some of the things that have happened before, but most importantly is where you see this headed and sort of what the overall goal is and what the intention is. Again, talking about what the movie is going to be rather than what the script is right now. And the times that I’ve come on to rewrite projects where it’s gone well I could take a look at the script and say like I can see what the intentions are here. I can also see where there was a bunch of just crud that built up over time. A lot of my job is just to scrape away the crud and get you back to what the clean movie of it is and make it all read better so you can see like, oh wait, we had a really good movie here and I couldn’t see it anymore because so much stuff had been built on top of it.

**Craig:** Yeah. When a movie works it all seems just intentional, like it just fell out of a camera in one big chunk. And there it is and it’s done. And sometimes when you arrive as a rewriter what you’re looking at is a script that’s more like, you know, the way the city looks in Blade Runner. It’s like a city built on top of a city with a thing that’s sticking out this way. And it doesn’t look intentional at all. Nor will it ever look intentional. And it has to be kind of torn down.

One thing that helps me when I come in is an understanding that the people involved are aware that they’ve gone wrong. I mean, unless it’s one draft – unless it’s one and done, and even in that case there has to be some shared culpability for kind of it just didn’t work. We’ve made mistakes. We as a group have made mistakes. There is no shame in that. And being able to say, “You know what? We think our mistake is this, but what do you think our mistake is? And we definitely shouldn’t have done this, and what do you think we should do?” That’s all fine and good.

But the dangerous thing is when you come in, the jobs that I will routinely turn down are ones where people say, “It’s just two weeks. We just need two weeks.” And I go you do not. You need all of this – there’s no way to – “Oh, we just have to fix the first act. That’s it.” What? Oh, we’re going to change the first act and everything – all we have to do with this house is fix the foundation. That’s all we’ve got to do. That’s all we’ve got to do. The rest of it will stay just fine. We’re just going to undermine everything and it will magically float and then we’ll put…

No. And so owning it a little bit I think and just being honest about the work that’s going to be required and thinking about your rewriter as a craftsperson. You know, like if a plumber says to me, “Look, I could do this, but you don’t want me to do this,” then I go, you’re right, I don’t. Don’t do the thing that you don’t think I should do. Let us be plumbers. If we say, “You need to do this the right way,” and then you go, “OK, do it the right way.”

**John:** Sir?

**Craig:** OK, so the question is how do you breakup with someone? It’s coming to an end. You can’t continue working with the writer. You would love to. That was your intention. But it has to end. What’s the sort of best way to end it and still stay in a relationship and maybe something in the future will happen?

**John:** The best example I can give you is Dick Zanuck. So Dick Zanuck produced a zillion things but the first time I met him was on Big Fish. And I remember he called me on Dark Shadows. And he called to say, “John, I’m so sorry to tell you but Tim and Johnny decided to bring on a different writer to do this next pass. These are the things that they said they want me to do. I talked with them about it, but I wanted to make sure you heard it from me before you heard it from anybody else.”

And he was so awesome and such a gentleman. I was upset and he let me be upset and angry, but I wasn’t upset and angry with him. I was upset and angry with the situation and sort of the stuff that was going on. But I would have willingly worked on another movie with him tomorrow because he was so straightforward with me about what was going on.

What kills you is when you’re just ghosted. Or when you find out from somebody else. When Craig texts me and says like, “I can’t believe they hired this writer.” I’m like, oh, on that thing that I thought I was still on. That’s–

**Craig:** I didn’t know that that was happening. I swear to god. I thought you knew.

**John:** Yeah, I know. And I didn’t know. And like that is what kills you when you find out, you’re like I assumed this was my movie and it’s no longer my movie. That is what sort of really kills you. And so just as soon as you can and being really clear that you value them and the work that they’ve done. And that you would like to work with them again. I think that’s the message you want to–

**Craig:** The spirit in which you ask the question is your answer. You feel something for this person. You have a natural empathy for them. Let them know. It’s OK. I mean, this is business. Things happen. Things are going to happen to us. Things are going to happen to you guys. But let them how you feel. And let them know that you tried your best and they tried their best and if it’s your decision let them know why and how it’s sad for you, too, but it’s what needs to happen.

It is always I think about intention. And if we feel seen and heard and treated like a human being. Of course, there’s no way to make us not feel sad if we want to stay, but at the very least we know that the relationship that we had with you it was legitimate. Because you’re feeling something, too. That’s why I would come back because I know, OK, if you’re all puppy dogs and sunshine and then one day it’s like ghosted, bye, or oh, sorry yeah, we’re moving on, OK, well why would I ever go back to you? The puppies are not real. That sunshine is a lie.

So, just, yeah, and that requires you guys to be vulnerable. And I’m sure somewhere there is a kind of like executive and producer school where they’re telling you don’t be vulnerable and don’t show any of this stuff and don’t get embedded with these people. And stay like tough. And all I can tell you is it’s not going to work well with us. You won’t get better work out of us that way.

It requires you to feel. I mean, my favorite development person in any capacity is Lindsay Doran. And Lindsay Doran feels more for my work than I do. The hardest arguments I’ve had with Lindsay are about things that I wanted to cut. I’ve literally had a discussion with her where she read it and she said, “Well, you cut that one line and now I just don’t care about the characters anymore.” I’m like that’s not possible! It was a line.

But she is so emotionally invested and, you know, we have a movie together that’s set up here and we had a director on it that we loved and then the studio just wanted to go a different way. And we had to say goodbye to somebody. And we both felt a lot. And we shared that with that person. And I would like to think that that mattered. It may have not made things better at that moment, but it means that we showed what is true which is that our relationship with this person was real.

So, do that. And you will be rewarded with repeat business.

**John:** Cool. Last question.

**Craig:** Oh, she’s reading a question. Oh, this is a great question. Boy did you just stand in front of a target and ask us to wheel a cannon in front of you. So the question is what should be achieved in a producer’s pass. And the answer John is?

**John:** Ah! I mean, we should just stop on the term “producer’s pass.” Producer’s pass does not exist. You won’t find it in any contract. You won’t find it written down anywhere. Here’s the reality from a writer’s perspective is that we think we’re done. We hand it into producers. I think I’m done. And they’re like, great, there’s just a little fix up. And it’s like, OK. And so we do this little bit and it’s like, oh a little bit more, a little bit more. And then we find out they actually did turn it into the studio and we’re actually getting the studio development executive’s notes back. And so it’s a whole extra pass before we’ve turned it in.

I get this at my level, but when I talk to newer screenwriters it’s endless drafts for them to actually get a thing in. And producer’s passes are a useful way of pretending that it’s not a real thing but it is a real thing. So here’s what I’ll say is that if a writer is choosing to give it to this producer for a weekend or whatever for sort of last looks/clean some stuff up, that’s fantastic. But it can’t be about profound changes to the script. It can’t be a week’s worth of work or two weeks’ worth of work. That’s just crazy.

**Craig:** Yeah. There is no producer’s pass. And producers have gotten away with murder. They really have. Congrats. Good job.

**John:** I will say some sympathy for producers. I think they have a really tough job right now too because they are scrambling to get movies made in a tough environment. They have tremendous expectations on them. Writers are often dealing with one-step deals which is a problem.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** I don’t want to slam producers for trying to get too much free labor out of us, even though I sort of am slamming them for getting too much free labor.

**Craig:** Well, but it’s logical. I mean, look, the economics of producing are such that you don’t really get paid unless the movie gets made. Development isn’t a job. Getting movies made is a job if you’re a producer. That’s where all the money is. And everybody deserves to make a living. And then on top of that the studios have taken away two-step deals. They give you one step. You now have one shot with this person that you argued for to make it work. And if you don’t maybe this whole thing dies. So of course you want a thousand drafts for that one draft.

The problem is that’s not fair to the writers. What we should be saying to our partners at the studios is make two-step deals. If you want a producer’s pass how about we all get the pass together? It’s called the second draft. There used to be a thing called the second draft. It’s less important honestly for me or for John than it is for new writers. I really strongly urge you guys if you know a writer is getting paid less than twice scale, which is lot of writers, give them two steps.

It removes this panic. And then you’re able to get the draft. If you want to do your three days of twinklies, do your three days of twinklies. And then turn it in and then everybody can talk about it. And everybody can have the conversation. And then they write a second draft.

But if that’s not there what ends up happening is people do get abused. So, that’s my big thing there. For me, when it comes time to – and look, we’re going to have this experience. You and I are about to have this experience. I’m going to hand over a script to Samantha. You know, if you need a couple days here or there, no problem. A couple days, here or there.

**John:** But let’s say you need more than a couple days. Let’s say you have a writer who is making scale or twice scale, but not a lot of money. And you do need more than just a couple days. It’s gone into the studio and they’re like, there’s just this little thing before it gets up to our top boss before we can actually get it – we just need a little bit more work.

There’s already a provision in there for a little bit more work. Everyone has a weekly. And there’s a scale weekly which is not expensive. Pay that writer for the one week or the two weeks of work it takes to get that next thing in between their real steps.

**Craig:** Pay them an optional polish if you want.

**John:** Move stuff out of order, but it’s when you hold somebody on with the promise like maybe they’ll get to that second draft that’s where it becomes exploitive.

**Craig:** And the say like, “Look, if you don’t do this then you’re going to get fired and the movie is not going to get made.” And it just becomes this kind of thing of, well, if what you’re telling me is I’m going to get fired unless I work for free, yeah, I’m fired. That’s what fired is.

**John:** You’re taking a person who is making scale and making them the villain in the situation, which isn’t good. Them not doing that free thing is–

**Craig:** We just got all Che Guevara on them. I love it. That’s great.

**John:** Sorry.

**Craig:** But it’s true. It really is true. And I will also say that for – if you can – if you’re working with a writer and they agree early on, before deals are made or anything, if they agree early on to write a treatment, some writers don’t write them. I don’t think you’re a big treatment guy. You know I’m a huge treatment – I love a treatment. I’ll write a 60-page treatment. I’ll write the hell out of that thing. You’ll know what the movie is before I ever write in Fade In or Final Draft.

If that happens, then your producer’s pass is baked in because you’ve had a chance to discuss and go through that. And I like to do that specifically so that when I’m done with the draft I’m done. There it is. Now you know what the weekend is going to be like. But you’re going to like it. It’s good. It’s good.

**John:** Thank you guys very much.

**Craig:** Thank you guys.

**John:** And thank you for putting this together.

**Craig:** Thank you guys so much. Thank you guys.

**John:** And that’s our show. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It was edited by Matthew Chilelli. Special thanks to Ben Simpson and Samantha Nisenboim for putting this session together and for the folks at Amblin for hosting us.

Our outro this week is by Mackey Landry. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com.

That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up about four days after the episode airs.

Some folks have also started doing recaps and discussion in the screenwriting sub-Reddit. So if that continues, great.

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

If you’re doing either of those things you may want to check out the Scriptnotes Listener’s Guide at johnaugust.com/guide to find out which episodes our listeners recommend most. Thanks. We’ll see you next week.

Links:

* Episode 99, [Psychotheraphy for Screenwriters](https://johnaugust.com/2013/psychotherapy-for-screenwriters)
* Episode 394, [Broken but Sympathetic](https://johnaugust.com/2019/broken-but-sympathetic) with Mari Heller
* Now accepting recommendations for updating the [Listener’s Guide](johnaugust.com/guide)
* Submit to the Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch)
* Watch Chernobyl May 6th and listen to [The Chernobyl Podcast](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-chernobyl-podcast/id1459712981) with Craig and Peter Sagal
* [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 Mackey Landry ([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_399_notes_on_notes.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 397: The Sound Episode, Transcript

May 6, 2019 News, Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 397 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’re going to fulfill a promise that we made last week on the podcast where we said that we would talk about sound and how it’s used on the page, on the stage, and in the mixing room. After nearly 400 episodes I cannot believe it has taken this long to talk about sound. To help us out we’re joined by a guest from 250 episodes back.

Craig: Wow.

John: Andrea Berloff is a writer whose credits include World Trade Center, Straight Outta Compton. She wrote and directed this summer’s 1970s gangster movie The Kitchen. She just came back yesterday from New York where she finished her sound mix. Andrea Berloff, welcome home.

Andrea Berloff: Thank you. It’s so good to be home. And really if I’m going to return to Los Angeles is there any better place than to have my first stop be here?

Craig: No.

Andrea: With the two of you.

Craig: We are the definition of Los Angeles.

Andrea: My family doesn’t need to see me. Nobody.

Craig: No.

John: No, no.

Andrea: No.

Craig: Why would they?

Andrea: They’re fine without me.

Craig: They know you and they’re bored of you.

Andrea: That’s absolutely true.

Craig: We still appreciate everything you say and do.

Andrea: I don’t know about that. But we’ll see. [laughs]

Craig: You’re fresh to us.

John: Andrea Berloff brought Matzo for Passover which is fantastic.

Andrea: I did. I brought Matzo for Passover, but also just because I knew it would be a great opening conversation with Craig.

Craig: We got to talk about the Matzo for a second. And just come along with us gentiles. You need to hear this story. So a little quick refresher course on Passover. Passover is the reason that the most of you have your Easter, because The Last Supper was a Passover Seder. Interesting trivia: Jesus was Jewish.

Andrea: Ooh. Really?

Craig: I still feel like a lot of people miss that one. So Passover is the story from the Bible and one of the deals is that the Jews are running away. They’re leaving, they’re fleeing. It’s an exodus of sort from Egypt after all their travails. And they don’t have time to leaven the bread. Right? They have to make bread. It doesn’t have time to rise. So instead they just leave that out and end up with this terrible bad bread. The point is the bread has been damaged. OK? It’s damaged, because they’re fleeing.

And I’m sure everybody when they first saw Matzo come out of the oven said, “Oh no, what happened? There’s been a terrible mistake.” And the bread-maker said, “It’s not a mistake. It’s just that we didn’t have time to do it right. So this is wrong bread. It’s bad. But it’s all we have.” Right?

