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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Scriptnotes Transcript

Scriptnotes, Episode 394: Broken but Sympathetic, Transcript

April 5, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here

John August: Hey this is John. Today’s episode has some strong language – barely strong language, but if you’re in the car with your kids this is that warning.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August.

Craig Mazin: Hey baseball fans, my name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 394 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’ll be talking about how to create a hero the audience is rooting for even while establishing that character must change. Then we’ll be answering listener questions about conflicting notes, meet and greets, and true life stories. To help us sort through all of this we welcome back Mari Heller. She joined us all the way back in Episode 212 when she had just written and directed Diary of a Teenage Girl.

Since then she has directed the Oscar-nominated Can You Ever Forgive Me? and the upcoming Mr. Rogers feature starring Tom Hanks. Welcome back Marielle Heller.

Marielle Heller: Yay. Thank you. Back to my favorite podcast.

Craig: Back to your favorite, the one and only, the greatest.

Marielle: But unlike you I listen to podcasts, so it actually means something that I said that.

Craig: It actually does mean something. I know that you listen to this and it actually makes me feel very warm and fuzzy. And it’s been so much fun to have you be part of our little podcast family because we get to watch you do these incredible things. And now they’re like throwing Oscar nominations around and people are winning Oscars. I mean, you won a guy an Oscar. That’s how I like to think of it.

Marielle: I don’t think we won any though.

Craig: Richard Grant didn’t win an Oscar?

Marielle: No. He did win an Indie Spirit.

Craig: He won an Indie Spirit!

John: That is an Oscar.

Marielle: And they got nominated for BAFTAs, Oscars, Indie Spirits, I mean, everything. Yeah.

Craig: I don’t watch the Oscars.

Marielle: Do you really not? That’s kind of great.

John: We were playing D&D during the Oscars.

Marielle: Good for you.

Craig: I don’t really understand anything about awards, but I did know that a lot of people got nominated, obviously our beloved Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: And Melissa, I know.

Craig: The greatest.

John: We’ve all made movies with Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: That’s so weird. Maybe we should change the title of this episode to be something about Melissa McCarthy.

Craig: We love you Melissa McCarthy.

Marielle: One degree of Melissa McCarthy.

John: Something about Melissa McCarthy is now the title of this episode.

Marielle: Great.

Craig: There’s something about Melissa McCarthy. Well, anyway, it’s just been amazing to watch how you’ve kind of grown. And now you’re making movies with Tom Hanks.

Marielle: Crazy.

John: And you often direct commercials. That’s good.

Marielle: I do sometimes. Yeah. I know.

Craig: No, you’re big time. Basically what we’re saying is you’re big time.

Marielle: How did that happen? I don’t know. I guess. It doesn’t feel like it though, right.

John: Here’s how I think it happened.

Craig: You never know, right? Because actually you are not big time. The world perceives you as big time. But you’re still a seven-year-old girl.

Marielle: Exactly. It doesn’t make any sense in your own brain when that’s happening.

Craig: Never. Yeah.

Marielle: I’ll always feel like an outcast. It’s just part of–

Craig: You are.

Marielle: Part of my DNA. I’ll never feel like I am part of Hollywood in any way.

John: Then you’re truly a writer-director.

Marielle: Exactly. [laughs]

Craig: Well it’s so good to have her back.

John: Before we get started on your topic, which you actually suggested this topic which is a great topic, there’s a little bit of news to get through. So by the time you’re hearing this we’ll already know the results of the vote on the code of conduct.

Craig: Ooh, can I throw out a prediction?

John: Throw out your prediction.

Craig: It’s going to pass.

John: Yes.

Craig: I’m going to say it is going to be a 93% yes.

John: All right. So the people who are listening to this podcast will know whether you’re correct or not. I have no idea what the percentage is going to be.

Marielle: I voted on the plane yesterday.

John: Congratulations. Thank you for doing that.

Craig: Thank you for voting. That’s the most important thing. Please, oh, I would exhort people to vote. But that’s in the past.

John: It’s already in the past.

Craig: Oh my god.

John: So, what happens this week as you’re listening to this, well, we are negotiating and we’re going to try to reach a settlement. But what happens the week after that is really an open question. But it’s something we’ll talk about on the show if we get to that point.

Craig: I’m sure we will.

Marielle: You guys are so helpful the way you talk about it on the show though. I think a lot of us look to the show to help us understand some of these issues, especially when our lives are so busy and it’s hard to follow everything.

Craig: That’s good to hear. And, you know, you tweeted the link to the WGA, but it may be the first WGA video that I’ve ever thought was well done. Literally the first. I have to presume you had something to do with it.

John: I had nothing to do with that video whatsoever.

Craig: I don’t believe you.

John: It’s a fantastic video. There’s a video about conflict of interest. We’ll put that in the show notes so you can see it.

Craig: It works. It reminded me of those videos that explain why vaccinations are important.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Helpful. I was at a couple of the big WGA meetings this past week and in one of the meetings a young writer stood up and asked a question. And the point of it was really how much is she allowed to do by herself, like without an agent. And I just wanted to talk about that for a second because I don’t we’ve necessarily talked about the entrepreneurial aspect of your career. You know, obviously at the very start before you have an agent that becomes important, but it doesn’t stop. And so what I urged her to do is to – basic things like write down the names of everyone you’re meeting with, all the people you’re going to talk to. You can call those people directly. You can email those people directly. You don’t have to do everything through your agent.

Craig, what other advice would you have for writers thinking about themselves entrepreneurially especially if they find themselves without an agent in the next few weeks?

Craig: Well the first thing to recognize is that there’s absolutely nothing that an agent is allowed to do that you’re not allowed to do. There’s no legal thing there. It’s the other way around. Agents are limited in what they can do. But on your own behalf you can do whatever you want.

Ideally, if you have an agent you almost certainly have an attorney. At a minimum. If you have a manager then that’s a different sort of thing and they will keep doing what they do. But if you don’t, don’t necessarily feel the need to run out and get one. If you have an attorney who can at least say, all right, I can kind of field or at least handle the negotiation part of things so you don’t have to worry about that. And just sit down right now, make a list of all the people that you would wish your agent would contact and lobby on your behalf. And if something should come to pass where you don’t have that agent, I would agree that you will probably be better served by yourself in that regard than the agent will serve you, partly because of the very problem that we are tackling right now.

John: Yeah. Mari, how much are informal networks helpful to you? As you’re putting together a movie, obviously you’re dealing with agents, you’re dealing with managers and stuff, but how much is it you reaching out to folks?

Marielle: Huge. Hugely. I mean, Alexander Skarsgård was in my first movie because I actually – I had been trying to get him the script through the normal channels. I had been getting nowhere, because nobody wants to give their client a script for a movie that has no money. And then I saw in an US Weekly that he was friends with Jack McBrayer who I am friends with. And I called Jack and said I’ve been trying to get this script to Alex, can you help me get it to him. And the next day I got a call from Alex.

Like it all happened because of, you know, little circles and connections. And it continues to be like that. Always. I mean, it helps to be able to get to people through their agents as well. But often I find myself trying to go rogue.

Craig: Yeah. Well because the agency method is an institutionalized thing. They represent a thousand people. They have to handle outcomes in that context. So they call, they get an official no, it is over. The no has been received. Moving on.

But we don’t do that for ourselves. We’re like, OK, who said no. Why did they say no? Let me go around that person.

Marielle: And the number of times I’ve talked to actors and I’ve said did you ever get that script and they say, oh no.

Craig: By the way, I don’t get theirs.

Marielle: I don’t either. As a director I don’t either.

Craig: They’ll say to me, oh you know, we were hoping that you write this thing but we heard you were busy. What thing? What?

John: Ha.

Marielle: Me too.

Craig: And then when I hear about it I’m like oh yeah, no, I was busy. [laughs]

Marielle: Yeah. My agents were protecting me.

Craig: Pretty much.

John: I was reminded about all of this this last week because we were gathering names, we gathered like 770 names of showrunners and high profile screenwriters, Marielle Heller.

Marielle: And Jorma Taccone both signed.

John: And Craig Mazin.

Craig: The Jorma.

John: And as we were doing that it was interesting because we couldn’t go to agents to say like, hey, we’re trying to get to this person. We had to figure it out ourselves. And so you recognize like, oh, the informal networks you have are really important. And so we’re emailing like who has Aaron Sorkin’s email address? Who knows Aaron Sorkin? And you eventually find the person who knows Aaron Sorkin and Aaron Sorkin signs the list.

Marielle: I got an email from Jorma from you, but he passed it on to me saying we should all sign this thing. It was just going around.

Craig: It’s just going around like a bad penny.

John: Yep.

Craig: Keeps turning up. But a lot of people did sign it. A lot of people are going to vote yes.

Marielle: Do you want to tell Aaron Sorkin’s email address on the air right now? Sure.

John: What if it was aaron.sorkin@gmail.com? Wouldn’t that be amazing?

Craig: It probably is.

Marielle: It probably is.

Craig: I think you might have just done it. It’s actually probably like Imamazing@hotmail.com.

Marielle: Also, you know, all the Gmail addresses it doesn’t matter if there’s a dot or a dash, it’s all the same. So it’s aaron.sorkin or aaron-sorkin. Oh, you didn’t know that?

Craig: What?

John: In Gmail addresses the periods don’t matter at all.

Craig: My mind is blown.

Marielle: The periods don’t matter. Yeah.

Craig: They just strip them out.

Marielle: Which is so smart.

Craig: It is. Because then you don’t get confused between mariheller and mari.heller.

Marielle: Exactly.

Craig: Whoa. I’m freaking out.

Marielle: It’s weird.

John: Strange.

Craig: John, I have an amazing idea.

John: Tell me.

Craig: OK. The Writers Guild should create a list or some sort of system where if a writer wants to be staffed and the agents are out of the picture they can contact the guild through some kind of system and then there would be showrunners on the other end of that system who would then be able to see and get submissions. Wouldn’t that be an amazing idea?

John: That would be an amazing idea that is called the Staffing Submission System.

Craig: Wait, it’s happened?

John: It’s actually happening. So it’s rolling out. It’s a limited thing. I don’t want to sort of oversell it, but it’s a thing that’s out there for WGA members East and West to submit on shows.

Craig: All right. That’s exciting.

Marielle: That’s a really good idea.

Craig: It is. If it works.

John: If it works.

Craig: Like I always remain my, I have to be guild skeptic. And this is exactly the kind of thing that I could see them just fumbling. But lately, I got to say, just from that video alone, something is going on over there. I feel like it’s a John August influence.

Marielle: But I do think we’re at a time right where the gatekeeper thing is being broken down. And that is one more step toward the gatekeeper kind of being dissolved and it being direct-direct, artist-to-artist contact, which is great.

John: Julie Plec, a former guest who came to our live show, for staffing for her new show she went on Twitter saying like, “Listen, I need to find new writers. And so send me the writers you think are fantastic.” And so she went out to Twitter and she found some people off that. So it happens.

Marielle: That seems dangerous, but.

Craig: Well, exactly.

Marielle: For murderers and stuff like that.

Craig: Murderers–

Marielle: On Twitter that’s what I think of.

Craig: Always dangerous.

Marielle: I’m scared of Twitter.

Craig: Yeah, if you’re a showrunner the threat is that you will be, you know, just subsumed by a tidal wave of scripts. And I understand that. Even if you were to limit it just to people in the WGA my guess is there’s a good 4,000 people with scripts that would like to be on, and then name a show.

John: So the system limits people to apply into three shows, submitting to three shows.

Marielle: Oh that’s actually really good.

Craig: OK, cool.

John: Pick the shows that you think you’re actually appropriate for.

Craig: God, I hope they all pick the same show.

John: That would be amazing. [laughs]

Craig: I really want them to. What do you think that show would be?

John: Chicago Fire.

Craig: Chicago Fire.

John: 100% Chicago Fire.

Craig: No question. Oh, let’s do it to Derek. Let’s see if we can. It would be lovely.

John: Oh, it would be so good.

Craig: Just truckfuls of scripts showing up. Beep. Beep. Beep.

John: My favorite ideas for episodes are ones where the guest has an idea for an episode and says why don’t you do an episode about this and we can bring in a guest to do the episode.

Craig: Such a smart idea, too.

John: Such a smart idea. Mari, tell us about what you emailed us and what we can talk about today.

Marielle: Well, I feel like we talk a lot about how you begin a script. You guys obviously do your Three Page Challenges. What are the first five pages of a script? How do you set up a world? How do you set up what type of movie you’re going to tell? What are the rules? All of those things. And I’ve noticed in particularly the edit process of making movies that there is a script issue that can come up which is not how you set up your world but how do you introduce your main character who is going to be your hero who has a major journey that they have to go on, so you can’t meet them at a point in their life where everything is going great and they’re perfectly mentally healthy or whatever it is.

And how do you set them up as a person with problems but a person you can engage with emotionally, that you feel connected to, and that you’re rooting for? And it’s different than the likeable question that comes up a lot.

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: Which is the note we tend to get about the beginning of a movie or the beginning of an introduction of a character is how do we make this person likeable. And I think that that note has come around because of this actual bigger question which is how do we set up a new character that the audience has never met before in a way that is engaging and makes you root for them and makes you connected to them in your gut and in your heart?

And I dealt with it in different ways with Diary and with Can You Ever Forgive Me? And it was such a struggle with Can You Ever Forgive Me? that figuring that out. It finally dawned on me like this is a script problem and it was a problem that I handled in the script phase for Diary and it wasn’t a problem therefore in the edit. And I didn’t handle it in the script phase with Can You Ever Forgive Me?

Craig: Ah-ha.

Marielle: So then I had to solve it in the edit, which is much harder.

Craig: Way harder.

Marielle: Yeah. So I just thought it was a good idea to talk about because it’s something I keep thinking about recently.

John: It’s a fantastic idea. It’s an Oscar-winning idea in terms of–

Craig: At least a nomination.

Marielle: All my ideas are.

John: At least a BAFTA. An Indie Spirit. It’s an Indie Spirit–

Craig: Full on BAFTA.

Marielle: Indie Spirit winner, Oscar-nominated idea.

Craig: Correct.

John: Scriptnotes episode idea. So, a couple things that you’re talking about here is what is the author’s intent, like what does the movie need to do with this character and what is the audience’s first interaction with this character? And how do you line them up in a way that the audience’s first encounter with this character is positive. That they are curious and engaged. They understand the character well enough that they’re willing to go along with them, but also they want to know more. How do you set it up so that you have the runway that you need to get them through to the end of the story?

Marielle: Right. Because I think the tendency with notes around this is people tend to say, “I just want her to be more likeable in the beginning and I want her to be easier to stomach,” which I don’t think actually is the answer.

Craig: It is not.

Marielle: Because there’s a wonderful way that you can show somebody with a lot of problems but that you have to find a way to engage.

Craig: Yeah. If you mess up this little balance in the beginning the character will be alienating. It’s a turn-off, right? So it’s not a question about likeability. I agree with you. It’s really more of a question of the ability to inspire some kind of empathy in the audience.

Marielle: Yes.

Craig: So that’s the one side of the misbalance is that. The other side of the misbalance is they’re boring, because they’re just good. And this entire movie is maybe predicated on the fact that they’re difficult people.

Marielle: Right. With Can You Ever Forgive Me? that was definitely the case.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: Right. So I believe that there is a theory of behavior that people bring with them into a movie theater. And the theory of behavior is if somebody is behaving monstrously, not in a criminal way but more in a way that violates social norms that underneath that surely there is some kind of understandable, empathizable with pain. And if you can show me, even if you don’t explain what it is, if you just show me that you know it’s there and you give me a tiny little glimmer of it, just a tiny peep, then I will be OK.

But if you don’t, I mean, we had the same thing with Identity Thief with Melissa’s character, too. It was the same thing. Show me one little peep and then I’ll be OK.

Marielle: With Diary I kind of had this chance to work this out because I did it as a play. And I got to realize when the audience connected to the character and when they didn’t. And the book started with her immediately, her first confession of I had sex with this guy and it’s my mother’s boyfriend, it goes right into it. And what I realized was in order for the audience to engage and go on this journey they first had to meet her and her philosophy of the world without knowing that little piece of information.

So, I wrote this scene where she’s walking through the park in San Francisco and we literally get to see the world through her eyes. She says, “I had sex today. Holy shit.” And you don’t know who it is with, but you see she’s really excited about it. And then you watch her looking around at kids smoking weed, and there’s like smoke wafting up around a cute boy, and a woman jogs by with big boobs and she imagines animated stars on her boobs and she kind of giggles to herself. And you get to see this creative mind at work. And you get to see this character who the way she sees the world is sort of infectious. You’re like she’s raging with hormones. She’s seeing the world through a sexual lens, but innocently sexual also. And she’s got something going on inside of her that’s bubbling out. And you fall in love with her before she tells you, oh by the way, the person I had sex with was my mother’s boyfriend.

Craig: Well, that’s so smart because I remember watching that and having a feeling – and I don’t know if this is what you intended or not – but when I watched it the feeling I had was worry for how vulnerable she was.

Marielle: Yeah.

Craig: Because that is actually – she was “irrationally exuberant,” to quote Alan Greenspan. That is not the way you should be feeling of those things. But we have all felt it.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: Particularly the first time after you have sex, you’re like this is it. I’ve stared into the eye of god.

Marielle: Right. She’s like walking around wide open.

Craig: Wide open.

Marielle: Her whole self has been opened up and she’s walking around totally vulnerable.

Craig: And then when she tells you what she did, you already know that her heart is going to get stomped on. And so somebody that’s done something, yeah, if you start with just like meh, whatever.

Marielle: Right. And I didn’t really realize at the time, but it developed over years of realizing what the audience needed in order to be engaged in the story. And I didn’t realize how hard that is to do until I was in the edit room with Can You Ever Forgive Me? and I realized – I did a lot of work on the script of Can You Ever Forgive Me? but I actually barely touched the first act. I kind of felt like I’d never done anything crime related before and I sort of trusted that I didn’t know how to set that up. And this must be setting it up right because I don’t really know to set it up, not realizing from a character point of view we’re actually not quite setting up what we need to set up to engage with this character. We’re pushing the audience away a little bit. And how can we get on her side? Because I actually do love this character. I think she’s wonderful and amazing. So how can we give the audience enough?

John: Well let’s talk some techniques because you describe it in Teenage Girl about you literally are showing her POV. So you are showing her POV on things and letting the audience know that this is from her POV and this is how she sees the world. And so once we are seeing what she’s seeing then we’re kind of in her shoes and that’s a very helpful technique. So by literally setting her up as the focus of the universe and the lens through which we’re going to experience the entire story.

Marielle: Yeah. And I think if you can set up what makes that person special. The way they see the world and how that is something unique and special, which Lee Israel, the Melissa McCarthy character in Can You Ever Forgive Me? also had a very special lens through which to see the world, which is really jaded, and funny, and dry, and self-involved, but enjoyable. And so we had to open it up enough so that you can see the way she was experiencing the world and be able to laugh with her, not just at her.

It’s also a matter of giving I think that character enough power that you’re not terrified for them the whole time. Like it’s this balance, right? Because you want to show – often you want to show your protagonist in a position where their life is going badly. You know, I think about Breaking Bad. You want to see the ways in which the world is not treating them well. But how do you do that in way but you also see where their power does lie when they had it, or you see their struggle for power, or whatever it is, but you don’t see them so deflated that you can’t feel like there’s any fight left or something.

Craig: Right. Well, I think sometimes people that – we’ll call these people challenging people, challenging characters. A lot of this stuff is they don like armor. This is their armor against the world. And one of the techniques you can use to create empathy is essentially show them nude. Not literally, but in As Good as it Gets which is, you know, Jack Nicholson is playing an incredibly challenging character. He’s a racist. He’s a homophobe. He’s just viciously cruel to everybody, including children and waiters. And then he gets into his apartment and we just see him go through the motions of having to do the locks a certain way, and having to move his things around a certain way. And because in here he’s naked. And it’s not that he’s pathetic. He’s not depressed. He’s not crying himself to sleep. But now we see what he looks like without the shell.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: And then we go, oh OK, there’s somebody to love in here.

Marielle: Totally.

Craig: And the one thing we know for sure about almost all of these characters is that they are alone. And showing loneliness is a huge—

Marielle: That was the key for us with Can You Ever Forgive Me? was the scene we could feel the audience connect to Lee is when she’s at home watching an old black and white movie. She’s speaking along to the movie with her cat, eating shrimp out of a napkin that she stole from a party. But she’s enjoying herself. You’re seeing what she loves. She’s lonely. But it’s funny. Like it had all of these elements that made you connect because you get to see her vulnerable. And there is something about seeing people in their place that they live when they’re alone and giving them that one little moment to let their guard down, especially if you’re established them as somebody with a thick armor before that. Seeing them drop their armor is really effective.

Craig: Seeing what makes this person smile. What makes them laugh? What makes them happy? And understanding how they’ve built their state of acceptable imperfection around themselves to protect from the world outside. And then you start to go, OK, oh yeah, you know, when you go outside put your armor back on because you are not equipped for out there. And now you’re with them.

There’s a question of timing as well. When do you do this? Because if you start this way you kind of let air out of the balloon. You kind of need to start with Bah and then go, but OK.

Marielle: Right. But it can’t be too late.

Craig: Precisely. You’ve got to measure it out just right.

John: Well how long do you think you have before an audience decides, OK, I’m onboard with this movie or I’m not onboard with this movie?

Marielle: Ten minutes?

John: Is it ten minutes? Do you think you can get all ten minutes? I don’t know if–

Craig: I mean, I think about it in terms of scenes. I think once you have delivered the scene that shows that they are a challenging person, I don’t want to see another one. If it isn’t within that scene I need the next one to be–

Marielle: That was the exact issue we had with the first act of Can You Ever Forgive Me? was it was scene after scene after scene of showing the same armor and the same pain and the same being shit on by society. And it was taking too long to get to the moment of vulnerability. To get to the moment of the soft underbelly where you get to see somebody naked a little bit. And yet we knew we needed to set up these circumstances to show why she was going to go to this life of crime. So we had to show her dire straits. We had to show all of these things of how bad it was. Because when we stripped them out and we only showed one or two things you went, “She didn’t try hard enough.”

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: And so it was this fine balance. But what we ended up doing, our editing trick we ended up doing, is we tried to turn all of the pieces that were separate scenes, that were written as very, very separate scenes into a sequence.

Craig: Exactly.

John: Yes.

Marielle: And we did it with music.

Craig: That’s the way to go.

Marielle: We had recurring music that came back between each piece. And we tried to make it not feel like and we’re going to start again, and then this one is going to have a beginning, middle, and end, and then we’re going to start again. Because that felt way too repetitive.

Craig: There’s an enormous amount of pressure on any scene that starts from a dead spot and then builds, right?

Marielle: Yes.

Craig: Those have to be pretty good scenes. And if there is a sense of repetition in them, right, then all that pressure just begins to crush you. So what you effectively did was kind of follow the do a scene and then give me the vulnerable scene. You just took a bunch – it’s a very smart solution.

John: Sequence.