Andrea: Right. I’m with you. Go on.

Craig: So in a very Jewish way Jews are like let us now impose this terrible, broken food upon every generation of Jews to follow. And so during Passover Jews are not supposed to eat any leaven bread, or any leavened anything, but only things that are no bread-like at all. Or this horrible, broken, misshapen food that is in defiance of all that is good.

Andrea: Now here’s what I have to say about that. I will grant you that perhaps Jews have extrapolated out a little far. That perhaps just because the Matzo screwed up why take that against pasta?

Craig: Right.

Andrea: What did pasta factor into this? Nothing. Pasta is fine. Had nothing to do with this story. So I will say to you that I’m with you in there. But I will take issue with the idea that Matzo is inherently a terrible thing. Because the Matzo for example that I brought you today–

John: Was delicious.

Andrea: Thank you, John. Covered in caramel and chocolate, a little bit of sea salt. Delicious.

Craig: Sure. That’s how they tell you that crickets are good. They’re like, look, we took this bug and we covered it in chocolate and sea salt and caramel.

Andrea: I feel like that’s your cultural bias. Some people do find it delicious, crickets.

Craig: No. Everybody finds chocolate, caramel, and sea salt delicious. And then it is literally masking – when you purchase Matzo, John…

John: Yes, tell me.

Craig: Have you ever bought a box of Matzo?

John: Never once in my life. I never had the occasion to.

Craig: How strange.

Andrea: Well the real conspiracy at this point is that you can no longer buy a box of Matzo. If you go to the grocery store they only sell them in six-packs. And nobody wants six boxes of Matzo.

Craig: No, exactly.

Andrea: But that’s the only way they sell them now.

Craig: The reason they have to do that is because Matzo actually probably costs less – because it’s such a terrible product it costs less the more you sell. It defies physics and nature as I pointed out. Also, true fact, Matzo is packaged in Matzo. I don’t know if you knew this. Yeah, you can eat right through the – there is no box.

Andrea: Oh, I didn’t know.

Craig: The box tastes slightly better than the contents.

Andrea: With a little butter and salt.

John: Well because the ink, the printing on the box.

Craig: The ink adds a little zest.

Andrea: Sure.

Craig: So my birthday is in early April.

Andrea: Happy Birthday.

Craig: Thank you. And the Jewish calendar is a lunar calendar, like the Muslim calendar. And because it is a lunar calendar that’s why for instance Christians have you ever wondered why Easter keeps shifting around on you all the time? This is why. Because it’s based on Passover.

Andrea: It’s funny that they never settled that down on the Christian calendar. Because you know what they settled down Christmas. They settled down other things. I wonder why they didn’t do that.

Craig: They shifted the Sabbath one day. Why not? They could do anything.

Andrea: I don’t know. Just declare April 15 Easter.

Craig: They should.

Andrea: Right. I don’t know.

Craig: Anywho, a lot of times my birthday would fall during Passover.

Andrea: That’s the worst. My dad’s, too.

John: Oh, so what would your birthday cake be?

Craig: That’s a great question.

Andrea: The worst. The worst.

Craig: So what they would do is they would take something called Matzo Meal.

Andrea: Ugh.

Craig: What is Matzo Meal? So Matzo is horrible. But if you take it and smash it up and grind it into a quasi-ersatz powder flour type substance it gets even worse. Then, you add eggs and you whip it up and it turns into a kind of a thick dense cement. Then…

Andrea: Like papier-mâché. What you would make papier-mâché out of.

Craig: Yes. It’s a glue. It’s essentially a glue. A mucilage if you will. And then you add a little bit of sugar. Not too much, because we don’t want anyone to enjoy this. Then we put it in the oven and we bake it until all pathogens are dead, so I think we’ll put it in the oven at 7,000 degrees for 100 days. Then when it comes out you cover it in – OK, and this is another, this Passover chocolate always has the same disgusting taste to it. Why can’t chocolate be right? Is there leavening in chocolate?

Andrea: It’s the corn syrup, isn’t it? I don’t know. I’m saying that like I know what I’m talking about.

Craig: You can’t use corn syrup? It’s so horrible. It’s like sickly-sweet. At that point it’s like a diabetes prune juice that they pour all over the whole thing. Then they put it in front of you, they stick a candle in it, and they sing Happy Birthday. But even as they sing Happy Birthday to you, John, there’s a slight sneer. A little bit of a sneer.

Andrea: We know it’s not that happy.

Craig: No, this is bad.

Andrea: See, I really think that the moral of this is that it’s not really your issue with Matzo and Passover. It’s because it screwed with your birthday.

Craig: Correct.

Andrea: [laughs] And you’re still really angry about this and about all the trauma.

Craig: Yeah, that’s actually the headline. There’s no secret there. The absolute headline is that I was traumatized repeatedly.

Andrea: Matzo is not the issue.

Craig: No. That said, I have taken this with me very far.

Andrea: I see.

Craig: Somebody posted a picture on Twitter of a Matzo cake covered in that glistening, brown, weird, shimmery fake chocolate.

Andrea: Awful.

Craig: And I got the shivers. I got the spinal shivers.

Andrea: I’m sorry. What else happened to you as a child?

Craig: That was actually the worst of it. Weirdly–

John: It was the root of all Craig’s anger was the Matzo cake.

Andrea: Clearly.

Craig: Just a brutal insult year after year.

Andrea: Terrible.

Craig: Yeah. So anyway, Happy Passover.

Andrea: Do you want to hear the worst? My birthday is on Christmas Day. As a Jew. Think about that.

Craig: Yeah. I have another friend who has that, too. I mean, I guess as a Jew it’s not super bad because you weren’t going to get Christmas anyway.

John: But you couldn’t have like a normal birthday party with friends.

Craig: That’s the problem.

Andrea: I got a cake, but there was no party.

Craig: Oh yeah you got a cake.

John: My husband’s birthday is on Halloween.

Andrea: Oh, that’s fun.

John: Well, it’s kind of fun, but also–

Craig: That’s a rough one, too.

John: Everyone wants to trick or treat rather than, you know.

Andrea: Yeah, than celebrate him.

Craig: And the theme of his birthday is blood. Bleh. All right, well anyway, that’s my – so don’t eat Matzo. That’s my basic—

Andrea: Well then I’m sorry I brought you my delicious treat. John liked it.

John: It is delicious. It is genuinely delicious.

Craig: We can keep continuing to argue about that.

John: Andrea Berloff is not only a Matzo expert. She is also a WGA board member. So we’ll start today by talking about some WGA stuff because that’s what we basically do. Stuff happens and we recap it. But we recap it sort of on a Saturday and then everything changes by the time the episode comes out.

Craig: Let’s see how completely obsolete our information will be.

John: Let’s see what happened this week. So on Wednesday the WGA filed a lawsuit seeking to establish that talent agency packaging fees are illegal under both California and federal law. So the defendants in the lawsuit are WME, CAA, UTA, ICM, the big four talent agencies which represent 80% of the packaging fees paid by Hollywood studios and networks. The plaintiffs in the suit in the WGA East and West include Patty Carr, Ashley Gable, Barbara Hall, Deric Hughes, Chip Johannessen, Deirdre Mangan, David Simon and Meredith Stiehm.

Andrea, we know a lot of those folks.

Andrea: I think we need to take a moment to really honor that group of incredibly brave people because they – it’s not even so much that they specifically, you know, I don’t want to speak to individuals, but we needed plaintiffs who just simply have been on shows that were packaged for whom we could fight on all of our behalves. And the fact that that group stepped up and put their names on the lawsuit is really brave. And people don’t typically stick their necks out like that for others. So I really want to commend them and thank them.

John: Yeah. I got to see three of them yesterday and just pulled them aside and thanked them so much for what they’re doing because it is just putting yourself in the spotlight in that way.

Craig: David Simon kind of prior to the lawsuit had already extended his neck, torso, limbs, and yeah, he’s been pretty outspoken.

Andrea He’s been vocal.

John: So Meredith Stiehm is from the show Cold Case. And she spoke about sort of how the agency was making $0.94 on the dollar of everything she made in the backend. And Deirdre Mangan I didn’t know before, but she did Madame Secretary which is another big hit show. And so these are great plaintiffs. And as we sort of said in the speeches and the lead up to all this stuff, this lawsuit we always said we were going to file it, we also said it was going to take a really long time. And you sort of don’t know what the ups and the downs are, but the lawsuit is now filed. And we’ll check in with it.

Andrea: And it will take years. We can be checking in on this conversation for years and years and years. My mother just had a lawsuit settled this week that took 10 years. 10 years. So it will take some time.

Craig: Well, I thought that I had a pretty good case against her and I was willing to fight. And I was. I was ready to take it the whole way.

Andrea: You know.

Craig: If you guys weren’t on the board, if other people were on the board and we were hearing about this information then I would say a certain kind of thing. And so I think I should just keep saying that certain kind of thing. And you don’t have to react to any of this. But my general analysis in a situation like this is that the lawsuit is part of a strategy to try and get a deal. I believe – my theory is that in fact this lawsuit will not last years. It will not go to court. It won’t do any of that.

My great hope, I’ll just keep saying this, my great hope is that we resolve this quickly. I know that there’s been a suggestion from some people – some people have come back from meetings and things and said that people at the guild were saying, “Look, this is going to take a really long time and we really think maybe we should be looking at forgetting about the big four and looking at midsize and smaller agencies.” And my feeling is that that’s never going to happen, ever. That’s just my personal opinion. And that we do have to make a deal with the big four agencies. And so I’m very, very hopeful that that happens.

This is a nerve-wracking time because – it’s an interesting time because unlike our labor actions with studios, which must come to end. I mean, you can’t strike forever. They can’t lock you out forever. Nor can a deal last forever, right. So these things are constantly churning and then resolving. This could last forever. And that’s frightening because I do think that there’s great value in the way we work with these people. And also we’re talking about these relationships that have gone on for a very, very long time.

You know, I’ve been talking to people on both sides and it’s fascinating how there’s a lot of similar feelings on both sides of hurt and confusion. But there’s also I think a weird wistfulness like on both sides what you hear people saying is that this personally is really distressing and upsetting because we have relationships. You know, the businesses that are the umbrella of a place like WME for instance or CAA, that’s that. And like the Writers Guild is an institution and that’s that. These are the umbrellas under which people exist.

Then you have individual people who are just like this feels terrible. And I’m hopeful – hopeful, hopeful, hopeful – that all of this stuff, saber-rattling and fire and all that, leads to some sort of resolution. The resolution has to be better for writers than the status quo. And I think that there is a resolution to be had.

So I just continue to urge – I urge you guys, I urge them to get into a room that both sides recognize as productive and then produce and get a deal so that we can just sort of get back to our lives. Because I like the life that I had.

Andrea: I like the life I had, too. But I will say this. I picked up on a word that you just said which was this wistfulness. And I think nobody when they’re a kid wants to – everybody wants to grow up and go to Hollywood and make movies. And you have an agent and you think that sounds so cool. And all of that kind of no longer exists in a sense. Nobody dreams of growing up and creating content for a multinational conglomerate that is then going to be streamed and you’ll never see it again and you don’t know how many people watch it. Like that is not your childhood dream.

Your childhood dream is not working for an agent that is no longer an agent. I mean, our individual agents may function as that, but the agencies no longer function in the way that we perceived it as being. So I think part of this is also a wistfulness for the way things used to be. And the way things are evolving is frightening to everybody. And I don’t think it’s just endemic to our relationship with our agents and the conversation we’re having regarding that. I think it’s also regarding what will be writer’s place in the future of this world, because I think that is very much in flux and I think that this fight is a symptom of the larger thing going on right now.

John: I had a conversation with a reporter this week. We were talking about – he’s not a person who covers Hollywood at all. He covers labor. And so he’s asking these questions about how is this reflected in the division of labor versus capital, or labor versus management. And it was a really fascinating lens to look at it through because obviously we only see this as Hollywood, our own little unique thing. But as writers we are labor and agents are sort of the people representing our labor. But it feels in a strange way that this influx of money has made us like we are assets and the split of labor and capital is – it’s just a different mix.

If I were not in this business at all I’d be looking at this and be really fascinated to see sort of the questions that it brings up in terms of what does it mean to be an employer versus an agent, a manager. So it’s a fascinating thing even if you weren’t part of this mess and trying to figure out the way through it.

Craig: And we are weird labor. I mean, we’re labor, but we also – there was a New York Times article that misunderstood the relationship and said agents play a massive role in matching writers to the room. And I’m like, no, no, no, writers do that. And then you realize very quickly we’re employers. That’s the weird part is that we’re labor but we’re not labor. We’re also employers. When the agents are – people say, look the packaging fees has disrupted what I call the you make more when I make more relationship, which is crucial, when we say packaging fees has disrupted that and thus pushed down the salaries of lower level writers towards our minimums it’s also important to remember that there’s a writer in charge of that who is signing off on that.

Andrea: That’s right.

Craig: And whose budget is being improved because of that. There is an inter-relationship here. It is not as clean and clear as the big guy versus the little guy. This is a strange relationship that has gotten twisted but can be untwisted I believe.

And, of course, for those of us who mostly have done feature work our agents have operated in a traditional sense. I mean, until I did Chernobyl I had never had any relationship with an agency other than you get 10% of what I make. So there’s still I think a lot of room for this to be fixed and worked out.

You know, and I do think that when I think about life where there’s a kind of forced separation I immediately start thinking about unintended consequences. And essentially what I start to ask is who now will benefit from our not being there with those people? And some individuals and institutions come to mind. So, you know, I’ll just keep urging a peaceful resolution. But that doesn’t capitulation and it doesn’t – for either side. Neither side wants to just go like, oh OK, whatever you want.