Marielle: We took a lot of scenes and smooshed them together. And it was tricky to figure out and I don’t think it’s perfect by any means. It’s one of those things that I’ll – I mean, I don’t think you ever feel like any movie you make is perfect, but it’s one of those things I’ll go down feeling a little bit frustrated about because we worked so hard on it and I think it works, but it could have been better, and it could have been better in the writing phase and then we wouldn’t have had that problem.

John: A lot of filmmakers in your situation would have tried to do a voiceover or some way to get us inside of her head so we understand that the character that we see on screen is not the full character. There’s another way to do it. And voiceover that’s not planned, voiceover that’s glued on at the end it just doesn’t work. It’s disastrous.

Marielle: I did voiceover in Diary that was so baked in because she is writing a diary and when I made it into a movie I thought, OK, I don’t want to see her just sitting down and writing and hearing her voice. I want to see her physically recording herself on a tape recorder because that’s something I did as a kid. So that became part of the DNA of the movie.

John: It was natural. You can feel when it’s just been spackled on to try to fix those things.

Marielle: Totally.

John: But that instinct for voiceover is good to hear. Sometimes if you’re looking at a first act, a first ten pages that isn’t working, it might be good to think of what that voiceover would be. If you did have the insight into what the character was really thinking write that voiceover, set it aside, and then figure out how do I get the effect of that voiceover with actual scenes.

Marielle: Totally.

John: What are the actual scenes you could write that would give you that information?

Marielle: What would the action that I could see, the physical action, the visualization of that voiceover. Because I do think it’s also a lot about what you see, what your visuals of that person are. Whether it’s them in their space, how do they move in their space, what are their actions that they’re doing? Are they active? Are they passive? You know, what speed do they move through the world? Is it that you’re doing a slow-mo shot of a person with their head down walking through a crowd? Everyone else is moving fast, they’re moving slow. What does that tell you, that visual, about that character and where they are in their head? Are they depressed or whatever it is?

But if you can try to figure out what the visual way to tell that story of their internal dialogue it’s all the better.

John: For sure. Now, we’re talking about difficult characters, but some of these lessons apply to any character. Because every movie is theoretically a character’s one-time journey, one-time adventure. So what are some lessons we can take for more traditional heroes who are not – I mean, obviously all heroes need to have some flaw, something that they can overcome, some journey that they can go on, but what are the lessons we can take from these really difficult characters and apply them to characters who may not be so challenging?

Craig: Well, it’s a craft thing for me. It’s giving the audience a glimpse at some truth that that character is not willing to even acknowledge themselves. So they may look happy, right, because this is what we do as people. We create a situation to cover up some sort of pain and go, good, good, I’m happy now. No you’re not. And I need to see that. But you don’t get to see it yet as a character. I get to see it and I get to see that you don’t get to see.

I may be dreaming this, because I haven’t seen Groundhog Day in a long, long time, but I believe at the very beginning when Andie MacDowell first comes in he looks over and he sees her kind of goofing around with the green screen and there’s this little weird moment where he’s a human being. And he’s just sort of taken by this person and how kind of free and happy she is. And then he returns quickly into being an absolute wretch, as she calls him. And it’s so important because we see him go, you know, nah. Let me just go back to being a wretch and a letch and all that. That’s my speed. That’s what I do. I don’t actually have the equipment to, I don’t know, appreciate someone as a human.

Marielle: Right. And we were just talking about Groundhog Day for this exact reason which is even though Bill Murray is obviously so troubled and he’s somebody who can’t be happy and he’s a miserable person by all accounts, but he’s so enjoyable to be around as an audience member.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: You wouldn’t want to be his friend. But watching him is just a joy because watching somebody have terrible thoughts and say them out loud, or do the things you’re not supposed to do in life, or say no I don’t actually want to talk to the guy I just ran into from high school. Sorry. There’s something actually really relatable about that, even though you know it’s bad.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Right. And he’s so good at it. I mean—

Marielle: He’s so charming.

Craig: That’s another lesson I think for heroes in general is give them their flaw but then make them smart. Or make them powerful. Make them do something–

Marielle: Make them specific.

John: Yeah.

Marielle: Make them specific and make their – whatever their problem is, whatever their flaw is, it should be baked into the thing that makes them interesting.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: Like it should be – with him, part of what’s interesting about him is that he’s kind of a jerk and he moves through the world and you feel like that’s why he’s successful. You feel like that’s why he’s gotten where he has gotten in life. It’s not like he’s somebody who is living in a ditch and can’t make a living. He’s actually a successful kind of celebrity guy who everybody wants to talk to.

John: The superficial charm is partly what gets him where he is.

Marielle: Right.

Craig: And therefore you understand that it’s actually hard to remove that person from this path. In fact, it takes a metaphysical, cataclysmic event of time looping to force him to stop doing this because he can. And I think that’s for all characters in the beginning of a movie whatever their flaws, whatever their dire strait is, it should be something that theoretically they could keep doing forever if not for you as the writer just changing one little thing. Moving one toothpick.

Marielle: Knocking them off balance.

Craig: That makes it no longer possible. Which is the worst feeling for them. And really all they want to do then is just try and get back to where they were at the beginning of the movie for the longest time.

Marielle: And I think, something I thought about a lot when I writing Diary was that often when that protagonist is a young woman particularly they end up becoming less than an active participant within their world. They’re more like a blank slate that we tend to see things happen to and we project ourselves onto that character more. And I was so aware of the fact that I wanted her to be active within her life. I mean, she was within the book, so I’m not making up who this character was. But what I loved about her was that she was so active and she was such an active participant in all of her problems. And that made it so that – but I realized that that’s a major problem we have, particularly with female protagonists, is that things tend to happen to that person.

John: Yes.

Marielle: Rather than their inherent philosophy about their world or their inherent problems within themselves are the thing that’s driving something.

Craig: That drives it. The passive hero is bad in all shapes and flavors. But you’re right, there is a certain brand of plot where something crashes through the window and I fall off a boat or I get hit by a thing or a wizard turns me into a something and you’re just dealing with it, you know.

Marielle: Right. You’re sort of perfect to begin with and then something bad happens and something.

Craig: I know. And you know there is this thing, I’ve become really, really weary lately of beautiful people and their problems.

Marielle: I’ve always been weary of that.

Craig: Yeah, I just like, you know, I get it, it’s hard whatever the circumstance is in this movie, but you are objectively beautiful in a world that prizes that above everything.

Marielle: No, it’s really actually a major challenge to get an audience to totally sympathize with somebody who is super beautiful, super rich.

Craig: Good.

Marielle: It’s just really hard.

Craig: Yeah, maybe we should stop. Maybe we should not do that anymore because it’s–

John: Or if we’re going to do it we should look at the examples of movies that do it really, really well. I go back to Clueless where you have a beautiful rich girl who is the center of the movie and what Amy Heckerling does so genius-ly is set her up as this very flawed character even within her very skewed world and let her – she’s making the decisions that are leading her down these paths to discovery.

Marielle: And she’s not just flawed. She has a really funny way of seeing the world. Her mind is really interesting. And she’s not smart in a book smart way, but she’s smart in this other kind of way.

Craig: And she’s not evil.

John: No.

Marielle: She’s good.

John: She has very good intentions.

Craig: She’s a good person. Which I think is partly what saves that there.

Marielle: She’s also young. Like if she were a character who were 40 you’d kind of be like, you know, I don’t know if I care anymore.

Craig: Yeah.

Marielle: But there’s a vulnerability to being young that is almost similarly to a vulnerability of not being beautiful or something.

Craig: Yes.

John: But also because she’s young, we’re talking so much about the very start of this and how you set up this character, but we set up these characters so we can give ourselves the runway to have a full arc. And so in seeing Cher at the start of this movie we can see what her problem is and she needs to grow into. And we sense that she could grow into this thing if she could make the right choices.

Marielle: Do you have a memory of what the first thing we see of Cher is? I can’t pull it out of my head.

John: What is the very first moment of this? You know, we’ve always talked about doing, we should do a Clueless deep dive on it, because it’s one of my favorite movies.

Marielle: You should.

John: I’m trying to remember what the very first–

Craig: We should also have Amy on.

John: We should have Amy Heckerling on.

Craig: She’s the best.

John: Resolved.

Marielle: Can I sit in the corner while you do it?

Craig: Yeah. You don’t even have to sit in the corner.

Marielle: I’ll just listen though.

Craig: Yeah. You can sit in her lap. She’s very tiny though. She’s a very tiny person.

John: Maybe she can sit in your lap. Nice. So what basic lessons do we want to take from our flawed but improving characters discussion? So, it’s about how we first meet this character, the situation, what insight we’re getting that they may not want us to see perhaps. Sometimes it’s seeing them along. Sometimes it’s seeing their point of view. Giving us a sense of what is specific and interesting about this character and this situation. What else?

Marielle: There was like a moment in Homeland that I remember my writing partner Katelyn pointed out, because it was such a great character moment where Mandy Patinkin’s character is alone. They’d been working late. He’s at his desk and he pulls out a box of crackers and some peanut butter and he doesn’t have a knife. And then he takes a metal ruler and he scrapes the peanut butter and puts it on his cracker. It’s the saddest thing you’ve ever seen.

Craig: I feel like I’ve done that.

Marielle: Like 1am at your desk.

Craig: I may have done that this morning.

Marielle: Yeah. But there’s something – it was specific, it was character related. It was so defeated. Like something about it was like, ugh.

Craig: Well you see how deprecated someone’s – whatever the part of our life we reserve for us it has withered away for this man. It’s just the job now. Everything else, like the comfort of a meal or anything, it’s all gone.

Marielle: And it wasn’t the introduction of his character, but it was something that let you connect to him in a real way.

Craig: Which in television as you go on and on you get opportunities to flip the script on people. So this person is just an absolute awful villain, and then we get the episode where we go, oh god, you’re a person, too. But in a movie we’re on the clock. And so one lesson definitely is once you show us – introduce to us a challenging character, you have pulled a pin on a grenade. You are running out of time.

Marielle: It’s so true.

Craig: So make sure we get to see them as a vulnerable person we can empathize with before the grenade blows up or else you’ll never get a chance. Because they won’t believe it later. It will contrived.

Marielle: It will. It’s true. You have to see something that is innate to who they are. And you have to see it early enough that you go, oh, OK, now I’m connected to that person. They’re my person. I’m on their side. I’m with them. I’m going to see this story through their eyes. Which it actually really matters. I mean, it’s so tricky, but if you’re not on the side of your character you’re screwed.

Craig: Jack Nicholson does something in As Good as it Gets that always blows my mind. It’s early on when he’s delivering one of his horrendous rants that are so shocking you laugh because you’re shocked. And once he’s done, and he does it with pure conviction. There’s no hesitation. He just does it. And then the person just sort of reacts and then he reacts like them, like he didn’t get it until that moment that he could hurt someone with this. And then we see inside of him is guilt. And that’s also – it doesn’t excuse it, but you start to say there’s more going on here than just a jerk.

Marielle: Totally.

John: It’s a relatable moment. Because we’ve all done that thing where we overstepped where we didn’t mean to and then you’ve embarrassed ourselves and yes.

Marielle: It’s a naked moment.

Craig: Yeah. It’s a naked moment.

Marielle: In that small way.

Craig: It’s a revealing vulnerable moment.

John: Cool. We have a bunch of questions that are stacked up because we’ve not answered like crafty questions in a long time. Craig, do you want to take the first one here?

Craig: Yeah I do. All right. So Connor in Koreatown asks, “Lately I’ve been getting notes in meetings from two different executives that seem to tug in vastly different directions. Sometimes the people involved realize and remark upon this. ‘Ha-ha-ha isn’t this funny?’ And sometimes it seems to not even occur to them that they have just shoved an idea down the opposite path that the previous note did. What’s the best way to handle this? Is it our job to make the execs aware of this conflict and attempt to work it out with them there in the room? Is this something that we should just keep to ourselves and work out later on our own?”

Well this has never happened to me, or to you, or to you. So how could we possibly answer this question?

John: First time ever happened in Hollywood.

Marielle: But I do think that it’s always the best thing when you get two conflicting notes because it makes you get in touch with what you actually want. Because you feel in your gut somewhere one note making you go, oh, and one note making you go no, no, no, no. And sometimes only getting one set of notes – dealing with the exec is a totally different question. But in terms of what it does for you in your writing process, and it’s what happens at the Sundance Labs which is so helpful, is when you get conflicting feedback it puts you in clearer touch with what you really want.

John: Yeah. So, as a practical matter when you get those conflicting notes, I think it’s fine in the room to sort of let’s talk through this. And you don’t need to necessarily need to bring up that they’re conflicting notes, but I always like to bring it back to your work and your next step or like what you want to do. That you want to be the person who can give them what they want. And so you say like, OK, so is the goal to do more of this or to do more of that, because I can see that it’s going to be hard for me to do both things simultaneously. And so that way you can bring it back to the fact that you are going to be doing work on an actual script, an actual draft that they’re going to read next and talk about that as the future work rather than what an idiotic thing that just happened in front of you.

Marielle: You know, you guys talk about this all the time, but when people are giving notes I think there’s often very little thought about what that actually means for the work that you’re going to have to do after those notes come. It’s often that people want to feel engaged in the project. They want to feel like they got to give the smart note. They want to feel like they said the thing in the meeting that made a change. They want to feel like they’ve been involved in the creative process.

But they’re not necessarily thinking through the fact that one of their notes could take you down one path and the others could take you down another path. So clarifying and being like let’s unpack that a little bit, where does this lead us, where does that lead us, or, oh, that makes me think of this can kind of be a helpful way to make both notes feel heard yet do what is right for the story. Because I don’t know, I just also don’t think it’s our job to always do every single note. Our job is to filter those notes through our brain, take those notes, and say OK the reason that that’s not going to work is this. Or I totally understand why you think this note makes sense. I went there, too. And when I went there here’s what happened. You know, when I tried that in a different draft then this is what went down.

And explaining the process then they feel heard. Their note has been addressed essentially, even though it’s not making it in the script.

Craig: I mean, from a practical point of view Connor I think it’s perfectly fine to say – if you have a lot of conflicting opinions it’s fine to say, listen, it’s probably going to work best if you have a pre-discussion and come up with one unified set of notes here that you can discuss with me and advocate for. I’m happy to have the conversation with everybody here, but for the sake of clarity what I can’t do is do both of those at once. So let’s try and figure out where we’re going. And also let’s have – because sometimes the conflict between notes is not about notes. It’s a conflict between how two people see the movie.

John: Totally.

Craig: Or see the script or the show. It’s very fundamental. I try and have a conversation. And I try to ask questions. I think Connor one thing you can do is get out of the mode of receiving notes and get into the mode of having a conversation with them about notes as if you didn’t write the script. Put yourself in the shoes, you are also a creative executive on this project. So start having a conversation and ask questions. Ask them – go into that more. OK, well happens if this? Or why do you think that that would be better this way? Just ask questions.

Marielle: Dig.

Craig: The more they talk the more of a chance that they will either finally figure out what they’re really trying to say or also finally realize that what they’re saying is stupid, which happens all the time. I do it. I’ll say something and someone will ask me a question and I’ll go oh my gosh I just realized that’s stupid. Never mind.

Marielle: We all do that.

Craig: Yeah. That’s human. So give them a chance. Or rope. Whatever analogy we’d like to use.

John: The last bit, that spelunking you’re doing to try to ask questions about the questions might also reveal what’s really behind the note, which sometimes isn’t really about the script in front of you. It’s about the executive who’s above them or something else that’s going on. And so it’s good to know that.

Marielle: Or it might be revealing a problem with the script that’s different than the problem they’re identifying in the note.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: It may be that those two executives both are having – if they’re having conflicting notes about the same scene or the same moment or the same character or whatever, OK, so they have two philosophies about how that should be solved. But they’re identifying a problem. There’s a common problem there. There’s something wrong with the way that’s being developed.

Craig: It’s snagging. Something is snagging.

Marielle: That’s a good thing to identify and you can dig to find out what the deeper problem is.

Craig: You as a writer will always have more permission to propose a radical change than they will.

John: Oh yeah.

Marielle: Yeah. That’s a good point.

Craig: So what they’ll do is they’ll nibble at something and they’ll say, “I think in this scene she shouldn’t come in until the end.” And they’ll say, “No, no, I think she should come in sooner.” And you can go, “I think I know what you’re both reacting to. That scene shouldn’t be there at all. In fact, that character should be this character.”

Marielle: And people are blown away when you’re able to do that.

Craig: Yes.

Marielle: When you’re able to go, “You know what? It’s actually bigger than anything we’re talking about. This whole thing needs to go. Or that character is just not working.” And they go, “I didn’t want to say that, but that’s clearly the problem.”

Craig: And by the way I’m glad they didn’t want to say it, because the truth is—

Marielle: You do.

Craig: If somebody says that to you before you—

Marielle: Then you’re like, “No.”

Craig: It sounds horrifying.

Marielle: Absolutely.

Craig: It sounds like you’ve just suggested 14 years of hard labor in a gulag. But if I come up with it it’s like, oh no, but I know what to do, so it’ll be a joy.

Marielle: And let me tell you that that’s how it feels the whole way through that. Feels the same way in edit. If somebody else suggests that a scene needs to get cut out that I spent two days filming it makes my heart race. But if I come to the conclusion that I need to cut that scene out and I go to them and they go, “Wow that was really bold.” I feel great.

Craig: Yes. Exactly. Like look at me.

Marielle: Look at me. I killed my darlings. I did that really hard filmmaking thing where I cut something out and it made the whole better. But also I think with writing as the exact same thing as with editing. Sometimes it takes a while to get to those points. Sometimes getting to a point where you’re ready to make some big change, because often it’s something that you felt – it might be the first thing you wrote in a script. It might be that scene that you’ve had in there the whole time that made you love the character. And then you realize it has to go. You have to come to that on your own in some way.

Craig: You do.

Marielle: And you can get nudged, but if someone tries too hard to get you to lop that arm off it’s just really—

Craig: Your muscles tighten up. Dennis Palumbo talks all the time about how there are lines that we write that we are so resistant to cutting not because the line is good but because its creation meant something to us.

John: Of course.

Craig: It was a signifier test that we had changed as a person or as a writer or something.

Marielle: Oh, that’s so sweet.

Craig: You know? But then you have to cut it. [laughs] You just have to take the lesson of I can do something like this, but also it should not be in this. It’s hard.

Marielle: Right. It is, really.

Craig: So, good question Connor. Hopefully we helped you out there.

John: Jordan asks, “I’m a youngish writer trying to make it my day job. I have a lawyer and I’m in the WGA so I’m starting to meet with managers. It’s not going great. In one meeting I asked the manager if she was going to represent me after 45 minutes of chatting about work and personal life. She seemed uncomfortable and said she needed to read more but that we would be in touch. I understand now that maybe it isn’t very cool to ask, but I was under impression that that was why we were meeting. How do you ask that question? Or is that the manager/agent’s job? Is there a way to know if a meeting is going to be a general meet and great before I slog through traffic to get to general advice like apply to Sundance Labs?”

So, Mari, you’re of the Sundance Labs. So Jordan is asking this really kind of natural—

Marielle: Oh, it makes my stomach hurt.

John: Yeah. Because it’s like dating.

Marielle: It is.

John: Is this going well? Is this not going well?

Marielle: And it’s so kind of wonderfully bald – like I would put that in a script the person just being like, “So are you going to represent me?” Because that’s the naked moment that you’re not supposed to do. I mean, not that you’re not supposed to, because I don’t think there’s a supposed to, but yeah, it’s uncomfortable because there is this – I mean, there’s such a thing in this town particularly of having a million meetings and never knowing where that meeting is leading or if it actually means anything. And we’re supposed to just be OK with that. Like what was that meeting about? Why did we meet and talk? It’s just part of – and everyone will say, “Well you’re building relationships. You’re building relationships.”

Craig: No you’re not. What you are is a piece of sand in a sieve that somebody has gathered up and they’re shaking the sieve to find what they think is gold. But they have to tell you, “Oh no, no, you’re an important piece of sand to me, therefore let’s have this 45-minute meeting.” But in their mind you either are that gold that they were not expecting to find, or you’re just another piece of sand.

Marielle: Or they’re not even really judging you in that moment on whether you are that gold. They’re waiting to see what you’re going to do without them so that then they can say, “Remember, we know each other. Now I do want to represent you because you’re already working.” So in so many ways having that meeting, you just should be spending that time writing the script because whatever you make is what matters. Those meetings matter once you’ve made the thing, once you have the thing, once you have some value to them that they could then help you with. And then they can be incredibly valuable. But until that thing exists, whether it’s a short film or a script, or whatever, those meetings are just to lay the first ground work and–

John: Yeah. I think those meetings are important because they teach you how to have those meetings and they’re practice for important meetings that are going to come later on. So you have to take them. I think Jordan’s awkward overreach of like, “So are you going to be my manager?” in the room, that’s a lesson learned.

Marielle: Totally.

John: And so it’s good that you learned that lesson in something that didn’t matter so much.

Craig: Let’s give him just the practicals here. It seems like the best practice would be to let them tell you that they are or are not going to represent you. So you have your meeting, you say well this was lovely, and then they say, “Yes, I really enjoyed our meeting.” Great, well let’s keep in touch. Or follow up if there’s interest. Whatever you want to do. Meaning I don’t need you.

Marielle: Yes. I think that’s actually the most important thing is to give off the air of like–

Craig: Non-desperation.

Marielle: Non-desperation.

Craig: But we’re all so desperate.

Marielle: And that they would be missing out if they don’t take you on.

Craig: Right. By the way, everyone is doing that. Everyone is desperate.

Marielle: Absolutely.

Craig: Everyone is doing this to each other. Yeah, I’m cool.

John: I’ll tell you about an early meeting I had. So my attorney is Ken Richmond. And so my agent had apparently set up several meetings with different attorneys. This is when I was selling Go. And so I went in and met with Ken Richmond. And we talked for about 20 minutes and I said like, “You’re fantastic. I want you to be my attorney.” And he’s like, oh, OK, OK, this is good. And there were other attorney meetings already set up that I was going to be blowing off for this. But he was the right person and sometimes you know. It’s dating. Sometimes you know.

Craig: Sometimes you know.

Marielle: That was the question I was going to ask, too. Did you want this person to be your manager? Is this the person who when you were sitting there you went, “I want you to be my manager?”

Craig: Or is it that you just want a manager?

Marielle: A manager.

Craig: Which sometimes people can pick up on. And then it’s like, right, well I just don’t want a client. I mean, you have to find somebody that you care about.

You know what? Listen, Jordan, totally understandable. And we’ve all done stuff like that.

Marielle: Oh gosh yes.

Craig: And it’s annoying to have to game anything, play any kind of game.

Marielle: It’s the part of the business I hate the most.

Craig: I agree. And you know what? You do it a little bit here or there. Or, by the way, maybe Jordan you sit down with somebody at one of these meetings and you just be yourself. And you just say, listen, this is how I am. I’m not good at playing the game. So, just let me know if you’re interested or not. And they might go, “Oh no, I’m totally interested.” And then you’ve found your person.

Marielle: Right. And I actually think the way to not play the game is to make it that you’re doing enough that you actually aren’t playing the game. That you actually don’t care.

Craig: Right.

Marielle: Like you want to pretend you don’t care if that person signs you, but actually if you have enough going on on your own you actually won’t care that much.

Craig: Correct.