Andrea: Never mind.

Craig: Yeah. If there’s any way to fix this. That would be great if you guys could do that.

Andrea: We’re trying. We’re working on it.

John: You know, and that was only Wednesday.

Andrea: There’s more.

John: And so on Thursday night a bunch of members led by screenwriter Daniel Zucker put together a big mixer with the #WGAmix. And I’ve never been sort of prouder of a party that I wasn’t at. It was this huge event, two stories of a bunch of people together in a room.

So it reminded me Craig that during the strike we would have events. This is sort of pre-social media, but you had your blog and I had my blog. And Jane Espenson had her blog. And so we’d put on our blogs like everybody meet at Warner Bros and we’ll all picket together. And it reminded me of how important it was during times of unrest to sort of gather people together. And so I just love that these members self-organized and did this thing.

Andrea: I will agree with you. I would say to you that some of my most significant relationships with writers were formed during the strike. People who are still genuine friends today were people who I met during the strike.

John: 100%.

Andrea: Because we’re screenwriters and we sit alone all day long. I didn’t know anybody.

Craig: Can’t we have parties without–

Andrea: You’re welcome to invite me any time.

Craig: Throwing grenades around. I mean, strikes are very expensive ways to meet people.

Andrea: They are. They are.

Craig: I mean, I think it’s great, obviously. And, look, a large part of this is a sense of solidarity, but I will also, as always, because I am disagreeable and I am that guy, I want to also say to people in the guild don’t be so quick to scream and yell and be abusive at people that disagree or dissent. Because I think that makes us weaker.

Andrea: I agree.

Craig: Look, I did not like the essay editorial that – what’s the writer’s name?

Andrea: Jon Robin Baitz.

Craig: Jon Robin Baitz.

Andrea: Yeah. I thought that was a big mistake.

Craig: Right. So he wrote this long piece about why he wasn’t going to leave his agent and how much he loved his agent and how agents were great and how this made no sense and all the rest of it. And I just thought, well, this is a massive miscalculation. What do you think? People are going to read this and because of your grandiloquence everyone is going to go oh my god he’s right and the scales will fall from our eyes. That’s not how it works.

Also, I just didn’t think it was a very well argued piece. And it was super long. That aside, I’m sure he’s listening to this going, oh thank you very much Scary Movie 4 guy. Regardless, people went crazy and they started yelling at him and making fun of him and mocking him. And say what you will, the guy is a very well-regarded writer. But that aside, even if he weren’t when do that it makes us look weak. It’s implying that we are one defection away from collapse and we’re not. Ever.

Andrea: No. I couldn’t agree more. And I think one of our big flaws, not just with this action but with almost every action we take, is that we do not create enough safe space for dissent. Dissent is not particularly welcomed. And I don’t think that we can ever–

John: Dissent is democratic. And we are a democratic organization so we have to make sure that we are listening to those things. And a lot of my job this last week was listening to people who were freaked out and unhappy. And Monday was a really tough day because I was hearing a bunch of that stuff. And then Tuesday was a much better day because I was hearing better things.

Craig: I think in part the attitude of fearing dissent is engendered by the natural guild position that the more of you that support this the stronger we are. Which implies the fewer of you who support it the weaker we are. Which implies if you don’t support this you are weakening us. Which makes you a kind of enemy for disagreeing. And if there’s anything I wish I could kill in the guild body politic it’s this whole you have to vote yes or else you’re weakening us. So your yes isn’t really a yes. It’s sort of a yes, but it’s mostly kind of a – you know what I mean? It’s an act of patriotism to vote yes. We have to stop doing that.

And I know it’s hard to stop doing that because it’s helpful. It is. I get it. It’s useful. But the more we keep saying you have to vote yes to be patriotic and effective the more we’re essentially defining people who dissent as internal termites gnawing at the foundation of our union.

Andrea: Or just anti-guild. People are out to, I mean, same way you just said, out to destroy us. And loving something also means sometimes seeing its flaws and being able to speak to that as well. Doesn’t mean that you’re trying to tear it down.

John: 100%.

Craig: That’s the song I have sung for so many years.

Andrea: Yes. I know.

John: That was Thursday. Then on Friday—

Andrea: What happened on Friday, John?

John: On Friday there was small happy news. So the guild announced the Weekly Feature Memo.

Andrea: I think that’s great.

John: And it’s sort of inspired by the CAA Book Memo. It’s a newsletter that goes out every Friday to producers, to studios, listing available specs and pitches. It’s available to current, post-current, associate members. You can make up to two submissions a month. And you get those in by Wednesday. We’ll put the link in the show notes. But essentially it’s just a simple straightforward newsletter that goes out of like these are the things that are out there. All the agencies always sort of had their own version of this. This is just a system-wide thing that people can (crosstalk).

Andrea: I think that’s really great. And I hope that this continues after this action is settled. Because to give writers who may not have number one agent or something like that the ability to have a list out there. I guarantee you every assistant in town is going to read that list. And just say that’s a really cool idea. Yeah, I’ve never heard that kind of idea before. I would take a look at that script.

I really think that this could be tremendously helpful for screenwriters.

Craig: Isn’t there at one of the theaters they will do a little live creation of an unproduced pilot?

John: Yeah.

Craig: There’s an interesting idea of this bin of forgotten toys. And inside of them are these gems. And people won’t read them because they’re old. There’s this sense of like, oh, that’s been around. It’s old. That doesn’t mean a damn thing. It could have been around for 30 years. Who cares?

If you love it, and you see the potential, and you know how to do it, and then you find somebody else that really loves it, well then that’s a thing. It counts. So it makes total sense to have some mechanism by which we can kind of reintroduce things that have fallen by the wayside. I’m not even thinking about writers at this point. I’m actually thinking about audiences at this point because there are a lot of – you know, somebody said that literally if all you did – oh, you know what it was? So escape room. I did an escape room and it was – you know, escape rooms are always located in like weird parts of town and stuff because they just need cheap real estate. And one of them apparently was either in the same building or near the building where the Writers Guild keeps all of its printed scripts from their screenplay registration service.

John: Yeah. That’s a whole thing.

Craig: And we were talking about kind of a storage wars where you buy a pallet and go through and try and find a script that’s great.

Andrea: Think about the gold that’s in there.

Craig: But someone said, you know what, if I could what I would do is just go through all the scripts written by women. Because they were all ignored for decades. So go in there. There’s probably like a hundred amazing scripts that just got ignored.

Think about like that alone. Right? So I think it’s a great idea.

Andrea: Someday we’ll have an archivist. Right? How about that? We pay for an archivist for a year to do that.

Craig: Just go through and sort. Great idea.

John: Craig, it occurs to me that with this weekly feature memo people will be looking at loglines and you and I are always so dismissive of loglines.

Craig: Correct.

John: And now people are going to have to write loglines.

Craig: Well they’re the worst and my logline would just be like “Seriously, just…”

Andrea: “Just read the script.”

Craig: “Just read the script.” Just read five pages and if you don’t like them throw it out. There’s the logline. There is no logline. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter. Read five pages.

Andrea: But it does. It does matter. People say what is your movie about.

Craig: I know. They should stop it.

Andrea: Well.

Craig: And you should just keep saying to them read five pages. If you don’t like them it’s not going to be for you. And if you do you’ll keep reading. And eventually you might get to a point where you go oh here’s where I realize I don’t like this. But the logline will never – because I can tell you, I can give you terrible…

Here’s a logline. The son of a mobster struggles with the legacy of his family and the direction of his own life. Well that’s The Godfather. That’s terrible.

Andrea: I know.

Craig: Yeah, so anyway, read five pages.

Andrea: OK. I’ll tell them.

John: Now we finally get to the marquee topic.

Andrea: Let’s do it.

John: Which is sound. I’m so excited to talk about sound.

Andrea: Me too.

John: So we’re going to start with talking about sound on the page. So as a screenwriter you are responsible for everything that an audience sees and hears in a movie. But really if you look at a script you’re really mostly describing what people see. There’s dialogue which of course you hear, but I’ve been thinking back sort of like how often I reference the sound in a script and it’s probably not even every page.

So I want to talk about sort of when you make the decisions to call out the sound and when you don’t. I remember looking at my first – as I was first starting to read screenplays, like the old screenplays, like every sound effect was capitalized. It was like an old radio play. So that the person with the coconuts could make the horse galloping. And now I think there’s an expectation that unless you’re saying something is weird we assume that everything that we see onscreen is going to make the sound we expect it to make, unless we’re calling it out differently.

But, Andrea, as you’re writing how often are you calling out on the page special sound things?

Andrea: I tend to do a lot, and probably too much. I probably write too many stage directions as is. I’m very verbose on the page. I feel like when you’re writing a screenplay you are trying to entertain people enough that they want more. They want to see what actor would you put in. They want to make that movie. And so I tend to overwrite a bit in the screenplay. I always say – I mean, not me just saying this, everybody says this – there’s a reading draft and a shooting draft. And my reading drafts tend to be pretty heavy on all of that stuff. I love sound. I love music. And I put a lot of it in.

So I will often say, you know, the sounds of the city, the screech of the tires, the clap of lightning. I do it a lot.

John: You’re trying to create that feel of what it would be like if you were in that theater experiencing this. Craig what’s your sound take on the page?

Craig: I’m probably not as heavy as it sounds like you are in terms of visual description. I will describe visuals in a very kind of reportorial war correspondence style. But sound I’m obsessed with. Because I realize, especially now having just gone through all these sound mixes, how much more in tune with sound I am than with the granular aspects of stuff.

Visual information is important to me, but sound texture and I think all the emotion comes from sound. So a lot of times when I’m writing a scene and I want you to feel scared, or I want you to feel confused I’ll think in terms of sound. Things will go whistling by, or falling or going kerplunk. But really the sounds are lying because then you realize it’s something else. But I love to bring the reader into a space with sound because I don’t know, for me at least that’s where all of the emotion lives in the environment.

That said, when you actually arrive at the moment of production sounds have to reorient and change to what you see. But then you get to write again. Because sound is yours to control and it’s the best part of production to me because, look, what you shot is what you shot. Yeah, VFX can help and all that, but sound you can do anything.

Andrea: Right.

Craig: Oh joy.

Andrea: It’s fun.

John: Let’s talk about, this is very esoteric, but on the page what you capitalize in sound and what you don’t capitalize in sound. Because sometimes do you capitalize that Whistling By or do you capitalize the thing that’s whistling by? Or are you capitalizing any of that stuff? What are the things–?

Andrea: Well, it’s funny. I think it’s really individual and I think, you know, I think there are some writers who just love the all caps. And I’ve looked at some screenplays and it’s almost impossible to read because apparently every single page is so exciting that we scream about every word. I tend to not do that and really reserve my all caps for when it’s worth it.

John: Holy cow – pay attention to this.

Andrea: Holy cow. Like probably not more than 10 to 15 a script. Because there shouldn’t be many, in my opinion, many more than 10 or 15 like holy cow sound moments. On the page that is. So, most of them you just – it’s in there for feeling, for texture. And when it’s a big moment that you’ve got to really make a statement with it then I hit the all caps.

Craig: I’m with on that one. I’ll all caps things that are sort of introductory weird items that aren’t meant to be like oh my god but just more like, you know, he lifts up a mechanical BLINKING DEVICE. That’s an important thing. So I’ll just say prop guy, blinking device. But for sounds, unless it’s an explosion mostly I’m not capping them. Sometimes I will, if it’s meant to be kind of evocative or emotional I’ll put all of that line into a kind of italicized position.

As I get older I find myself stylizing things more like Stephen King does, you know. We’ve all read these Stephen King books where suddenly there would be a paragraph in italics that was sort of an internal process. And I find myself doing this more and more now where I just start – in my action descriptions I spend less time describing what the room looks like and more time describing the inner dialogue that we will never hear, but I find it actually helps, you know.

John: If it’s shootable.

Andrea: If it’s shootable. Well, you know, even if it’s not shootable. In my mind it creates that emotional moment when again the screenplay is getting somebody to make your project.

Craig: It’s inform-able. Right.

Andrea: It creates that emotional buy-in that if it’s just dialogue and just description you don’t get. Like you need to understand the core of why this character cares about what they’re doing. Why they’re in a panic about what they’re doing. And it does inform the actor’s performance ultimately. You know, it sort of makes the actor realize like the three sentences you have to say here might be that interesting, but let me explain why they’re interesting.

Craig: That’s exactly right. And see that’s how actually we get to direct on the page. Because I’m not a big fan of like “we meet Jane, smarter than everybody realizes, and hiding her brutal past.” I don’t know any of that and I can’t see it. And also that’s just a writer reading off of a card to me. But we meet Jane. She’s standing there. She sees a car dive by. And then in italics: I don’t know why I do this every time.

Oh, I’m in a character’s mind. I’m feeling something. That’s actually really exciting. And I’ll do that a lot around sound because I think the experience of sound is something again that just feels more emotional and less intellectual. It’s more of an I Feel than an I Think.

John: Great. And before we move on let’s define the categories of sound we’re talking about. So obviously almost literally the tracks you’re going to see on your nonlinear editor. You have your dialogue, so everything the characters are saying. You have your ambience, which is the sound within a space. It’s the diegetic – it’s what the space itself sounds like. You have your music, obviously. And then you have your sound effects, like those big pops. Those things that are classically the things that would get uppercased on a page. Those are the things we’re talking about with sound.

And so all those things show up in the script, but then when you actually get to production, let’s transition to production, that changes. And when you’re in production a lot of what you’re recording is the dialogue and it’s weird – I remember the first time I showed up on a set and you’re watching the scene happening and they hand out these things called Comtek which are so you can hear the microphones and you can hear what’s being recorded. And you realize like, oh, it sounds so thin because all you’re hearing is the actor’s dialogue.