Marielle: So, do the things that make it that you don’t care for real. Then you’re not playing a game. You’re not pretending.

John: Great. Chris from Brooklyn writes with a question I think you’ll be especially good to answer. “I started sketching out a screenplay based on a true-life murder case from the 19th Century which about only three historical nonfiction books have been written, as well as many articles. Although I’m using them all as sources, one book in particular encapsulates the story best. Mostly looking at it from the same angle and shares the title I want to use. But that title was also used in several Penny Dreadful dramatizations of the story way back when.

“However I’ve been reluctant to reach out to the historian who wrote this book because he is known and well-regarded and if asked I’m not in a financial position to afford the option I imagine he would want. But I’m not sure an option is necessary because the true story involves no living persons. Based on what I found online it seems as if the book in question was either optioned or purchased nearly a decade ago with a name actor attached but nothing appears to have happened with the project since then.

“So, given all that, and given that the book is my primary source but not an exclusive one, should I reach out to its author to avoid any potential legal challenges down the road? Or just stop worrying and write the darn thing?”

So you guys have both written things based on true-life things. What’s your first instinct for Chris here?

Marielle: I would do both. I would keep working on the thing. I wouldn’t hold everything up. But I would reach out to the person who wrote it. I would first of all if you have an agent or you have a lawyer they can look up the option and who owns the option, or if there still is an option. If it was 10 years ago and no movie has been made about it.

Craig: That would be a lapsed option.

Marielle: And also you’re probably fine. Like most books after the first few years they’re coming out if they haven’t been optioned and no one is holding onto that option they’re not going to be some crazy hot commodity that’s impossible to get the option for. And you can actually get a very affordable option, especially if – in my limited experience – if that author feels like you’re the person with the most passion who has a reason behind it and you can connect to them in a real way and you appreciate their artistry and they can appreciate your artistry. Then actually it’s more about that relationship then about how much money you’re bringing to the table. They may not have anybody else who is even considering doing this weird historical thing that they wrote 10 years ago and it lapsed. You know?

So you might be getting it at the perfect moment.

John: Yeah. Craig, what do you think?

Craig: I’m in slight disagreement. I think no question you should keep writing it. I actually wouldn’t reach out just yet because you don’t need to. The facts are the facts. This is a nonfiction thing. The title is a question mark and I would strongly consider a different title at this point. But there’s nothing in – if it’s facts there’s absolutely nothing in any of those books that the authors own in terms of fact. They own the expression of those facts. They own their sentences. They own the way that they lay it out. And even then in a very specific way.

So it’s just research. They’re research sources for you. If as you get closer to selling this or setting it up, in that moment you should say these are the sources I used. These are the books I used. This one has an amazing title and it inspired me the most. We might want to consider reaching out. If you reach out now and they say no, now you’ve got a problem. Because merely by reaching out—

Marielle: You’re right.

Craig: You have indicated that you are basing this on this book.

Marielle: I take back everything I said. Craig is right.

Craig: [laughs]

Marielle: No, no, really. I think you’re totally right. Because historic is so different. Like the book that I optioned was about someone’s personal life, written by the person whose life it was. That was very, very different.

Craig: Yes. There’s life rights involved. If somebody writes about their life, everything that they’ve written about now becomes public record. But all the stuff behind it that you would want to have, and also just to avoid – the one thing that you definitely don’t want is to say, OK, I’ve written something. It’s based on someone’s description of their life. They’re alive. I didn’t need their permission, but they hate this, and they are now telling people not to go see it. That’s bad news.

Marielle: No, it’s bad news.

Craig: Right. You don’t want that. So those are considerations that come later down the line. But you know for Chernobyl we kind of in conjunction, they had somebody – HBO had somebody that does this and then I had a researcher that was helping us kind of do our version. But we had to make an annotated script for every single page. Everything had to be sourced. I mean, it was the biggest term paper of my life.

Marielle: Do people even really still do that in college anymore? I mean, is that like a thing you do? Do you cite your sources?

John: Oh you cite your sources in college.

Craig: They’re required to. I mean, there’s probably some app that does it for you now. Sourcy.

Marielle: That’s my – are these things kind of going to the wayside that these things being learned–

Craig: Everything is going to the way. Everything. It’s all collapsing around us.

Marielle: Like the Dewey Decimal System.

John: Irene Turner came on the show to talk about her movie which was historically based, and so we’ll put a link in the show notes to her conversation because she had to do what you did which was basically cite every little thing about it, because it was a well-known public figure but where that information came from was important.

Craig: And I had to defend my thesis at times. The gentleman that HBO used, that was as thorough a prostate exam as I’ve ever had.

Marielle: You should try to submit these scripts to some college, to like Harvard or something, and see if you could get a Ph.D. This could be your dissertation for some degree you didn’t want anyway.

John: Professor Craig.

Marielle: Professor Craig with a Ph.D. in Chernobyl.

Craig: Surely there’s an easier way to get a degree, like bribe them?

Marielle: Ooh.

Craig: There’s got to be some way to bribe them. I’m sure there is.

Marielle: No.

Craig: Not anymore. Not anymore.

John: Craig, do you want to take the last question?

Craig: Last question. Craig from La Canada writes, “Mari, you’re married to Jorma Taccone right? When is MacGruber 2 coming? Thanks.”

Marielle: Oh my gosh. I love it.

Craig: You don’t have to say if you’re not allowed to.

Marielle: No, I think it’s OK. Jorma has been talking about it. I think it’s fine. Jorma and Will and John Solomon, so Jorma Taccone, Will Forte, John Solomon who all created MacGruber together have been pitching it as a miniseries.

Craig: Great.

John: Fantastic.

Marielle: Instead of doing it as a sequel movie. They started to realize it would be better as a very short miniseries.

Craig: But it needs that canvas. Because we’re talking about a work of literature. It needs to occupy the space it demands.

Marielle: Yes. And so they’re in the process of writing it with Hulu.

Craig: Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god. I can’t wait.

Marielle: I know. The pressure is real.

Craig: I’m the biggest fan.

Marielle: There’s somebody on Instagram who anything Jorma posts just writes, “MacGruber 2 or get the fuck out.”

Craig: That’s me.

Marielle: That’s probably you.

Craig: MacGruber 2 or GTFO at Insta.org.MacGruber.

Marielle: Which I like that the MacGruber fans are so rabid. You know, it’s the thing – I talk to Jorma about it all the time. He has made a lot of projects that are his total passion projects. The things The Lonely Island makes, they’re weird brain child things that they love. But MacGruber was one of those things where he was so happy when they made MacGruber. And they got to make another one.

Craig: Because he made one of the great movies of all time. Of all time.

Marielle: Yeah. And they have to make another one.

Craig: They have to. Oh. I could go on.

John: All right. It has come time for our One Cool Things.

Marielle: Already?

John: My One Cool Thing is these new door locks being installed at my house and my office. They’re by Schlage. They’re good.

Craig: Is that how you pronounce that?

John: I think it’s Schlage or Schlage.

Craig: It’s not Schlage?

John: I don’t think it’s Schlage, but maybe it is. People can write in and correct me if I’m wrong.

Craig: Yeah, thank you. Germans, tell us.

John: What’s cool about it is we already had – we didn’t have to rekey the locks at all. So our normal keys still work, but then this thing works for the deadbolt and it’s cool. So I just don’t have to carry my keys around as much which is just great. I punch in my code and the door opens.

Craig: And you can do it with your phone.

John: You can do it with your phone. You can tell Siri to open your things. I can tell Siri to check if the door is locked. So, it’s nice.

Craig: You talk to Siri?

John: I talk to Siri.

Marielle: Doesn’t that make you feel like you’re – I know I sound paranoid, but couldn’t you be hacked or something and then somebody could just get into your doors that way?

John: Yeah. Probably. Probably so.

Craig: But you can also be physically hacked with a hammer and a screwdriver.

Marielle: And a sledgehammer. Yeah. But I don’t know. There’s something about – maybe this is not true, but in Brooklyn there’s this thing going on where everybody – some of us have cars, which is crazy, but you end up parking blocks away from your house. But if you’re keyless key is within 30 feet somebody has figured out some machine that can just open your car door with that and people are stealing cars that way.

Craig: Sweet. Awesome.

Marielle: So people are like put your keys in the freezer and it won’t work. And I can’t tell if that’s true or not, but there’s something about like all this car theft is happening because of these keyless keys.

Craig: Oh, Brooklyn. Yeah, don’t have a car.

Marielle: I know. That is the solution.

Craig: Just don’t have a car.

Marielle: Or have a car and just don’t care.

John: Not caring is—

Marielle: That’s actually the key in Brooklyn or in New York is if you have a car you can’t care.

Craig: Have a piece of crap car. Just don’t care. Don’t get something nice.

John: Craig?

Craig: What is my One Cool Thing? Ooh, yeah. OK, my One Cool Thing, so every year in Stamford, Connecticut.

Marielle: Jorma’s grandmother lives there.

Craig: That’s my One Cool Thing. No. It would be weird if I started referring to his grandmother as a thing. Yes, you know that thing.

Marielle: She’s, yeah, that would be weird.

Craig: And he’s related to. In Stamford, Connecticut every year there is the Annual Crossword Puzzle Tournament. There are many, but this is the big one. It’s run by Will Shortz who is the editor of the New York Times Crossword Puzzle which is the gold standard of crossword puzzles. And this is where everybody comes and it’s a lot of people. They all descend upon some Marriot or La Quinta and they do puzzles. And they compete. And then there’s the ultimate prizewinner. This year again Dan, I think, Feyer, who is insanely brilliant at crossword puzzles in a way that is just disturbing.

In any case, you at home can do it. They have the exact same puzzles that they did there available online. And you pay I think it’s like $20 or something like that and you click on puzzle number one. You do seven puzzles. Puzzle number one and it times you just like them and it scores you just like them. Currently I am number 15 out of like a thousand online participants. Meaning, this is a challenge to–

John: To knock Craig down.

Craig: Come on people. Knock me down.

Marielle: It’s going on right now?

Craig: It goes on—

Marielle: Infinitely.

Craig: Well, until the next year, right. So they’re all available for you to purchase and do now. And as people purchase and do them they will change the – but I’ve been number 15 for a bit now. So, you know, if you’re listening and you think you’re a bad ass, come at me bruh. And see if you can knock me down. And if you do, if you’re the one that knocks me down a peg let us know.

John: All right. Write in to ask@johnaugust.com. Let us know. Take a screenshot.

Craig: Oh yeah. Definitely take a screenshot. Well, just write in and tell us what your name is because I can look on the standings. We can, yeah. Don’t cheat.

Marielle: OK. My One Cool Thing is a play that’s opening on Broadway I think this week called What the Constitution Means to Me.

John: Nice.

Marielle: And it’s Heidi Schreck. She’s a writer. And an actor. Comes from theater like I do, but she’s written on a bunch of TV shows and stuff, too. And it’s an incredible play that I got to see in its Off-Broadway form and it’s now coming to Broadway. Very personal. It’s sort of about when she was a teenage girl and part of how she was raising money for college was she was going around and doing these constitutional debates at rotary clubs and things like that.

But what she’s really digging into is how the Constitution treats women and how it has historically treated women and what that means for herself personally within her own family dynamic. It’s so brave. It’s so personal and deep. And it makes you question everything you know about the world. But it’s just an incredible play.

Craig: What the Constitution Means to Me. And so as you’re describing it in my mind I thought, OK, now that title is like the kind of clunky debate thing.

Marielle: It is.

Craig: Oh, that’s great. And then it takes on this whole other meaning.

Marielle: And she starts off the whole play kind of going back in time and acting like this plucky 15-year-old girl who is going off and doing all of these debates about Constitution.

Craig: She sounds like the light reflection of the very dark and evil Ted Cruz who also spent his childhood—

Marielle: Oh, he did?

Craig: Roaming around and memorizing the Constitution and explaining to people what it means to him, which is bad, because he’s bad.

Marielle: I guess that was a thing that people did and you could win scholarships doing that and it was–

Craig: Yes, it was a thing.

Marielle: My sister did debate and was a very accomplished debater in high school, but it wasn’t specifically these sort of competitions where you would win money and go to these sort of rotary clubs. She did the kind of classic debate.

Craig: Who are the people that are like, “Good news, it’s Friday night, which means we go to the club and we hear kids talk to us about the Constitution. Let’s do it.” Kiwanis, Rotary, Knights of Columbus.

John: Elks.

Craig: Elks.

Marielle: Exactly. Elks.

Craig: Let’s go.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And they love it.

Marielle: They do.

Craig: They love it. They’re like—

Marielle: But the play is – even if you have no interest in the Constitution or what that would be, and that type of night sounds like a terrible night, the play is so moving and Heidi – she wrote it and she performs it herself. And the fact that it’s going to Broadway just feels like this wonderful gift to the world. It’s so cool.

John: Oh yeah. Our friend Mike Birbiglia does the same thing. He does those one-man shows.

Marielle: I know.

Craig: I was going to say. Mike Bags has blazed a trail here and it’s happening. Well, we should obviously did up a good link to this show. It sounds amazing. So congratulations to Heidi for getting something like this to Broadway. That’s remarkable.

Marielle: It’s a huge deal. Yeah.

Craig: That’s great.

John: That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by James Launch and Jim Bond. We have some Sexy Craig, but we’re not going to use those yet.

Craig: No, you keep those bottled up.

John: If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. For short questions, on Twitter Craig is @clmazin. John is @johnaugust. Mari, are you on Twitter?

Marielle: No.

John: She’s not a Twitter person.

Craig: Your sister is a Twitter person.

Marielle: My sister is and she’s funny.

Craig: I follow her.

Marielle: Oh good.

Craig: I think I do.

John: Is Emily your sister?

Marielle: Emily.

Craig: Accomplished comedian.

Marielle: Accomplished comedian. She has a special out right now. And she also writes for Barry.

John: Oh nice.

Craig: Nice. That’s fantastic.

John: Oh yeah. I think I knew that.

Craig: With our friend Alec Berg.

John: You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

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

Craig: Mari Heller, thank you so much for coming in. This was a delight.

Marielle: Thank you guys for doing my question. It feels so good to suggest a subject and get to talk about it.

Craig: It was a good question, you know. Boom.

John: Boom.

Marielle: Boom.

Links:

  • WGA Video Explaining ATA Negotiations
  • Can You Ever Forgive Me?
  • A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
  • Scriptnotes 212, Diary of a First Time Director with Mari Heller
  • Schlage Locks
  • American Crossword Password Tournament Online–let us know if you unseat Craig!
  • What the Constitution Means to Me by Heidi Schreck
  • We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
  • Submit entries for The Scriptnotes 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 James Llonch and Jim Bond (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 393: Twenty Questions About the Agency Agreement, Transcript

April 5, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript, WGA

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

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 393 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Craig is off in London finishing up the sound mix for Chernobyl. So this was originally going to be a repeat episode but a lot has happened this past week with the agency agreement. So instead I wanted to bring on two writers to help us make sense of it all.

First, Chris Keyser is a writer and showrunner whose credits include Party of Five, Tyrant, and The Last Tycoon. He’s also a two-time former WGA president and frequently leads the MBA negotiating committee. Along with David Shore and Meredith Stiehm he’s leading the negotiating committee on the ongoing talks with the agencies. Welcome back, Chris.

**Chris Keyser:** Thanks John.

**John:** Chris, it’s so good to have you back. Even more exciting we have Angelina Burnett. She is a television writer who has worked on The Americans, Hannibal, Genius, and Halt and Catch Fire. She’s on the WGA board of directors and the negotiating committee. Welcome Angelina.

**Angelina Burnett:** I’m so happy to be here, John. Thank you for having me.

**John:** So over the last year I have watched you in wonder as you’ve organized people and projects and things in ways that I just didn’t know were possible. So, your background is in political organizing. You’ve done this before?

**Angelina:** I have. And in fact it’s been so interesting to go through this struggle in leadership because I was an assistant in the 2007 strike and lost my job. And I had said when I saw Barack Obama in 2004 give his DNC speech that when he ran for president I was going to quit my job and work for him. But when he announced he was running I had this assistant job that I was sure was going to turn into a staff job. And as we all know when that comes and you feel like it’s right at your fingertips I just couldn’t quit. Well, fortunately the WGA handled that for me. I lost my job and I started volunteering about 100 hours a week on the primary campaign. And then I was hired to move to Nevada and run the border state program for the general. And I went through this really intense training program with this man named Marshall Ganz who was trained in organizing with the United Farmworkers back in the ‘60s.

And so I’ve spent the last ten years of my life balancing my writing career and political organizing career. And it’s been very thrilling to be in this challenge with folks and to get to bring all those skills to bear. So it feels really good to be of service with that background.

**John:** When I see Angelina Burnett yield a shared Google sheet to organize some things I’m just like, wow, we’re in the hands of a master here.

**Angelina:** [laughs] I’m honored. Thank you.

**John:** The other thing I want to call out, because you’d said this in a meeting and it never occurred to me before, and I’ve really watched myself since is we need to stop saying “baby writers.”

**Angelina:** Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. Thank you.

**John:** Because sometimes we’ll say, and we mean it in the nicest way, baby writers like newer, younger writers, but tell me why we should not say that.

**Angelina:** Well, first of all they’re grownups. They’re grown humans. And second of all when the Weinstein thing happened and I was on the sexual harassment subcommittee which quickly sprawled into bullying and workplace harassment and just the general vibe of a writers’ room. And I believe that the language we use gives people permission to treat people certain ways. And so I think when you call someone a “baby writer” you’re infantilizing them and you’re sort of implicitly justifying demeaning behavior.

And so there is an incredible amount we have to do as a guild, as a community, to address this issues, but I think a very small thing all of us can do is just excise that phrase from our lexicon.

**John:** We’re not going to say that anymore.

**Angelina:** Thank you.

**John:** Before we get into the agency negotiation stuff, this week a big thing happened which was Fox and Disney became one thing. So Disney had announced its acquisition of Fox but this was the week it all kind of came together. And so on the film side it looks like the following pieces are going to stick around. So there’s 20th Century Fox, there’s Fox Family, Fox Searchlight, Fox Animation. It’s unclear which of those divisions are going to make theatrical films versus making stuff for the new Disney Plus Streaming. But yesterday as we’re recording this Fox 2000 it was announced is going away. And that really brought me down, because that was one of the first places I worked. And I loved that Fox 2000 was a label that you actually sort of knew what they made. They made films about issues and especially films with women in them. And Laura Ziskin was the original Fox 2000 chief. Elizabeth Gabler was great. I was really sad to see Fox 2000 go away.

**Chris:** Not good for writers. Not good for the audience.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** No. I mean, and so all of those people are really smart and they’ll get to go to other places, but when there’s one less buyer out there.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** Or in this case sort of six less buyers out there, it really hurts us.

**Angelina:** Yeah. These mergers are not good for us fundamentally. And, you know, I think back to ’94 which I’ve heard about when I started in the business and the vertical integration of networks and studios. And this is what we have to work against. And, you know, when we have power we have to use it. We didn’t have power here. But–

**Chris:** Not to bring us back to the conversation we’re going to get to eventually, but of course the agencies use that argument against us. They say, “Well, we have these affiliated studios. Isn’t that better for you? We’ve got more buyers.” And we say yes. We love all of those studios, we just don’t want them attached to agencies.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, if Disney were to buy WME that would not be good.

**Angelina:** That would be terrible.

**John:** It would be remarkably terrible. And yet I can imagine a different scenario with a different administration where Disney and Fox would not have been allowed to merge. I think that was a mistake and I think that’s going to hurt us in the long run.

**Angelina:** I do, too. And at the guild we do have a PAC. We do have a political action arm. And we did all we could with our limited power to try to push back against this. But this is what happened. You know, elections have consequences. And the Trump Justice Department, they were not going to be our ally on this. So we use the political power we have when we have it and we didn’t have it this time.

**John:** All right. To the marquee topic which is the agency negotiation. So, we are recording this on the Friday before a week where we’re going to have a bunch of big public meetings where people can come and talk to us about their thoughts on the agency agreement. Those meetings are Tuesday March 26 at the Beverly Hilton, 7:30pm. I won’t be there for that one, but I will be there for the next two, Wednesday March 27 at Sheraton Universal, 7:30pm, and Saturday March 31 at the Writers Guild, 10:20am. There are also east coast meetings, so we will get those up on the website as well. But we’re having those meetings because we’re about to start voting on something.

So the vote is to authorize the board and the WGA East Council to implement a code of conduct. So today we’ll talk a little bit about what the code of conduct is, why that might be a thing that comes to pass. Voting for that for members starts on Wednesday the 27 at 9pm, both Pacific time and East Coast time, so just ignore the time change in between there. It’s 9pm no matter which coast you’re on. And it goes through Sunday March 31 at 10am Eastern Time.

So big meetings coming up. A chance to sort of talk about what’s going on. But I asked people on Twitter to send in their questions and I thought we could knock out maybe twenty questions that people have right now about the agency agreement and I have two very smart people here who can answer those questions.

**Angelina:** Great. And actually before we launch into that I would love to say one thing. You know, occasionally I hear from folks that they feel that the vibe in those meetings is so guild positive and guild rah-rah that they don’t feel comfortable speaking up and sharing concerns. And I want to say at least from leadership’s perspective we want to hear concerns. We want this to be a place where people can voice dissent. This is a democratic union, warts and all, and we don’t ever want to make people feel like they can’t share their concerns. So, if you have concerns and you want to share them please come to these meetings and feel like you can speak up. Nobody is going to shout you down. We’re there to listen.

**Chris:** And even if it’s difficult to do that, and it may be difficult to do that in meetings where the majority feels like they’re on the other side, secret ballot. Vote your conscience and your heart. We don’t know who votes which way. And an honest vote from our membership tells us what to do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** 100%. All right. Let’s get to these questions. So Marv Boogie writes, “Why did it take 42 years to renegotiate the ATA agreement?” Chris Keyser, why did it take this long? 42, 43 years. Why did we wait so long?

**Chris:** Well, it’s a complicated answer. I think it has mostly to do with the fact that the Writers Guild has a lot on its plate. Every three years we have to renegotiate the MBA. And that’s a thing that happens over the course of a couple months, but the preparation for it – and when I say the preparation, not just the preparation that has to be done by the staff and the negotiating committee, but the preparation to get the membership ready to think about that is long. It can be over a year.

When you think about what the cycle looks like when that happens and then you think about where the Writers Guild membership is, whether that membership is engaged enough to be called into action more than once in a three-year cycle. It has taken us a long time to get to the place where we could do that. I mean, to be honest with you I don’t know what might have happened earlier had we not had to strike in 2007 and 2008. That was absolutely necessary. And the benefits that we have reaped from our jurisdiction over the Internet I think are being felt by almost all writers today. I can’t remember what percentage of our income comes from that, but it has taken a little while to understand exactly why that was important. But it took a really great toll on the guild. There were people who were angry about it in the moment. There were people who suffered from the strike because strikes can be cruel things.

It took a lot of years for people to say we’re back in a place where we’re going to fight together in a place of unanimity. And I think the guild leadership after a lot of decades began to feel through 2017, the 2014 negotiations the guild was in a place where it could do that. We had the kind of staff that was prepared and so we saw this opening between 2017 and 2020 and thought we’d go for it.