You’re not hearing the space around them because it doesn’t sound right. Because you’re only recording for that dialogue.

Andrea: When done properly. And that’s kind of all you want is to hear the dialogue.

John: Yes. Completely clean.

Andrea: And the worst case scenario is if you’re not, if you’re hearing anything else. I had an incredible sound recorder on set, Danny Michael, and we were in our tech scout. And there was a location that I really liked because I thought it looked cool. And Danny said, “Yeah this looks really great. Are you interested in hearing the scene?” That sort of thing. Because he was absolutely right. We were standing on top of subway tracks basically. There was a subway underneath it. So we were never going to get through the scene. So we had to move our location.

The worst is when you finish production and you get back to the stage and you realize I can’t use this dialogue because it’s too messy. You want the cleanest dialogue you can get.

Craig: And that’s actually something you can protect against slightly as a writer. I mean, most of the time it’s bad choices being made by a director that puts somebody in a place where like I need to be in this place therefore we’ll just go ahead and loop or do an automatic dialogue replacement later. That’s when actors go into a studio and just lip-sync to their lines so you get this – but it’s never – and we’ll get to ADR, because it can be both life-saving and it can also be the devil. So it’s one of those things, like all tools.

But if you are writing a scene and you are hell bent on putting it somewhere that you know is inexorably loud and noisy, just be aware if it’s a heavy dialogue scene you’ve probably screwed up. That you need to reduce the dialogue as much as possible because on set not only is the job of the sound recordist to get the cleanest possible dialogue, usually in combination of a little lavalier mic, which is right on them, and also a boom microphone. If you can get both at the same time it’s great. But also even in terms of what they call overlapping – you know, if I can only see one character I can’t hear another character step on the character’s line that I see because then I can’t edit that dialogue cleanly. So they’re really obsessed with–

John: But as a writing choice you might choose to set it in a loud place, but if you’re choosing to set it in a loud place you’re going to make different choices about what the characters are going to say because they’re going to have shout over that noise and it’s going to completely change the nature of the scene.

Craig: And they have to be together in the shot because you can’t edit it because the background sound will get all chopped up.

John: But there may be good choices to do that but it’s different content of that scene and different context—

Andrea: You have to be creative about how to achieve that. If you want to have it in a big club, that’s great, but everybody has to be dancing silently. And then you can get their lines out.

Craig: That’s the best.

Andrea: Which is the best. Which I might have done.

Craig: Everybody does it. Everybody does that.

Andrea: But it’s very awkward.

Craig: It’s the weirdest thing to see shot. Like if you’re in a big – like that scene, like The Social Network when they’re in that club and they’re like yelling over the – there’s no music playing on the day and people are just shuffling like zombies, so it’s this quiet thing. And then two people are just yelling pointlessly in a silent room where people are shifting around to lights and no sound. It’s creepy.

John: So classically what you do is the music plays, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then it stops, and then everyone has to keep dancing, like basically it’s still there.

Craig: It’s so weird.

John: We have no videos to show.

Andrea: I will say this, because I feel like this is (unintelligible) statement on sound overall, you know, I shot a dance scene and I was adamant that we had to play a song that people could dance to, because music affects people in a very different way than a click track would affect people. And really feeling that sound and that music in your bones really changes the performance.

Craig: Yeah. You get your moment where you actually play it for people so they can dance and have a great time. And then when you need them in the background of the shot of two people talking, like in singles, then you are going to have to get some stuff where they’re just shuffling–

Andrea: Shut up back there.

Craig: Like weird zombies. So creepy.

Andrea: Right.

John: What other lessons did you learn shooting your film about sound?

Andrea: In production?

John: In production. Let’s talk about whose responsibility it is to do sound in production. So obviously you have your sound recordist. The sound recordist, did that person go out on location scouts with you?

Andrea: Yes. Absolutely. It’s imperative because he had to go into each set, like I gave that previous example, but also even things like, OK, you’re going to shoot in this diner, except that industrial refrigerator is humming the entire time. So we have to make arrangements with the establishment, the owners of this diner, to unplug that refrigerator. And if that’s a deal-breaker then we can’t use this location. That sort of thing.

So, there’s a fan whizzing overhead that nobody else can hear. He has hearing like a dog. Thank god. So, yes, he’s there every step of the way to make sure that you’re–

John: And in production can we talk about “Hold for Sound.” So sometimes you’re about to shoot something, or cameras are rolling, and then the plane goes overhead or this thing, you know, a motorcycle passes by. It can throw off performances. It can throw off your rhythm.

Andrea: I had some incredibly skilled actors in my movie and they kind of knew it the second we all knew. Everybody knows at the same time. There’s a bus going by. And so the actor would be in the moment and be like, “I’m holding,” and then we would continue.

Craig: They can find their light and they can pause for passing noises. They’re very good that way. Yeah, I mean, your sound crew is actually quite small on a movie which is always surprising to me. A movie with even enormous crews and enormous things, your sound team really boils down to the sound mixer, who is the person sitting at the cart with the mixer, driving the various inputs which is just lav mics and boom mics.

John: And also looks a lot like what we have here for this recording setup.

Craig: It’s not that different actually.

Andrea: A little cart.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a cart. And then you have your sound, I guess your sound assistant, or the second sound–

Andrea: I’m sure we’re bungling that title. Another guy runs around.

John: We’re going to butcher terms.

Craig: There’s a person whose job is to basically mic up all the actors and handle all the Comteks, the wireless things, and make sure that all the mics are in place and every actor has them on when they need them. And then there’s a boom, sometimes two boom people, but usually just one boom man or woman whose job is to put themselves in what I think is the most horrifying spinal position you can imagine.

John: Arms way over their head.

Andrea: Their shoulders are incredible.

John: The very long boom. And just out of frame and they magically know how to stay out of frame.

Craig: And I will say to like the sound mixer, “Isn’t that bad for them?” And he’s French, he goes, “No, the pole is very light.”

Andrea: It’s not light enough.

Craig: “Like a feather. It’s like a feather.” And I’m like even if it weighed nothing, just having my hands up like the Y in the YMCA for more than five minutes hurts so much.

Andrea: All day long. 14 hours a day.

Craig: All day long.

Andrea: God love them.

Craig: Amazing.

Andrea: It’s amazing.

John: So if you’re a writer on set, one of the things that I had to learn is sort of when to freak out about sound and when to not freak out about sound, especially in terms of dialogue. So if both characters are in the shot and you see them talking to each other you know you can’t cut around a mistake. But if you’re on a single, if you’re looking at one actor and not the other actor, the other actor is off camera and kind of off mic and they mess up a line, it reminded myself that, oh, that doesn’t matter. The sound that matters most is the sound that you’re seeing that is reflected in that shot. And not the other sound. And training yourself to be like, OK, did I get all of what I need of both sides of that and will I be able to – imagining yourself later on in the editing room like do I have all the pieces I need to make that scene work?

Andrea: Well there’s that part of it. And now we’re sort of dipping a toe into ADR as well, but there’s also the idea that you can also say please hold, just give me that one line again please, actor.

John: Yes.

Andrea: And let them repeat that specific line in a different way. And then also just making sure you have enough takes that you have options so that if you’re off of an actor you can get them saying it 15 different ways and you don’t know that they’re saying it 15 different ways. You might have one take that you see on screen, but you could have 15 takes that are the dialogue that’s informing that scene.

Craig: Yeah. You need to know how to edit. I mean, that’s the – writing doesn’t necessarily prepare you for how to manage that aspect of production. But editing does. So, the more you can get a little bit of editing experience before you go into a situation like that, the better off you’ll be because you can actually – and here’s the thing. If you don’t quite know how that functions what will happen is you’ll start asking for things and people start looking at each other like, oh, director is stupid. They don’t know how this works. Because they all know.

Andrea: Yes. Oh they do.

Craig: They know.

Andrea: Much more than you do.

John: And let’s transition to the edit, because a thing I also didn’t realize until I was actually in the middle of editing my first movie is how often the dialogue that we hear is not actually the dialogue that matches that take. The editors are masters at making things fit and work, and so that you can cut together a scene where they’re not quite saying what was matched with that video. And it doesn’t matter.

And so they’re remarkable. Things that I assumed like, oh, we’re going to have to ADR that and we’re going to have to fix that, like oh-no-no they’ve got that.

Andrea: They’ve got it. Right.

John: What was your experience with them?

Andrea: Well what’s amazing about this and still as a writer-director you know the emotional truth of that scene better than anybody around. So the sound editor might try something that you never thought of and you think that’s a great idea because that’s exactly, you know, that is getting at a different emotional truth than the flat performance we might have gotten in the take that we got. But if we can grab that sound take from a previous time, or get the actor back into a booth and get them to record it with a different emotional truth it really can enhance a scene.

John: And as we’re talking about this part of it, traditionally this is your main editor. So this person who is cutting picture is also cutting that first sound and there may be assistants there to help out. And that first cut is largely about performance. It’s about the storytelling.

Andrea: Picture.

John: Yeah. It’s picture. And so I’m always reminding myself that like, oh, I shouldn’t expect this to sound right. I shouldn’t expect the world to sound right. Everything is temp. We’re just trying to get the storytelling to work.

Andrea: What story are we telling here?

Craig: And that sometimes will also get lost by editors and sound people. Because we know, and this is why I love the way that things function when you’re making a feature and it’s a writer-director, or you’re making television and the writer is ultimately supervising postproduction, sometimes what will happen is I’ll watch something back and I’ll go I know there was a better version. There was a better reading.

Andrea: Where is that?

Craig: And they’re like, “Oh this one, yeah. Somebody dropped a thing and it made a noise back there.” I don’t care. Fine. Then you know what? Someone made a noise back there. This makes me feel something. Who cares? So sometimes they’ll get a little over-pristine because they don’t quite see what you see. Which is fascinating to me. But that initial process of editing, it’s interesting.

It used to be that your first pass was really raw and it was really about story, dialogue, that. As nonlinear and computerized editing has advanced and become faster and easier, the first pass you kind of now also expect a certain kind of beginning of creation of environment, atmosphere. You’re starting to zero in on an aesthetic of sound effect. So for instance when we were doing Chernobyl there were a lot of moments where we thought like, OK, what would this room – we have a lot of choices. We’re in the pump room of a nuclear reactor. And if you give that to 20 different editors and ask them to do 20 different atmospheres you’ll get 20 different atmospheres. So the question is what is our aesthetic? What are we going for?

OK, well we’re going for hyper-realistic. What does that mean? That means let’s have somebody record one. And if it sounds boring, then that’s boring. That’s fine. Then it’s a boring atmosphere in that room. We’re not there to make it like whoop-whoop-whoop.

Now, if there’s nothing there and the reality is so jarring that it makes us feel like we made a choice to not be realistic then we have to slightly fudge reality to make it seem like reality. But all those choices start to get made early on and they will all ultimately inform the people that then make the real choices in the mix.

Andrea: Right. Well, figuring out what rooms sound like and what environments sound like has been an incredibly fascinating learning process for me. And the idea of how it informs character has been fascinating. You know, I have three main characters in my movie and they’re all at slightly different economic levels. And so what would one person’s apartment sound like versus another person’s apartment? Would a wealthier person’s – and nobody is really wealthy in the movie – but would a slightly wealthier person’s apartment be quieter than somebody who is poor? And so really playing around with OK this person’s apartment has this tone, and this person’s apartment has that tone. And then when they step outside those apartments and they’re all in the city together what are basically those three tones together sound like, all three of them mixing up, and how do those inform the characters? And how does the city become–?

Craig: It’s writing.

Andrea: It’s writing.

John: That is writing. Now, we’re talking about tone in the sense of like the ambiance you’re going to build later on in the process. I think we skipped over while you’re recording there on the set or on the stage you’re also recording room tone, which is one of the most annoying moments of the day. But it’s that moment either in the middle of shooting or generally at the end of shooting where everyone has to stand still and they record 30 seconds, 60 seconds of what’s called room tone.

And the reason why you do that is because as you’re cutting dialogue you need just the base level of that so that you don’t hear the backgrounds of dialogue coming in and coming out.

Andrea: Dropping in and out. Right.

Craig: Well, also if you – I mean, the way I’ve almost only used, exclusively used room tone is if you need to expand a moment that isn’t there, like in other words you’re just like adding stuff, then where like, OK, I’m going to say something and then I’m going to cut to Andrea and she immediately starts – she hears me saying it and then she starts following it. Well I want her to absorb it first. So I want her to just sit there and then start. Which means I have to take my voice out of her side. Well, if I take it out there’s nothing. And nothing is different than nothing.

So you have to put room tone in there to make it seem like she was in that space.

Andrea: Right. Otherwise it drops to dead silence and it’s very awkward.

John: It’s incredibly jarring.

Craig: Again, our wonderful sound recordist on Chernobyl was – like sometimes I would think like, OK, I’m shooting in Europe, these are European crews. We had this pan-European crew. They do things somewhat differently there. They have different words for things. But it’s all basically the same.

The first time that we were on stage and he called to do room tone he recorded it for I think upwards of four minutes.

Andrea: Oh my god.

John: Was everybody going insane?

Craig: I mean, I personally was like what’s – is this what they always do? Maybe this is European. So at some point, like after a full minute of this I look across the room at our French first AD and he looks at me like I have no idea what he’s going to do. But it was just–

Andrea: It’s just this guy.

Craig: Our guy, Vincent, who is the best. He just really liked to get a full breadth and variety of room tone. And the work that we did get was outstanding. And the room tone was helpful. The one thing we never had to worry about was not having enough room tone.

Andrea: Right. There was plenty of it. Room tone for days. We did very little of that. I think we only did it a couple of times.

Craig: Really?

Andrea: Yeah. We really did very, very little room tone. Because it’s all so heightened and pulpy and fictionalized, the whole movie, that we were just creating environments anyway. We weren’t going for ultra-realistic.

Craig: You can always steal room tone if you have to.

Andrea: Maybe he was stealing behind my back. It was happening and I wasn’t aware. That’s possible, too.

Craig: And even in editorial you’re like, OK, we need some room tone here, well find a shot where people shut up for two seconds.

Andrea: Some other movie.

Craig: Take that and just paste it over here.

John: Let’s talk about the mix. So we’ve written the scenes, we’ve shot the scenes, we’ve edited this thing. And so once you’ve picture locked, usually, but then it’s time to actually do a mix. And so this is where you’re going from the folks who have just been editing picture and doing dialogue and stuff to a generally a whole new team—

Andrea: That’s right.

John: That does not involve your original sound recordist.

Andrea: At a new location. New facility.

John: Yeah, new facility. And they’re seeing what you’ve done and then they’re building out whole new tracks and giving you a lot of new choices about what you’re doing. So what is your first conversation with them, Andrea, with the people who are going to be doing your real post-production sound?

Andrea: First of all you sit down and you watch the whole movie together and you all think oh my god there’s so much work to do.

John: And you’re watching it on a big screen?

Andrea: A big screen. The nice thing is when you get into a sound – I mean, at least my experience in New York – you pretty much edit the movie almost on a laptop. I’m exaggerating, but you are not editing the movie on a big screen.

Craig: You usually put a little monitor to the side.

Andrea: But it’s not the same experience as seeing a movie. And then you get into the sound stage and at least they have a big screen set up. And the most killer speakers in the entire world with the most pristine setup as if we’re all going to have an incredible theater in our homes. But that gives you the full scope of what do we have once you hear it that way. And the answer is not much usually. Turns out we’ve got very little.

And so you watch it through that first time with the team and you all realize, OK, we’ve got a lot of sound effects work to do and we can talk about sound effects later. We’ve got a lot of dialogue work to do, because as pristine as you may record it what you suddenly realize is this is the writing part that I absolutely love is I wish that she had not said that. I really wish that we could use this moment to have her say something else. And that is the best part about it is to go back and get something else entirely that can really change the entire course of your movie.

And so you all sit together and think we’ve got to get that, we’ve got to get that, and then you also look at what lines like for whatever reason somebody dropped something on and you really do need to get them to record it again because it’s crucial and we just don’t have it clear enough. The audience can’t understand what they’re saying. And then like I said creating the soundscape overall. So where is this movie set? What does it feel like? What is the era? How does it sound differently in that era or that world versus this world?

And then finally, you know, you go into that first mix definitely with a lot of ideas about music, but you do not have your score recorded. You do not have all your songs locked down. And you have to then figure out what are we trying to say with music. What are we trying to say with every other sound?

Craig: You go through a sound-spotting process where you go through and sort of say, OK, scene by scene generally speaking what’s our theory on the sound effects we’re going to need here? What’s important? What can we keep from our sync track? That’s what we start to refer to the recorded sound from the day. What can we use from our sync track? What do we have to create? Are we doing a score here? Are we doing a track, like a cue from a song? Are we doing no music? Do we need – so let’s talk about looping for a second.

So looping or ADR, everybody has experienced this even from an audience point of view when suddenly appears that the character’s voice seems a little bit different because it’s been recorded. The idea of ADR is you go into a recording room and they play back a scene and the actor has a bunch of takes to kind of sync their own voice up to their own mouth to improve it. Or, if it’s an off-camera line they just record it.

The interesting thing about ADR is a lot of times it comes down to the actor’s voice. Literally the quality of their voice. I think some actors – Emily Watson I think could probably ADR an entire movie and you’d never know because my experience of her doing an ADR line is just her voice has this beautiful consistency and it just drops in. You’re like I didn’t actually – just watching you record it I didn’t realize you were saying it. You know, like I’m watching you fake it and I don’t see.

But then other actors their voices have so much variation that it just sticks out. That day they sounded like this and this day they sound like this.

Andrea: Did they get a good night’s sleep? Did they have tea for breakfast? Like all of that.

Craig: All of it. And those sometimes can take you out of moments. And that’s always tricky. So you have to kind of gauge how all that looping works. But it can be a remarkable opportunity. And for instance are you guys Game of Thrones watchers?

John: We are. Of course.

Andrea: Listen, I’ve had a busy week. I did not watch so don’t say anything about the first episode please. But yes.

Craig: OK. So I’ll use code. So annoying.

Andrea: I’m sorry.

Craig: So John, towards the end of the first episode someone makes a remark about waiting for an old friend. And you see how that turns into an interesting thing. That was not scripted and that was not shot on the day. Dan and Dave watched the episode and thought you know what would be good if he says this here and it was looped.

John: Nice.

Andrea: Wow.

Craig: So that’s the kind of thing that happens.

John: So they were able to put it over another character’s–?

Craig: They were able to put it over another character’s face. So there’s a conversation between two people, I just have that person – sometimes you can also slide things around. So it’s not ADR. It’s from production. Like I’m going to use the visual of you on take three but I’m going to use your line reading from take two and put it in your mouth.

John: Oh yeah. All the time.

Craig: And it can be a little rubbery for a second or two. But it’s OK if it sounds great and we glide by.

Andrea: You can usually get away with it.

Craig: You can usually get away with it.

John: All right. So we have now done our spotting. We have a whole new team that is building all these tracks for your movie. So you may have done little small mixes for test screenings and stuff, but this is the real final thing. This is what you just flew back from New York for.

Andrea: Yes.

John: And so how many days is that process for you and what–?

Andrea: It’s hard to pin down because the good people on the team were – you do that spotting session much earlier on. Months ago we did it. So they had been working, and working, and working, and building, and building it before I get in to the actual stage. My process on the stage is I was there about three weeks working it through with them. But it went on far longer than that for those people.

John: A thing I always fight both in mixing and in color-timing is just fatigue. Where like I can’t tell the difference between two things anymore. For me the worst moments in sound mixing are like how should this doorknob sound? Should it sound like this? Or like this? Or like this? And I can’t tell the difference.

Andrea: Well, my motto this week became “let’s move on and let’s come back to it.” Because, yes, you get absolutely fatigued. I have one shot in particular that is a bear for color – now we’re talking about color-timing. But I have a shot that has been a bear because there is VFX in a real environment and it has been so hard and I’m hoping that nobody notices. We can talk about this after August. Everybody sees it and see if they can pick up the shot.

But it was 1am Wednesday morning this week and we have nine people sitting there being like, “Bluer. Grayer.” And you know what? We’re going in circles. And so we just all to say like let’s move on.

Craig: Yeah.

Andrea: And we’ll come back to it. Because you do get fatigued. Your eyes and ears get fatigued and you’re tired.

John: But in the mix your team is helping you decide. They’re asking you for decisions about like so how big should the music be here versus how much do you want to hear your environment.

Andrea: And this is where it’s storytelling. This is where the writer, the director knows what they’re trying to create. Even this week there’s a scene where a deadbolt gets turned in a door. And I kept saying like I’m not into that deadbolt. You’ve got to get me – it’s got like a thud. I don’t care if it becomes unrealistic. It’s got to feel like it’s saying something. It’s not just about locking the door. It’s about saying something. What is the emotional moment with that deadbolt?

Craig: Yeah. And the great thing about being in the executive producer position in television is the director has to do all this really hard-hard work. And then I get to come in for review, which is wonderful.

Andrea: Right.

Craig: Because my job then is to sit there. I listen to a full playback. And while you’re watching there’s timecode running and you just write down the number and your note. Number/note. Number/note. And then you go through and you go through every single thing and what it is that you think should change and why. And for me what I find so fascinating about this process is that there are all of these specific choices that I consider writing. What should that sound like? What should the deadbolt sound like? And what line should I be hearing? And what is the score?

But then the magic is in also the relational choices you make. Who should I be hearing louder? When does the rest of the world fade away? Is this music too loud? Is it now telling me to feel something? If I pull it back will I feel more because I don’t realize? All of those mixing – those are true mixing choices – I find to be where actually the most remarkable writing can occur because what you’re doing is you’re focusing people on what has emotional value. I love that.

Andrea: I love it, too.

John: We are going to take a listen to a clip from Mad Max: Fury Road.

Andrea: Oh wow.

John: Which is an example of there’s a bunch of stuff happening simultaneously. So we’ll listen to this. There’s a moment where it gets really silent and then it gets sort of big again. But after we listen to it I want to talk about the relationship between music and sound effects. And sometimes in the mix you’re not quite sure who is driving it and sort of which of those tracks is driving it. So let’s take a listen.

[Mad Max: Fury Road clip plays]

John: I mean, that was so complicated. Just imagine how much time it took just to build that one minute of sound?

Andrea: That was a sound mixer’s dream come true.

Craig: Exactly. But there’s like 40 tracks running in there. And so one category that we should probably break out from sound effects is sound design. So sound effects are really like, OK, somebody put a glass down on a table. Somebody revved a motorcycle engine. Somebody threw a grenade. People have recorded that. Here’s what that is. Here’s 20 different versions of that.

Sound design is more of a kind of creative computerized process where you’re starting to mess around with sound. So like, OK, it’s a grenade but it’s doing this really funky thing. So we’ve taken a grenade noise and we totally warped it out and ran a comb filter on it. And then a high-pass blah-blah-blah. So that becomes a little bit more of the sound equivalent of visual effects. But in this case what I loved about what they’re doing there is they are obviously playing to emotion. So when you drop out you feel like you’re falling through the air. Or you’re in shell-shock.

And then when you come back they are very smartly making you feel a little sick and scared from all this rumbly base. And then there’s this high, gravely, tinkle-y stuff going on that makes you feel like needles are going into your eyeballs. And it’s all feeling. And it’s so smart. And I love that.

Andrea: I think there’s a very low music track in there.

Craig: Oh yeah.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Definitely. Percussive.

Andrea: But at the beginning of that track, sort of the music was louder and the vocals were underneath it. And then by the end the music was incredibly low and I don’t know if it was Russian or whatever was on top of it. It was very interesting.

John: And so some of the music is diegetic because they’re playing these big drums on the back of their cars. All that decision about sound was made in the writing stage because they’re playing these crazy guitars.

Now, I want to contrast that with a scene from Can You Ever Forgive Me? which is not as loud.

Craig: Really? Because I’ve seen Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I recall that there was a huge chase with 40 trucks and 90 motorcycles.

John: I just want to point out that one of the requirements for all of our guests is they have to have made a movie with Melissa McCarthy which you just did.

Andrea: That’s right. How funny is that?

Craig: Isn’t she the greatest?

Andrea: Yes.

Craig: So this is what we keep saying now over and over to all of our guests. Isn’t she the greatest?

[Can You Ever Forgive Me? clip plays]

John: So this is – we were just listening to this, so where was that space? As you guys listened to this where was this happening?

Craig: So it’s a bar. We also forgot to mention Foley.

Andrea: How could we forget Foley?

John: Crucial.

Craig: How could we forget? So Foley is when you hear the footsteps for instance going across this creaky wooden floor of an old bar. And that is an old bar in Manhattan. Probably almost certainly that is Foley because our microphones generally aren’t picking up feet very well. So people will walk and record themselves on things like wooden planks and – anytime you hear soldiers marching through gravel that’s Foley and all that. They’re enhancing certain things like the glass, the tinkling of ice. These things are not pickup-able on the day.

But what I thought was really interesting was the way that Mari contrasted – she included the other conversations in the bar. So those would have been faked. We’re not hearing those on the day. Those are recorded later and then seeded in. She wanted you to feel like this was not some fake bar but there were things happening.

And also there’s quite a bit of reverb on these. Which either is a function of the day, but I doubt. I think it was a choice. When you add reverb, a little bit of echo to these conversations, it makes the space feel a little lonelier. A little emptier. So it’s like there’s empty people over there, and you’re two people over here, and you’re talking in this old, creaky, verby bar. And you almost feel like it’s like ghosts are having conversations over cocktails. It’s very evocative and I like that a lot.

Andrea: It really puts the characters front and center I think because really what you’re hearing the most is the dialogue as you should be hearing in that kind of environment. And everything else is in service to the dialogue and in service to those characters.

As compared to the first track we watched which is in service to this giant action scene. It’s not necessarily about character development.

John: Absolutely. So those people talking in the background, sometimes you’re pulling clips from stuff, but more likely it was a Walla group. So it’s actors who were brought in—

Andrea: Group ADR.

Craig: Loop group.

John: Loop group.

Andrea: I have to say that was one of the most fascinating days I had.

Craig: It’s wild, right?

Andrea: Because my movie takes place in Manhattan, 1978, and I really wanted that feel. One of the cool things about New York is when you’re walking down the street you can hear conversations in every language imaginable. And I really wanted that feeling of that assault of the city. You know, as you’re walking through New York you hear somebody screaming their head off for no reason over here. And somebody speaking Spanish over here. And just that kind of – that assault that is so intense.

And so we got most of that through our group ADR. And we had this one guy in group ADR who speaks 15 languages. He speaks Yiddish. Who speaks Yiddish? Nobody speaks Yiddish.

Craig: Nobody. Zero Mostel.

Andrea: He speaks Yiddish. And I was like, you know, we have a scene set in the jewelry district and he gave me a little Yiddish to stick in.

Craig: That’s where it would be.

Andrea: Right. That’s where it would be.

Craig: Borough Park, or you know.

Andrea: That’s right. And so the group ADR session I’m sure as Craig pointed out that that little conversation in the background was two incredibly talented group ADR actors having a conversation that they recorded some months after they finished shooting and Mari was able to use that in her bar scene.

Craig: Every now and then you will have to write that. Usually you don’t. Usually because it’s meant to be barely heard your loop group will just kind of come up with some cocktail chatter or bar chatter of various kinds. And then it gets seeded into the background. But every now and then, for instance I knew like, OK, we’ve got a scene with all of these firefighters. A bunch of them are going to be saying things. We could have them come up with their own things to say but do you want some specific things, and I did.