It’s not that we didn’t care. It’s that it took a while for us to have a moment in time where we could do it. And then on the other side business has changed. The business has changed so that the agency business is now dominated by four agencies, small oligopoly. They have overwhelming percentage of the market share. And their control over that and packaging and the assessment of packaging fees had made this a question that we have to answer now. That’s thing two. Thing three. I probably should have identified it which is we are not going after packaging fees and other conflicts of interests just because we’re on a moral crusade. We’re going after those things because it has an economic impact on writers.

And it has been in the last decade that we’ve seen writers’ salaries plummet. So we’re in a very special, and I’m sorry for going on for a long time, but it matters to understand this, special moment in the business where, one, the studios who make our product because of the globalization of the marketplace, the accessibility of our product, their profits have doubled in the last ten years. They make $50+ billion every year. They’re doing really well.

The agencies, those big four agencies, because of the money, the influx of money from packaging fees they’re able to monetize that and their control over talent to get enormous influx of capital. So we know those agencies, indirectly we know this because their books are closed, they’re the recipients of billions of dollars in investment and those investors are reaping hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in profits. So agencies are doing well.

And at the same time writers’ salaries have gone down 23% in the last two years, double digits over the last decade. That is the contrary to the rules of economics. It ought not to happen that way and we had to look for a number of different causes for it. Some of them we’ve identified in our MBA negotiations. That’s why we negotiated, span a couple of years ago. And one of them is the fact that people who are supposed to be defending our above-scale income, the agencies, are failing in their jobs. So when you take the decline in writers’ salaries, the overwhelming control of the business that the agencies have, and a moment in time when the guild is powerful enough feels enough of a kind of common purpose to actually take on a battle like this that led us to this moment. That’s why.

**Angelina:** And I’d also say, this is my first term on the board. I’ve been a captain for ten years. And from my perspective, not having the sort of behind the scenes view that Chris does, this bubbled up from the membership. You know, I would go to membership meetings and it would come up unprompted. People would raise their hand and say what are we going to do about the agents.

And so the reality is this packaging money flowed in and then the private equity money flowed in. And then they stated these affiliate production arms. And now what we’re looking at is our agents being our bosses and I think writers started to feel the tension of that and the anxiety of what that future means. And they spoke up. And so while there were behind the scenes things happening as we investigate this, the membership was speaking very clearly about it as a problem and, again, we’re a democratic institution. We respond to the membership.

**Chris:** That’s really true. I mean, I was president for two terms as you said and we had a lot of membership meetings. And almost everything we’ve done over the last – and John you know this because you’ve been involved – almost everything that we’ve done from questions of Span which is how long writers need to work for a given episode, or issues of options and exclusivity which means how long writers are held without being paid in between seasons of shows, or forbidden to work on something else. All of that came from the membership. Every one of these questions came from outreach meetings in which members began to say here’s what’s affecting our bottom line.

**John:** Yeah. I would say the reason why it took 42 years for this to get renegotiated is as a person who is relatively well informed about the WGA business but was not on the board I didn’t even understand we had a relationship with the agents. I would complain about the agencies but I didn’t know that the WGA actually had a negotiated relationship with the agencies.

**Chris:** The AMBA. Yeah.

**John:** When writers would write in with questions and problems and would talk about horror stories and I would say why is your agent letting that happen it never occurred to me that the WGA could actually step in and do something about that.

The second answer is they started producing. And that to me is the biggest why now. Because I look five years, ten years down the road, I don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Angelina:** Uh-uh.

**John:** Jacqueline writes, “If we end up going down the route where we need to implement a code of conduct what happens the next day?”

**Angelina:** So we can’t say for sure right now, it’s going to depend on the strength of the vote. It’s going to depend on the factors on the ground. The board and negotiating committee will look at all the different factors and judge it accordingly, but we cannot pretend like there won’t be disruption if we ask the membership to walk away from their agents during staffing season. And we’ve really considered what we can do to mitigate that disruption. If the risk is worth the potential reward. And again we won’t be making that decision right now. We’ll make that decision when the vote comes in and we see how the agents respond. I mean, with everything we do they do something and we have to reorient our thinking.

But we have come to believe that by putting some programs in place and by frankly good organizing, good human-to-human community work that we can take care of each other and that we can mitigate the disruption and that we can get through a staffing season without agents. I mean, the membership has told us, 75% of our survey respondents go their last job without their agent. And that’s not to say that agents aren’t valuable. They do play a role. But the role they’re playing now is problematic and we have to adjust their power. We have to realign their incentives. And in order to do that we’re going to have to take a little time to see what life is like without them.

And speaking as someone who has always been very clear on her power, I think it might be a healthy thing for us to come together and take care of each other. And to reorient our understanding of writer’s position at the center of this business.

**Chris:** Can I add one other thing to that, to remember this which is the business is going to continue in some sense as it did before. Same number of shows that would have been picked up had we not done this are going to be picked up. The same number of people are going to be hired at the same levels. The same number of high-level writers and mid-level writers and low-level writers.

This is not a question of whether in the aftermath of an imposed code of conduct writers get work. It’s really a question of how that work is distributed. Whether the temporary change in access to that employment adversely affects some people in relation to others. And I don’t know if you want to talk about that at some point, but you’ve been working for months on programs to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

**Angelina:** Yes. And I should have started with the fact that everybody who has a job still goes to work. Like that’s the most important thing to remember. Nobody stops going to work.

**Chris:** And people who don’t have jobs, but who will be hired, still go to work.

**Angelina:** Yeah. There will still be 750 or so jobs in network staffing season and there will still be 1,500 people vying for those jobs and half of those people will get jobs. That’s what will happen.

**John:** Let’s talk about the people involved in getting those people their jobs. Because we talk about the agents as being a key force here, and they clearly are, but there’s also managers. There are studio bosses who have lists of the folks they want to – writers they want to work with. Networks have lists of people they want to work with again. Showrunners have experience with people. Showrunners talk to other showrunners about the people who are available now to be staffed on their shows. So, there’s a lot of communication happening that would happen regardless of the agencies.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think something that – I ran for the board for a number of reasons, but a big one was to address access for diverse populations, for women, people of color, folks with disabilities. All the folks who have had a traditionally difficult time getting into our business. I wanted to be in leadership to see what little changes I might be able to make to create space for that. And so as I look at this, as we all looked at this, what does a staffing season without agents look like? The true fear is that we’ll go back to the old boys’ network, which is how it works anyway by the way. But we’ve made very like small little tip-toe gains over the last few years in cracking the doors a little bit wider.

There have plenty of showrunners who started going to Twitter. Mike Schur hires off of Twitter. Julie Plec hires off of Twitter. They’ve been going around the gatekeepers to try to find interesting, different, unique voices to bring into their room. And so my personal feeling in approaching how do we solve the problem of staffing season without agents is how do we make sure the folks who already have a hard time getting in the door and who are now losing their advocate, how do we protect them? That’s been my number one priority.

And I will say on top of the things we’re doing as a guild, which Chris is reaching out to the showrunner community and asking them to step up and systematize the thing they’re doing anyway. Showrunners recommend to other showrunners. Staff writers reach out to people they worked for and had good experiences with and say will you please give me a recommendation. So we’re asking folks to do more of that.

Additionally, we’ve developed this submission system which I hope will continue forever. I hope we’ll roll it out this staffing season, showrunners will buy into it, and will get to keep using it. And it’s a really simple way for showrunners to ask exactly for what they’re looking for, those unique voices, the specific backgrounds, the philosophy degree, experience in law enforcement, whatever it is. And then allows the membership to submit themselves in a way that speaks to those exact needs and puts it into a really clean, simple, sortable, searchable database.

So the submissions don’t feel overwhelming. You can pick out of it exactly what you need. So those are the two sort of pieces that the guild can officially put in place.

But what I have found so inspiring, this goes back to my organizing experience, problems like this always have an organizing solution. And organizing solutions are people-based. And I have met so many incredible young African-American women who want to be a part of the solution. And we are empowering them. They don’t need us to tell them what to do. The sort of paternalistic notion that the experienced white writers need to swoop in and save these people, these folks are used to working twice as hard. They’re here because they’ve been working twice as hard. All we have to do is empower them a bit. They’ve already created a network.

This stuff is already happening. All they need is a little support and a little encouragement from the guild and we can help them get their arms around that community and make those connections. So there will be mixers. We’ll be getting showrunners with lower-level writers. And I think the combination of these sort of online tools and, again, the person-to-person organizing work, I think we can get our arms around this problem and really, really create some support.

**Chris:** Do you mind if I add on a couple of things to that?

**Angelina:** Please.

**Chris:** Just to emphasize some stuff, because as you said it’s critical. And it’s a mistake we can’t make to allow—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** To allow people to fall through the cracks. Although it’s going to be a little chaotic, a little more chaotic than before. So a couple of things. First of all, we’re asking showrunners to say that you are essentially responsible for anyone who has been on your staffs the last five years. Not just the people you’ve known forever, but everybody. It is a thing showrunners do.

So unlike the old version of showrunners talk to showrunners and the same old people get hired, we’re talking about anybody in the guild who has been employed in the last five years. And that includes low-level writers, new writers, writers of color, women, all of them. They will have better advocates in a sense than their agents, because I don’t know about you but when I run a show I just get lists of people from agents with not much information.

But if I get a phone call from a showrunner who says I worked with this young woman, or older man, or whatever it is, and hear she’s excellent in a room and a good writer, that means a lot. So I think that system is going to work really well. The other thing is when you think about the people in the system who actually make sure writers are hired, agents are not one of those people. They are the intermediaries, but it’s the studios and the networks, the producers, and the writers. We hire ourselves in a sense.

So, if we are attentive to that. If the networks and studios pay attention not just to their general staffing grids, but to the diverse grids, and we hold their feet to the fire on that and we say you can’t come out of the staffing season with worse numbers. You can come out with better numbers because in fact in some ways we’re democratizing the system. I think then we’re going to be OK.

No agent has ever hired a single writer.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Right? The people who are still in the system are the people who end up making offers to writers. And if we knock this staffing season out of the park we’re going to have a lot of power as a guild to set things right.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I think – I just want to say one more thing to that. You know, agents open doors. And that’s the challenge we have right now is access. Agents open doors. And I’ve seen so many young writers, and I even felt it in myself as somebody who grew up in this business. I’m very privileged. I had a lot of doors already opened to me. And I still felt like I needed an agent to matter. And I needed an agent to get work.

I was very quickly disabused of that notion because I got my first job all by myself, and then I got my agent. But I think there are a lot of writers out there who really feel like they matter because of what agency they’re with. And the truth is, the thing we have to keep reminding ourselves, is we matter because we’re good writers. That’s where our power and value is. Agents open doors, we get ourselves the work. So the guild and our community, we’re going to come together and we’re going to make sure those doors open and then you’re going to have the opportunity as you always have to get yourself the job.

**John:** All right. Let’s do a quick one. Adam writes, “What do you think of the David Simon article?” This is an article we’ll link to. David Simon of The Wire wrote a long screed – I think a screed is a fair thing to say – about his experience in packaging. What did you think about it Angelina?

**Angelina:** I was a fan. I thought he did a really great job of making the problem clean and clear in a very entertaining way, considering this isn’t an entertaining problem. I was impressed that he was able to make it entertaining.

**John:** Chris Keyser, what did you think of the David Simon article?

**Chris:** I thought at the heart of it it was true. I know some people have an issue with the heightened rhetoric. It’s not a thing that you would have heard from your guild, but it’s a world in which people speak their minds and he spoke his pretty powerfully.