And even if you barely hear them I wanted them to be accurate and correct and relative to what was going on. So I wrote those. You will write maybe some of those things, but usually it’s just kind of improvised.

Andrea: It is. But I did quite a bit of writing, too, because it was a period piece. And so what I didn’t want was people talking about–

Craig: Cellphones.

Andrea: Current stuff. And so we pulled a bunch of articles and what was going on in city politics in 1978 and what might people of New York been talking about on that day. And I ended up just writing a bunch of sentences. Like let’s complain about the trash. And let’s complain about taxes. And let’s complain about unemployment. You know, that’s what it’s like.

Craig: ConEd. A lot of chatter about ConEd.

Andrea: ConEd. I know.

John: So when do we get to see and hear your movie, Andrea?

Andrea: August 9, theaters everywhere.

John: Very nice.

Craig: That’s coming so fast.

Andrea: It’s coming up. The trailer will be out mid-May.

John: I’m so excited to see your trailer. So I was looking for a trailer so we could hype it up.

Andrea: It’s not out yet.

John: Remind us who is in your film.

Andrea: It is starring Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, Elizabeth Moss.

Craig: Wow.

Andrea: And I got more. I got Domhnall Gleeson. Brian d’Arcy James. Bill Camp.

Craig: Brian d’Arcy James is fantastic.

Andrea: He’s fantastic.

Craig: Did he sing for you?

Andrea: James Badge Dale. He did not. Because I felt shy about asking.

Craig: Really? I would have asked him to.

Andrea: You know, we shot in New York and we had three big musical theater actors. We have Brian d’Arcy James, Will Swenson, and Brandon Uranowitz. And all I wanted was them to do Kitchen: The Musical. Like I was just like guys get together.

Craig: I think I would have gotten Brian d’Arcy James to sing for me only because I wouldn’t have said, oh, sing some Hamilton or whatever. He was the original king in Hamilton. But probably I would have asked for some Shrek. I’m obsessed with Shrek: The Musical.

Andrea: I was too shy. Brian right now is starring in The Ferryman on Broadway and he gives an incredible performance. And if you haven’t seen it you should go see him.

Craig: Yeah. It has been touted as such.

Andrea: He’s great.

Craig: That’s a fantastic cast.

Andrea: It is. I got very lucky.

Craig: Boy, if it’s not a good movie—

Andrea: It’s my fault.

Craig: I’m laying it firmly at your feet. And if it is a good movie I feel like the cast elevated it.

Andrea: It’s not my doing.

John: I’m giving all the credit to the sound team.

Andrea: That’s perfect. As we should. Because it really does sound amazing.

John: All right. It’s come time for our One Cool Things, where we talk about the things we wish people would know more about. My One Cool Thing is this article, speaking of musicals, Seth Abramovitch wrote for the Hollywood Reporter about the musical Nerds, which I was not aware of. So it’s a musical about Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. And how this musical kept crashing down and sort of half made it to Broadway and went through all these workshops.

It’s just a long history of what happened there. And it gave me such triggering flashbacks to Big Fish: The Musical and how hard it is to get something up to the stage. And so I recommend you look at it. Maybe this musical will actually happen at some point. But the weird way that musicals are financed to put together it was just a great look at sort of how that all works.

Craig: Terrifying.

John: Terrifying. Andrea, what’s your One Cool Thing?

Andrea: So 14 months in New York working on this project, tried to come home for 36 hours every weekend to see my kids. Which meant that I was jet-lagged always. There was never a time where I was like on east coast or on west coast. And I have been having a very hard time sleeping. So somebody turned me on to there’s an app called Headspace. A lot of people know about Headspace.

John: Love Headspace.

Andrea: Within Headspace there’s a subcategory called Sleepscapes which is this bananas thing. It’s like a bedtime story. And you plug it in and a very soothing voice will start telling you a bedtime story. But after you listen to it for about five minutes it becomes nonsense. So it becomes, “The cats love rainbows. The cats are up on rainbows. The clouds…” So you’re listening and you’re like, wait, where are the cats? I’ve lost the cats.

John: That’s what falling asleep is like?

Andrea: And then eventually you’re like, oh never mind, and you go to sleep. And this has worked better for me than almost – I have tried Ambien. I have tried all of these things. There is something about this that triggers the perfect thing in my brain that it worked like a genius. And I had been addicted to it for the last six weeks.

Craig: Wow. Very cool. I’m going to try that. That sounds cool.

John: Craig, what’s your One Cool Thing?

Craig: My One Cool Thing are these wonderful little creatures that we call yeast, because they leaven bread. They give us alcohol.

John: They do.

Craig: But most importantly they leaven bread. Because without yeast all delicious bread would be horrifying and disgusting Matzo.

Andrea: Have you ever had too much yeast though in bread?

John: Not good.

Craig: Oh, like a yeasty bread?

Andrea: Super yeasty.

Craig: Where it tasted sort of like weird beer?

Andrea: Yeast can go awry. Calm down, yeast. Get in your lane.

Craig: Calm down. Don’t go crazy. Be happy doing all the wonderful things you do. But you’re really meant to be in the shadows.

John: You’re a supporting player.

Andrea: It’s not your moment.

Craig: Yeah. We don’t want to taste you. We want to taste bread.

John: You’re the ambience, you’re not the featured sound.

Craig: Correct.

Andrea: Exactly. You need a mixer.

John: That is our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by the Arbitrary Jukebox Experience. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Are you on Twitter?

Andrea: I got off. I canceled the account.

John: Congratulations, Andrea Berloff.

Craig: But you may want to hop back on just to pimp out your movie.

Andrea: Instagram. Find me on Instagram. How about that?

Craig: People say like, oh, I can’t deal with Twitter, instead I’m on Instagram, the thing that gives everybody an eating disorder.

Andrea: Nope, not me.

Craig: It’s better?

Andrea: Not me. In fact, it shows me what to eat.

John: Here’s your food.

Craig: That’s great.

Andrea: I’m all about obsessing over people’s food.

Craig: OK, great. Good. Good. You’re using it in a healthy way.

Andrea: Yes.

John: You can find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment. It helps people find the show. The show notes for this episode and all episodes are at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We try to get them up in the first week after the episode airs.

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

Andrea Berloff, welcome back.

Andrea: So good to be home.

John: And thank you for talking to us about sound.

Andrea: Thank you for having me.

Craig: Thanks Andrea.

Andrea: Thanks guys. Bye.

Links:

  • WGA Lawsuit
  • #WGAMix led by screenwriter Daniel Zucker
  • Mad Max Fury Road Clip
  • Can You Ever Forgive Me? Clip
  • The story of the “Nerds” musical article by Seth Abramovitch
  • Headspace’s Meditation for Sleep
  • Accepting recommendations for updating the Listener’s Guide
  • Submit to the Pitch Session here
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by Thomas Johnstone (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 396: Big Numbers, Transcript

April 23, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

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

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 396 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig and I are both maybe just a little bit jetlagged. Craig, you just flew back from England, correct?

**Craig:** Yeah. This was my last run over to London. We finished basically.

**John:** Hooray!

**Craig:** We mixed our final episode of Chernobyl and we just got some straggling VFX shots left, but basically I guess it’s probably good that we’re done because it’s coming out in a few weeks.

**John:** [laughs] Yeah. You should be done. It’s good. And I just flew back from Maine. I was there doing a one-week book tour of the northeast. It was great but I had to wake up at 1am LA time to catch my flight back here. So, if I nod off in the middle of this podcast that will be the explanation of why, not because I’m not fascinated by the things we’re talking about.

But now we are both back in town and it’s a really good thing because, well, nothing interesting happened this past week. It was a very quiet week in Los Angeles while we were gone.

**Craig:** Sleepy. Yeah, one of those rare weeks where everything goes as planned. [laughs] He-he. Yikes.

**John:** Today on the podcast we’re going to be talking about a lot of big numbers from the latest developments in the WGA/agency situation, to the announcement of Disney+, and the final installment of Star Wars non-ology. I guess is that nine movies? Non-ology?

**Craig:** Sure. Why not?

**John:** Sure. Then of course we’ll answer some listener questions. But I wanted to sort of frame this as big numbers because we had a very big exciting thing happen this week because we got our first image of an actual black hole.

**Craig:** That’s right. It was gorgeous.

**John:** Yeah. It’s named Powehi, which is a Hawaiian phrase referring to “an embellished dark source of unending creation.”

**Craig:** Hmm.

**John:** I’m a little skeptical of that long name, because a culture that would have a term for an embellished dark source of unending creation – that feels a little specific for a three-syllable word.

**Craig:** Yeah. Well Po means embellished dark source.

**John:** Oh, that’s right.

**Craig:** We is unending. And Hi is creation. You’re right. Actually many Polynesian languages are sort of famous for having these very long words.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** So this is an odd one. But the photo really isn’t of the black hole. The photo, of course, is of the light being sucked into the black hole. You can’t really take a picture of a black hole, because it’s a black hole.

**John:** Yeah. And it’s actually a composite image of the radio telescope’s data that they were able to pull from this thing, but still it’s impressive. It’s an accomplishment because it is a demonstration that the physics that we assumed were real, are real and so we can now see it. This 55 million light years from Earth. This super-massive black hole has a mass that is 6.5 billion times that of our sun. That’s not even a number I can fathom, because I can’t really even fathom how big the sun is.

I love going to planetariums where they show you relative sizes of things. And I kind of remember that for a while, but then I can never remember whether the Earth is a speck of dust or a golf ball. And really it doesn’t matter.

**Craig:** It really doesn’t matter. And also I should point out that the super-massive black hole either has or had a mass. Because what we’re seeing is a picture from 55 million years ago. Correct? I think that’s right.

**John:** It is. Yeah. So, it took that long for the light that we’re capturing or the radio waves that we’re capturing to get to us. So, that was a long time ago. But you know what? Black holes, they last a really long time. And I know this because the same week that this news came out I watched a really good video, I’ll put a link in the show notes, it’s by John Boswell. It is a Timelapse of the Entire Universe. And it starts now and goes to the end of the universe, but it keeps accelerating as it goes. And you realize that the period of the universe that we’re in right now is actually just a brief little blip in the time in which we could actually have planets and solar systems. Because most of the universe will be giant black holes crashing into each other and eventually decaying until there’s nothingness.

**Craig:** Well, that’s certainly what the simulation would have you believe. In the meantime I’m just wondering, in the time-lapse of the entire universe where did the part where we fire our agents land? Was that recent? How long does it last?

**John:** That was Friday at midnight.

**Craig:** OK.

**John:** Yeah. So that was another sort of change in the overall physics of the Hollywood universe is that – so this past week we were having negotiations with the Association of Talent Agencies. Last week we sort of assumed that it was going to have already happened, but then there was a last minute extension, so this last week there was more conversation. A deal was not reached and you and I and every other member of the WGA got an email saying there’s been no deal reached, it has now come time for us to send a notice to our agencies that they need to either sign the agreement or they are no longer representing us.

**Craig:** Yeah. So this is a, you know, I don’t know how else to phrase it except a failure of negotiation. Normally when we are looking at failures of negotiation between the Writers Guild and the companies the outcome is a strike. In this case, you know, and I’ve been saying this all along, when we had Chris Keyser on, we’re kind of management here. And the closest analogy I could come up with was that this is sort of a lockout. We’ve locked them out.

It is a failure of negotiation, but I place it at the feet of the agencies. I really do. I think that it took them – either it took them a very long time to take this seriously, or their strategy was to not take it seriously. But suddenly there were five hours left and at that point they wanted to begin. When you’re down by 14 points that’s not the time to run the clock out. You run the clock out when you’re up by 14 and there’s 40 seconds left. Why they’re running the clock down, I don’t know. And why they chose to do what they did I don’t know. Why their first volley with eight hours to go was so far afield of the fairway I don’t know.

**John:** Yeah. You and I talked a lot about this sort of off-mic this whole week, sort of anticipating what could be happening, what might be happening. You and I both had our theories of sort of, you know, theories of mind for sort of what was going on on the other side and I don’t think either of us were particularly correct. It’s hard to sort of, you know, understand quite why we got to this place. But here’s what we do know is that there are 43 agencies who have signed this agreement. They’re not the big agencies that you would know. But they represent about 300 or a little bit more of our members. So that’s something. If you’re at one of those agencies that’s awesome.

What’s going to happen this next week, the next few weeks, is there’s going to hopefully be more discussions, hopefully building on sort of the small things that were decided in the room. There’s going to be a lot of speculation about whether more agencies will break off from the ATA to make a deal. I think there’s probably some betting pools about who that would be. But it’s uncharted territory. We are past the event horizon and so we don’t know what the future holds for our relationship with our agencies.

**Craig:** We don’t. The reasonable prediction would be that after a brief cooling off period everybody comes back to the table and starts talking again. There will be increasing pressure as time goes on. Time always delivers pressure. There are people whose job is to determine for the agencies how much money they are not making per month for every month this goes on.

And this is kind of an interesting difference between a typical labor action like the kind where we go on strike, when we go on strike we don’t make money and they can’t get new writing. In this case, we can keep getting hired. We can keep making money. In fact, there is a real argument to be made that whatever pain is and whatever the distribution of pain is it is wildly in favor of the writers and wildly in disfavor of the agencies.

You are going to have a lot of people, a lot of agents at those agencies, saying, “Hey, you’ve kind of eliminated my career here.” And I have to say that in that there is some hope for this all because when you run a business and you have employees, sure, some people are awful about it and the larger the corporation I suppose the easier it is to be awful, but these are not massive corporations. They all work in a building. And I think seeing people in pain and seeing people scared and seeing people suffering is going to make a difference to the men and women who run these agencies.

They don’t want this to go on forever. And people will get hurt. So, the question is where’s that sweet spot between what they can live with and what they can’t? The truth is the longer this goes on the more danger they are in.

**John:** Yeah. On this flight back I had wifi and so I was emailing with a bunch of writers, just sort of checking in with them on sort of where they were at. These are largely folks who are on that big list of 700 people who signed up.

And one of the things I stressed in conversations was this is weird and uncomfortable and that’s probably good. It kind of needs to be weird and uncomfortable because if this felt normal we wouldn’t actually solve it. And so you have to sort of be comfortable with being uncomfortable for a bit while we sort of sort through these situations.

But in two of the conversations I had with writers today I realized folks who I knew well, like big screenwriters who you and I talk to quite a bit, don’t have agents. I was surprised like one of them hadn’t had an agent for eight years and he works all the time.

**Craig:** Sure.

**John:** So, it seems like, oh, it would be so weird and impossible not to have an agent, but there’s folks for whom it’s fine.

**Craig:** Well, there’s the creeping danger for the agencies. So, the longer this goes on the greater the chance that – not everybody – but a number of writers will say, “I don’t notice a difference here.” And that’s obviously an existential threat for the agencies and their relationship with writers.

The other issue is the actors are waiting out there. So SAG does not have a signed agreement with the ATA and hasn’t for a while. So they’ve just kind of punted this the way I think in a sense the writers punted this, too. But the longer this goes on the longer the odds are that SAG will do the same thing. And at that point it’s untenable.

So one of the tricky parts for the agencies is they can’t simply make a deal and imagine it is only with us. Whatever they do here is going to be extendable I would imagine to the actors and then of course to the directors. All of their clients really. The simple solution of course is to simply revert to 10%. Whether or not that happens, I don’t know. But I absolutely agree with you that it is uncomfortable. That is a sign that probably it’s moving in the direction it should be moving in since the entire point of this exercise was that the status quo and the comfort of stability was not worth the price we were paying.

But on a personal note it’s distressing. It’s distressing to me because I am close with my agents. My main agent has been my agent for well over a decade. And this is, I think the two of us feel a little bit like two brothers on different sides of the Civil War. It’s one of those things.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** It’s sad. We don’t like this.

**John:** No. I tweeted as this was all happening that my agent of 20 plus years, you know, I would give him a kidney tomorrow if he needed a kidney. I’m on my way to Cedars. He’s genuinely a good guy. And so what we’ve tried to stress from the very beginning is this isn’t about an individual agent. This is about a system that’s broken that needs to get fixed. And so hopefully we can get this system fixed.

But speaking of broken systems, I want to give you an opportunity because I know you are not happy with some of what the WGA was saying in the FAQ about this. Do you want to talk us through that?

**Craig:** Yeah. And I’ve never been shy about criticizing the union at any point in time. In fact, I tend to do it when people are most annoyed with the idea that I’m criticizing the union. Because I think in part the Writers Guild has a kind of institutional paranoia that in times of strife any dissent represents potential fatal wound to the body politic which is nonsense. I think dissent is essential, particularly to keep any kind of structure of power and authority honest to the people that it purports to represent.

And I think by and large the Writers Guild has actually done a very good job through here. But they always go one step too far. And here’s my problem. They released a frequently asked questions for writers which was very thorough and people do have a lot of questions about how this all works. But there was one thing that stuck in my craw.

So, the letter that we all signed and sent to our agents – I did it, you did it, most of us are doing it I presume – says essentially you can no longer represent me for employment in regard to any new deal covered by the WGA.

**John:** Yeah. My writing services.

**Craig:** Correct. What the frequently asked question says is – question: What if I’m a TV writer/producer? Answer: Some unsigned agencies, meaning agencies that haven’t signed the code of conduct, meaning most of them, have been telling clients they can still represent them as producers. This isn’t true. Because your writer and producer functions are inextricably linked and are deemed covered writing services under the MBA you cannot continue to be represented as a producer by an agency not signed to the code of conduct.

Well, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think that’s just patently false. I think that, well, it is true in practice that writer-producers in television, those two activities are mushed up and linked together. But producing is not covered by the MBA. The MBA has passages that say, look, if you are claiming to be producing and you’re doing more than this small limited number of exceptions then you’re actually writing and it needs to be covered here, but otherwise producing income is dues-able. That’s how we know it’s not covered by the MBA and that’s how we know that in fact the Writers Guild cannot stop people from producing in television. There’s an entire category of television producing called non-writing producer.

So, why did they do this? I think again because they’re paranoid. But they don’t have to be here. That was unnecessary. Because if you are a proper writer-producer in television and your agent cannot represent you in the writing portion of the deal then they won’t. And you can’t produce and not write if you’re meant to be a writer-producer. So, the point is you can’t – they can’t get away with saying that they represent more than they do. And I think it’s also unnecessary. I think the fact is saying to the agencies you cannot represent my new writing work is as far as we ought to go and it’s as far I believe as we can go.

And until such time as somebody makes a decent argument to me that the MBA says otherwise that’s what I’m going to believe. And they tried to make an argument but I thought it was terrible and it didn’t hold water. So, this is where I think sometimes they go too far. That was unnecessary and I just don’t think it’s enforceable.

**John:** Yeah. So talking with some showrunners today or emailing back and forth with showrunners on my endless flight back from Maine I was talking to them about sort of these issues and I was really heartened to see that the showrunners I was talking to really did see their writing and producing functions as being so inextricably linked that they couldn’t imagine having conversations with their agents about the producing function of their job which was really they couldn’t separate it. So as a practical matter they felt those two functions were so linked that they couldn’t imagine separating them out. And that’s the kind of thing that also happened during the strike. There were showrunners who felt like they couldn’t go through and be doing post-production on episodes because it was still kind of writing.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** And so I totally get that. And as a practical matter these showrunners I was talking to said, listen, I think the best way through this is for me to sort of stop talking to the agencies and to direct my folks to stop talking to the agencies so that we get this done more quickly and more fairly and sort of resolve this thing.

**Craig:** Well, I wish that you had written this, because that’s the answer. In other words, during the strike we said – we organized ahead of time. We talked to showrunners and said, listen, if we go on strike the companies are going to demand that you continue to fulfill your producing responsibilities which are not covered by the WGA, for instance supervising editorial. That’s not writing. Well, a lot of the showrunners sort of ahead of time said, “Yeah, we’re not going to do that. We’re not going to cross the picket line. And so you’ll have to sue us.”

Meaning the guild can’t compel us to do this. There is no legal reason we’re doing this. But since we’re all doing it you’d have to sue all of us and that won’t work. That’s how you do this. You don’t say you’re not allowed to.

And by the way, because this isn’t a labor action what we’re talking about really is representation. So the question is if you’re making a deal can you have an agent negotiate the producing part of it and have somebody else negotiate the writing part, practically speaking the answer is no. that doesn’t really make sense.

**John:** Not really, no.

**Craig:** Yeah. And so what I wish we were saying is you shouldn’t because it’s going to diminish our ability to do these things. What we’re saying to you is don’t. Right? But we’re not telling you you can’t. And we’re not lying to you about what the MBA covers. That’s where the guild just drives me nuts. They’ve got to go one step too far. And my problem is they’ve done this so well with the exception of that that I think it just diminishes a little bit of their – it diminishes the legitimacy and the honesty of the other arguments which are all excellent.

**John:** Yeah. Well, Craig, thank you for keeping us honest on that. The one last sort of macro question I got a lot today was about, but wait, couldn’t the agencies just package shows without writers? They could use actors and directors? The first response to that is always, well, but they don’t. The writers are always sort of deemed essential to these shows. So I would be surprised if any studio was going to be willing to pay a packaging fee that doesn’t include a writer.

But the other thing that I thought about today which had never really struck me before is we see these mega deals for writers, these $100 million deals for streamers with these writers, you don’t see those for directors. You don’t see those actors. There’s something obviously very special about writers is that we make the things that they’re able to show. And that is why we are so valuable. And I think that’s also why we’re so indispensable for these packaging fees.

**Craig:** And it’s why the feature business is so bizarre. Because it’s always been the case that the richest creative talent in Hollywood, the most handsomely-rewarded creative talent in Hollywood were television writers. Always. And continues to be the case. And then you have this bizarre world in features where, I don’t know, it’s like they pretend that television doesn’t exist and that that entire system isn’t working really, really well. And I’m kind of fascinated by what’s going to happen.

Because what you’re seeing now – is this just aside from the agency thing – but you are seeing people like Spielberg grouching at the Academy about whether or not Netflix movies should be eligible. And I understand the arguments on both sides, but there is underneath it a certain kind of fear I would imagine among directors that if their protected and exalted status in features disappears because everything is television then they will have lost an enormous amount of status and authority and that’s kind of an interesting side effect to all of this.

As the television-ification of Hollywood continues writers and their leverage only I think increase in stature. And another reason why it’s really important that we take this time now I think to reset things with agencies because we can. We are in fact the people that are the lynchpin behind these massive deals.

**John:** Yeah. Craig we got two questions that were specifically about WGA stuff. I thought maybe we’d take them first.

**Craig:** Great. All right, well Sam asks, “I just signed with one of the big four agencies off my break-in spec.” Great timing, Sam. “It made the Black List. It has some A-level talent circling. I’m meeting on assignments. All the good stuff. The thing is this is my very first go-round. I’m not in the WGA. What happens to a guy like me if WGA writers walk from the big four? Do I sit tight until I accumulate enough points to make it into the union and then jump ship? Could my agent even negotiate a WGA deal for me?

“I have a manager, so I’m not going to be floating out in space all alone, and despite not being in the union I want to back my fellow writers.”

John, we’ve got answers for this. Go for it.

**John:** We do have answers for Sam. First off, Sam, it’s awesome that you’re thinking about your fellow writers. That is a good start on your career. You are not a WGA member. You are not bound by sort of what’s happening with this. You can stay repped by this big four agency. They can send you out on stuff. Book something. Get a great job. Get a great job at a studio. That is going to be covered work. And with that covered work you are ultimately going to be joining the guild anyway and at which point let’s hope this is not still happening. But at which point you would have to be leaving your agency because then you’re bound to the restrictions of what’s going on right now.

So, you’re fine Sam. But it’s awesome that you’re thinking about this. This is the kind of guy who if this were the strike he would show up on the picket line even though he didn’t have to be on the picket line because he was there to support. That’s good.

**Craig:** Great. Thanks for that. John, you want to take Tamara’s question?

**John:** Sure. Tamara writes, “In the negotiation with the agencies about packaging fees why doesn’t the WGA team up with the DGA and SAG/AFTRA to demand that all their client members receive 50% of packaging fees so at the end of the year all packaging fees collected by the agencies would be split 50% for the agency, 50% for client members? Wouldn’t this be better than trying to eliminate the fees altogether?”

**Craig:** Well, Tamara, I agree with you. It would be better. I would be all for that, personally. That’s my personal feeling. I think the Mazin plan as I put it is once the agency recoups what it would have made from a 10% commission then everything after that they would split with everybody that was covered by the package. So that would mean everybody that wasn’t paying commission essentially would then get half. And it would be prorated among how much you contributed to that imputed 10%.

The issue though is that I don’t think, and I mean, John, maybe you know differently, I don’t think we can just team up with two other unions like that in something like this. I think we have to sort of negotiate on our own first. The DGA may have a deal in place. SAG does not, if I’m correct.

**John:** Yeah. I would say as you try to rope in other unions it gets more complicated and one thing I’ll just say in defense of the Mazin plan, Mazin idea, is that what Craig is trying to do is incentivize agencies to get more for their clients. That’s really ultimately what it comes down to. So that the 10% is really meaningful. And so that they are not only thinking about that packaging fee. They’re thinking about how do I get my clients paid more so that I make 10% more.

**Craig:** Exactly. My basic theory is if you tell them that the higher their clients’ salaries, the more packaging money they get to keep for themselves. They will be incentivized to maximize our salaries. And that’s all I want. I just want – there was a thread between agents and clients and that thread was the more you make the more we make. And that thread was severed by packaging fees. I want to restore that thread. However it works out. I want it to be that the agents realize that the more money we make upfront, all of us, the more money they will get to keep later on.

**John:** Yep. And as we wrap up this conversation we should never forget producing because producing is the thing which I feel like we don’t address now, five years, 10 years, 20 years down the road we will be kicking ourselves because it’s so clearly a conflict between what’s best for us and what’s best for them. And the nature of an agent versus an employer.

**Craig:** Yeah. And I would say that this is another area where – because I don’t represent the union. You’re a board member. I was many years ago. But I’m just a member at large. I have no problem saying to my fellow writers just as a person don’t work for those companies. Just don’t. You know? Because I don’t think it’s good. I don’t think it helps us. I don’t think it’s a healthy relationship to have. I don’t think making life better for those companies is going to make life better for writers in general. So I would say don’t work for them.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** Yeah. Just don’t.

**John:** That’s a choice. Nice. All right, moving on, also this week we found out the details about Disney+. That is the new Disney streaming service. It launches November 12. It includes content from Disney, Pixar, Marvel, Star Wars, National Geographic, and of course since they got Fox there’s also a bunch of Fox stuff on there including The Simpsons. Every episode of The Simpsons will be there.

So, that was a lot and it doesn’t actually cost a lot. It costs $7.99 per month.

**Craig:** [laughs] Yes it does.

**John:** At least at the start here. In addition to the stuff that already exists there’s going to be original shows, Marvel shows based on Hawkeye, Falcon and Winter Soldier, Scarlet Witch and the Vision, which we talked to Megan our former producer about because she’s working on that show.

**Craig:** Great.

**John:** There’s new Star Wars shows. And probably the single show I was most excited about when I heard about it almost a year ago is called Encore. It’s a reality show. It stars Kristen Bell. And she is the producer who brings together former cast-mates of a high school musical and they have to recreate it within one week.

**Craig:** Oh wow. Well, you know what? I was Curly in our senior year production of Oklahoma. So, Kristen Bell if you’re listening, Freehold High School, class of 1988. Oklahoma. I have no hair left. I would need a wig.

**John:** You would need a wig. It’s a great idea for a show.

**Craig:** Love it.

**John:** I mean, it’s just going to be a ton of stuff and we’re just clearly now into the age of streamers. Between this and Apple+, you’ve got the Hulu. You’ve got the Netflix. You’ve got the HBO. This is our universe now.

**Craig:** It is. And this was clearly designed to be a kick in the ribs of Netflix. No question. That pricing alone was – well it was just a massive underpricing. And they can do that because Disney, I think they claim that they will be profitable by 2024 or something like that. And I believe them. I believe them completely.

Netflix, you know, continues to burn through cash and they charge quite a bit more a month. So now it gets interesting because they’re going to pull all this stuff off of Netflix obviously. And unlike Netflix which has no other streams of revenue except for their subscription service and doesn’t have a kind of endless library just yet, even as they make a thousand shows, what they don’t have is 30 years of The Simpsons right?

And Disney obviously has the ability to buffer everything with their theatrical and their parks and their cruise ships and their merchandising, and ABC. It’s going to get interesting. I think, if I had to predict, I would say that Disney+ is going to be an enormous success.

**John:** I think it will be an enormous success, too. The only thing I would say don’t discount about Netflix is we think of Netflix through our US bias, but when I travel overseas Netflix is giant. And they have a lot of local content that is made for the countries that they’re in. And they continue to do more and more and more of that. So, Disney even with all the stuff they have, I think a lot of folks are going to stick with Netflix because there’s things they want on Netflix.

**Craig:** No question.

**John:** It’s not going to be an either/or situation.

**Craig:** I agree. I think it’s really more about the future and how it impacts Netflix in the future because if they’re holding all this content like Star Wars and Pixar and Disney, I mean Disney is a huge selling point for Netflix content. And it’s going to go away. So it impacts what their curve looks like ahead. But, look, as a writer, as a content creator, I want there to be 20 of these things.

**John:** Oh my god, yes.

**Craig:** As long as they pay us well.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, I’m very sad to lose Fox and I will never stop bitching about how I don’t think Disney should have been allowed to buy Fox. But places that want to make things is good for us.

**Craig:** Yes.

**John:** And so we should make things for those places.

**Craig:** Correct. Agreed.

**John:** Agreed. One of those giant properties that will be showing up on Disney+ is the new Star Wars. So, this week we learned the title. It’s The Rise of Skywalker. We saw a teaser. It got 16 million views. I want to talk about big numbers. But I would like to do right now on this podcast is just play one minute of the music from the trailer. So this is a John Williams clip. Because I truly believe you could have just played this music over a black screen and we would have all had goosebumps and been so excited to see this movie. So, if you’re listening to this on a podcast player that’s speeded up can you just slow it back down to normal speed now? Because I think it’s worth just listening to just music to sort of feel what they’ve done here.

And as you’re listening to this I want you to notice how when the choir kicks in they just simply go up the scale and, man, that is so effective. At some point, Craig, you just got back from your sound mix, I do want to have a whole episode or most of an episode about the mix and score and how that works and how a writer can approach that. But listen to this and just see the remarkable job they’ve done with the music for this clip.

[Clip plays]

**John:** It’s so good.

**Craig:** Well, I mean, look, that’s storytelling. You can actually see. It’s writing. Like regular writing. It’s got a narrative to it. I mean, there’s the recall of an old theme. Well, first of all there’s the weird sort of dissonant thing that builds up and then it resolves into sonance. And then like you say there’s that climbing chorus going on, rising above the repeating theme. And then just as it’s about to resolve they cut it off.

**John:** Yeah. Anticipation. That cliffhanger.

**Craig:** Cliffhanger. Then you have the introduction of some evil terrifying thing. Then the resolve but underneath the resolve you have the evil kind of hanging out in there. It’s storytelling. It’s just wonderful. And people have made this argument before. I think there’s merit to it. That Star Wars would have been one and done without John Williams.

**John:** I think that’s a very good argument to be made because visuals in the original movie are fantastic. Visuals in this trailer are fantastic. But without that score it just doesn’t work the same way. It doesn’t, I mean, they often say the score is that piece of the movie you get to take home with you. It sticks in your head and you sort of hum it to yourself. And he was just a master at doing that.

**Craig:** He is. He continues to be.

**John:** I’m not putting him in the past, but what he did for Star Wars is just so iconic.

**Craig:** And E.T.

**John:** And E.T.

**Craig:** And Superman. And Jaws.

**John:** And Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**Craig:** Raiders of the Lost Ark.

**John:** So he’s had a few hits.

**Craig:** Harry Potter.

**John:** He’s a few instances of success.

**Craig:** He’s had all of the things.

**John:** He’s had all the things.

**Craig:** He really is – when you look at like everybody in Hollywood and you ask who is the greatest of all time, meaning who made the biggest difference and was the biggest kind of positive impact in our entire history of film and television, there’s an argument to be made it’s John Williams.

**John:** I think a very good case can be made for John Williams.

**Craig:** And I love your idea, too. We must do, look, I’ve just been mixing for a while. I’m obsessed with mixing in a way that I really do kind of get a bit sleepy during color-grading, color-timing. But the mixing, it’s everything to me. And so I would love to talk about how much writing happens in our ears. That’s a great topic.

**John:** Cool. Let’s take one of our questions. We have a bunch here, but we’ll save the rest for other days. Question from Scott. He asks, “As a screenwriter working to get into the business, if you write say two to three hours a day what does the rest of your day look like? Are you done-done, or do you have more work that you do that’s not words on a page?”

So, Craig, talk me through a writing day on your side and I’ll describe my day. How many hours a day when you’re really writing are you really writing?

**Craig:** Well, yeah, about two to three are actually what I would call composition time. Then there is thinking time. And there’s ordering time. And there’s imagining time. And daydreaming time to imagine the scene. I don’t like really writing anything until I’ve watched it a bit in my head and thought it through.

Of course, I am in the business. When I was working to get into the business, after the two or three hours of writing a day I went to my job.

**John:** Yep.

**Craig:** You know? I made money so I could live.

**John:** Yep. I would say I’m like Craig in that there’s probably two to three hours a day where I’m at the keyboard or pen in hand writing the stuff that is the actual screenplay or book in this case. But there’s a lot of time that’s thinking through other stuff.

Now, back when I had a day job my day job was answering phones and doing all that stuff. My other day job is sort of this podcast, it’s the software company I run. It is a thousand WGA stuff. So there’s a lot of other things that fill up the rest of the day. But it’s good that there are those things because I don’t know anybody who can write eight hours a day. A person who can actually just sit down and physically do that. It’s really taxing on the brain.

You’re making all these choices of how to get through a sentence. And that decision-making process just exhausts you. At a certain point you just can’t write more.

**Craig:** Yeah. It requires an enormous amount of attention to detail. Like attention not only to the kind of detail of words, order of words, sentences, how do you break them up, word choice. But also just attention to detail of all the things you’re responsible for. All the plates you’re spinning to keep a scene real and alive. The relationships. And the themes. And the description of places. All those things. It requires massive amounts of attention.

There’s only so much you can – you have about three hours of that hyper focus before it starts to break down.

**John:** Yeah. And if you try to force it and go longer–

**Craig:** Oh boy.

**John:** You end up writing crap.

**Craig:** Yep.

**John:** You just do. And you would think that you would write shorter, but you end up writing much, much longer. The days where I’ve had to really muscle through, those scenes are sloppy and long and you can feel it. They’re flabby. And you end up having to strip them down and redo them from start.

**Craig:** Yeah. They’re sort of shapeless. I mean, again, we talk about intention all the time. The more tired you get, the more overworked you get, the less ability you have to craft and to create intention. You just start typing.

**John:** Let’s get to our One Cool Things. I have two One Cool Things. The first is on the topic of big numbers. It’s this article by Sarah McVeigh in The Cut where she talks to Abigail Disney – Disney – about the fortune that she inherited and why she gives most of it away and sort of like what it’s like to be absurdly wealthy and the toxic effects of being super wealthy. I just thought it was a really great interview and it made me really like Abigail Disney a lot. So, take a look at that.

And second off this past week the Anita May Rosenstein campus of the Los Angeles LGBT Center opened in Hollywood. It is fantastic. It has 100 beds for homeless youth. A new senior center. An academy. So it’s the new flagship. But what I think is so smart about this building is that it’s both homeless youth and senior housing and senior programs. And it just lets those two generations kind of work with each other and help each other.

And so some of the training that they have in there is for culinary arts. So like if you are a gay homeless kid who has shown up in Hollywood without a place to stay not only can you get a bed but you can get through your GED, learn how to work in a kitchen. You get a whole apprentice training and there’s other stuff – you can basically find a way to make a life in Los Angeles.

And so the Center was incredibly important to me and I posted on Instagram the caption about sort of when I was in Hollywood this was probably ’97, ‘96/’97, I met this young woman who was really freaked out and she needed to get back to this place. And she was sort of sketchy about where she was going. But it turned out that she was staying at the Center in one of their emergency beds. And I was so grateful that she had a place to stay. And I’ve been supporting the Center ever since, so check that out.

**Craig:** That is One Cool Thing indeed. And it’s particularly important that Los Angeles has something like this and to expand something like this is wonderful because the reputation of Los Angeles as exhibited by the Guns N’ Roses song Welcome to the Jungle is well-deserved. This is a place where people come from all over the country and they are incredibly vulnerable. And they’re really vulnerable when they’re LGBT, when they’re underage, when they have mental illness. There’s a whole host of reasons why you can become easy prey on the streets. And to have a place like this is tremendous. To give kids a second chance is tremendous.

And then also to return some dignity to the lives of older people I think is beautiful, too. So, on one hand kind of a bummer that we can’t get our crap together enough as a nation to do this collectively through our governing systems, but a wonderful thing when private organizations step in to fill that gap. So that is terrific.

Well, OK, so you’re making sure that people find a place to stay, and I’m going to talk about a place that you want to get out of. You know I love escape rooms.

**John:** I love escape rooms, too.

**Craig:** Oh, such a fan. And last week I did an escape room called Lab Rat run by Hatch Escapes. It is the escape room I’ve ever done.

**John:** Holy cow, that’s high praise.

**Craig:** It is indeed. I have done escape rooms in Los Angeles. I have done escape rooms in London. I have done escape rooms in Lithuania. I have done escape rooms in Latvia. And I just loved it. It was fantastic. It’s just wonderfully done. It’s one of the most elaborate rooms I’ve ever been in. But the elaboration of its presentation did not detract from the actual fun of doing the puzzles as well. There is a moment that is unique which is when you’ve done a lot of escape rooms you’re really appreciative of that.

And the nice thing is that when we finished, this is no spoiler here, there’s a fairly large audio-visual component to it. It starts with a little bit of a presentation. And at the end if you manage to escape, and they really do want you to, there’s some credits. And in the credits suddenly were all the names of the people that I was with and me. And I’m like, wait, how did they do that? And so when the door opens in comes Tommy Wallach who is one of the owners, cofounders, and designers of Lab Rat. Turns out he is a fan of the podcast.

**John:** Oh, amazing.

**Craig:** It was amazing. And you know what was really nice was that he just moved right past Chris Miller, Oscar-award winner. See, it never ends. You’re Chris Miller. You’re top of your game. You’ve got an Oscar for Spider Man. You’re Chris Miller. And some nerd with a podcast outshines you. But only in escape rooms. Only in escape rooms.

Anyway, Tommy Wallach, fan of the podcast. And he gave us a tour backstage behind the whole facility. It was remarkable.

So, anyway, my point is One Cool Thing, if you like escape rooms–

**John:** Everyone should go.

**Craig:** Lab Rat is not to be missed. It’s really, really good.

**John:** I’m going to book this before the episode goes up so that I can actually get a reservation.

**Craig:** Awesome.

**John:** Awesome. That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Lou Stone Borenstein. If you have an outro, send it to us. You can send it to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send questions like the ones we answered today.

On Twitter I’m @johnaugust. Craig is @clmazin. We love to answer short things there.

You can find this podcast on Apple Podcasts, or Stitcher, or pretty much wherever you find podcasts. If you leave us a review that helps people find the show.

You can find the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. It goes all the way back to Year One, Episode One. And it’s two bucks a month to listen to all those back episodes. You can also buy seasons of 50 episodes at store.johnaugust.com.

There are transcripts. You can read the transcripts for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. And you can find the show notes for this episode at johnaugust.com.

Craig, thanks for a fun episode.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. See you next week.

**John:** Thanks. Bye.

Links:

* [Timelapse of the Entire Universe](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=TBikbn5XJhg) by John Boswell
* [Disney+ News](https://www.digitaltrends.com/movies/disney-plus-streaming-service-news/)
* The Rise of Skywalker [teaser]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLZQfnFyelTBOQ15kmHSgEbdjzLMWzZpL7&time_continue=4&v=adzYW5DZoWs)
* [What It’s Like to Grow Up With More Money Than You’ll Ever Spend](https://www.thecut.com/2019/03/abigail-disney-has-more-money-than-shell-ever-spend.html)
* [Anita May Rosenstein Campus of Los Angeles LGBT Center](https://lalgbtcenter.org/)
* [The Lab Rat Escape Room](https://www.hatchescapes.com/lab-rat)
* Accepting recommendations for updating the [Listener’s Guide](johnaugust.com/guide)
* Submit to the Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch)
* [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)
* [Find past episodes](http://scriptnotes.net/)
* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are also now available!
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Lou Stone Borenstein ([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_396_big_numbers.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.