**John:** Yeah. I liked it, too, because everything that the three of us are saying has to have some messaging behind it. There has to be a purpose and we know what we’re trying to say. And everything that goes out of the guild has to be sort of vetted. Chris Keyser, you’ve written a bunch of pieces that are up on the website which we’ll link to about sort of my agent is not like that. You really talk through these things. But those are more diplomatic than David Simon’s article because they’re on the guild website.

We didn’t ask David Simon to write that. He just wrote that.

**Angelina:** He just did it.

**John:** And sometimes you need a bomb-thrower.

**Chris:** Right.

**Angelina:** Agreed.

**John:** Kelly McNeal writes, “Is another strike eminent?”

**Chris:** Well, first of all, there’s no strike in this.

**Angelina:** This isn’t a strike.

**Chris:** We’re not striking. No one is going to lose a job over this. We’re just talking about a different way of having access to jobs briefly. Because we’re not anti-agent.

**Angelina:** Yeah. And then going back to our agents.

**Chris:** That’s right. We’d like to go back to our agents. As to what happens in 2020 no one can predict that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** That’s the next thing. Tom writes, “Are you guys really negotiating or is this just running out the clock?” I can take that because I was in the negotiating room yesterday.

**Angelina:** Do it.

**Chris:** Tell us. What are we doing, John?

**John:** We’re really negotiating. We are really trying to get to a place where we can figure out an agreement together and figure out sort of what this all looks like. That’s not always a simple process. It’s not always a calm and quiet process. But, yeah, we’re really negotiating.

The other thing I would stress is that negotiating, you think about it just being that last deal-making phase where you’re haggling, you’re trading off stuff. But negotiating is also communicating with your members about what it is you want, advocating for your position, seeing how much strength you have around that position. That’s negotiations. And we’re doing that and you definitely see the agencies doing that.

**Chris:** Yes. I was going to say what do you think the agencies are doing when they accuse of not negotiating? They’re negotiating.

**Angelina:** Yeah.

**John:** That’s negotiating.

**Chris:** That’s what they’re doing. I know and I think – I know this because it came out of the MBA negotiations that members don’t like the game part of it.

**John:** They don’t.

**Chris:** Because we’re really specific and we’re type A and we’re organized and we want things to be useful and based on reasonable arguments. So it drives our membership crazy. But the problem is it’s actually part of what is in some ways a bit of theater in this. That what happens outside the table as David Young says determines the shape of the table. And the shape of the table has everything to do with what you end up getting. So when they say they refuse to come back to the table and we won’t let them back until they say they’re going to compromise on everything and we say we’re not going to compromise on everything before we get back to the table. If you don’t want to hear that we won’t be coming back. And they say, “Fine, come back.” Well, that was a little victory for us.

**Angelina:** That’s right. And I’ll also say, you know, this goes back to my organizing training and why I think it’s so valuable in this context is this is about building and exercising power. Negotiations come down to who has more power. And all of this rhetoric, all of the organizing we do, the outreach we do, all of it is about building power. And the more power we can build the better deal we get. And I will say that David Young is a master at building power. And there may be times where a thing is said in the press in public that feels, that makes you personally uncomfortable because you like your agent and I totally understand that. But we wouldn’t do it if we didn’t think it built our power. And all of that is driving towards getting us the best possible deal with the least amount of pain. That’s what power gives us the opportunity to do. Get a great deal for minimal risk.

So, you guys want us to be building power. I promise.

**John:** Minhail writes, “If affiliate production arms present a clear conflict of interest why did a WGA board member at the new member orientation say it was ‘all good to sell stuff to them?’ This is after a member asked whether it was OK to pitch something to Endeavor Content.” So affiliate production arms we mean Endeavor Content, we mean Wiip, we mean the ones that are closely aligned with the agencies. So why would a board member say that it was OK to sell stuff to Endeavor Content?

**Chris:** Because it’s our philosophy that the action is collective and not individual. So we are not saying to any member of our guild change the way you behave. You don’t have to refuse a package on your show right now. You don’t have to stop selling to wherever you’re selling. When the time comes for the membership as a whole exercising the power that we have as a collective decide to change the world, then you’ll have to accommodate those rules. Until then, you play in the world that exists.

**John:** Yeah. I had a couple of phone calls this last week. So I’ve been emailing a bunch of people, including my cell phone, and so my phone will ring and it’s like, oh, who is this person. But I answer. And a couple of questions have been why are you so against Endeavor Content or Wiip and I got a great deal there, and I always stress that we are not against those. We want those to exist. We just don’t want them to be part of the agency. That’s the relationship. We want Endeavor Content to stay. We want WME to stay. We just want them to be separate companies so that everybody can compete fairly. I just don’t want to be working for my agent.

**Chris:** Right. Can I speak for one second to that question? Because a lot of people have said, “But I’ve gotten a really good deal at those places.” And this is the answer that I always like to give. First is that loss leaders are an old tactic. So a lot of the early deals are going to be really good. And by the way some people with enormous amount of power in the industry are going to end up getting good deals. But here’s the basic truth of it which is these studios, these affiliate studios, have to compete eventually in the marketplace against every other studio which means they’re not going to be doing that by giving some kind of sweetheart deal to their own clients.

In fact, when you take a look at some of the information that we released about the amount of money that’s being poured into these agencies that can only be repaid by studios that are very successful, you end up with this impossible to reconcile dilemma which is effectively those studios are operating. They’re operating as producers. They make money when they reduce their costs and they increase their revenue.

When they pay us more they increase their costs and reduce their revenue. And at some point something’s got to give. And the truth is the agency business is a much smaller part of this than a very, very successful studio. That’s why in 1962 MCA decided to become Universal because that’s where they were going to make their money. We don’t want to be in a business where effectively it’s an affiliated agency to an existing studio.

**John:** Chris, someone writes, “Could we forget about agents all together? Could we live in a world without agents?”

**Angelina:** I don’t know that we need to. I don’t know that that’s what the membership wants. I mean, could we? Possibly. But I think agents are valuable. I think they’re–

**John:** I think they serve an important function.

**Angelina:** I do. And I think their interests have to be aligned with ours. I mean, I think we need agents. I just think we need their power to be commensurate with their value.

**John:** I’ve had two agents over my entire career and what they’ve been great at is connecting me with people who I would not have otherwise met. Negotiating on my behalf. Really understanding what I was worth and fighting to get every penny of what I was worth. And just being a person I could trust to help me navigate this industry because obviously they’re going to have more experience out there in the world with many deals than I ever could.

I think that’s a valuable service for 10 percent.

**Chris:** I was going to say I like my agent so much I’m willing to pay him directly for what he does for me.

**Angelina:** Yes.

**Chris:** And my agent before I would have paid her as well. That’s how much I like them.

**Angelina:** Yes. That’s right.

**John:** Lady Page writes, “Can I still wear yoga pants to business casual days?”

**Angelina:** Yes. It’s a free country. You can wear whatever you want.

**John:** Yeah. I’m a big fan of yoga pants. They’re actually very comfortable.

**Angelina:** They are.

**Chris:** Depending on what the membership decides. I mean, I don’t know whether we’ll find that out.

**John:** Well actually the membership–

**Angelina:** That’ll be our next vote.

**John:** The membership is maybe sort of the writers’ room. So I guess within a writers’ room there’s a sort of – is it a formal code or you just sort of figure out what’s cool in your room?

**Angelina:** I mean, I wore my pajamas to work for the first probably three or four years of my career before I realized I was an adult and should probably dress like one. So, nobody ever said anything.

**Chris:** That was during your baby writer phase.

**John:** [laughs]

**Angelina:** I was such a baby.

**John:** So we’re saying thumbs up on yoga pants. Aline Brosh McKenna probably would have a different opinion, but she’s not here right now.

**Angelina:** She’s a classy lady.

**John:** She’s a classy lady. Andy Lee writes, “Why are the agents so bad at negotiating?” I think that’s circular logic. He’s begging the question.

**Chris:** They’re so good at negotiating.

**John:** I think agents are good at negotiating our deals for stuff, sometimes. And my agents have gotten me really good deals on things.

**Angelina:** I think they’re uncomfortable – we are forcing them onto our playing field of collective bargaining. And they just don’t have as much experience with that and they’re very uncomfortable there. And that’s good for us because, again, we want as much power as we can get.

I think they’re very good at negotiating. I think this playing field is new to them.

**Chris:** Yeah. But I think some of this is also – this is a little bit of theater again.

**Angelina:** Yes. Correct.

**Chris:** We don’t know what’s going on.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** This is not our way. Why are you doing it differently?

And it’s all fine. Nothing wrong with it. Let them do that. They are fully capable of negotiating this contract if and when they want to do that.

**John:** And we see them organizing, too. So they’re doing their outreach to their members. They’re having meetings. They’re doing all the same stuff that we do.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** They’re playing the game.

**Chris:** They’re not the underdogs in this.

**Angelina:** No.

**John:** They’re not.

**Angelina:** No, they are not.

**John:** Erin S. asks, “Why is your rhetoric so heated? The agencies are not our enemies. The studios are.”

**Chris:** I think there’s two parts to that question. The first is it is absolutely true the agents are not our enemies. They are our deeply conflicted allies. And in a world in which the studios against whom we negotiate are extremely powerful we need unconflicted allies. That’s what we’re fighting to get. And the truth is I understand that sometimes conflicted allies are more complicated than simple enemies. We’re writers. What’s so hard to figure out that there’s not black and white. It’s not good or bad. Why do we need to paint it that way?

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** These are people who work for us most of the time. But they’re also working for themselves in ways that the law and ethics suggests they should not and that’s what we’re putting right. The question of whether our rhetoric is too extreme or not is a more complicated question. Look, it’s a fair question. I mean, should this have been ratcheted down by 10 percent or 15 percent? I don’t know. But I think that a lot of the people who are angry at how they perceive our rhetoric as being somewhat inflammatory forget that there are thousands of members of this guild who didn’t know anything about what packaging was. And unlike an MBA negotiation they are being whispered to every day and every week by their agencies telling them one thing. And it’s necessary for us not to just name things but to characterize them. To talk about them as they are. And that may seem like more extreme rhetoric than you want to hear against somebody who has been heretofore your friend in the business, but part of our job – you know this Angelina – is to engage people and get them – they need to be a little bit riled up. They can’t be too riled up because we need to eventually make peace in all of this.

But in order to make peace properly we first need to have people understand and fully committed. So some people will find our rhetoric precisely what they need. And some people will find it a little bit too much. And some people won’t be paying attention at all. It’s impossible to get it exactly right.

I understand why some of the members are conflicted about that. But I think if you took a vote on whether our rhetoric was right on or not I think we’d still get a majority saying thank you for explaining to me exactly the scope of what this problem is.

**Angelina:** And I also, Chris you may disagree with this. You have so much more experience in these negotiations than I do. But my gut instinct is that ratcheting down our rhetoric doesn’t give us a better chance of getting a good deal. I don’t think they’re not making a deal with us because their feelings are hurt. So I understand the anxiety on a personal level because those who like their agents it can be awkward. But on a systemic level, which is what we’re really dealing with here. This actually isn’t about individual agents. This is about a system that places pressure and has frozen streams of power and money in a way that harms writers. We’re trying to undo that system. And then those agents who we love will be more effective agents in a better system. So if it’s painful for you or hard for you I would suggest maybe just thinking of it in terms of systems and not people.

**John:** Absolutely.

**Chris:** I think that’s true. Although to be completely fair to the other side, which is to say now our own members who are upset about our rhetoric, they would argue eventually you have to make peace. And if you get people too angry, if you rile them up too much the making peace becomes less possible.

**Angelina:** I understand that. I agree.

**Chris:** There is a kind of balancing that we need to that we continue to do at every point.

**Angelina:** That’s true. Yes.

**Chris:** And I would say to those members who are upset at us about that, no battle this big is waged without some disagreement about tactics or the extent of them.

**Angelina:** Correct.

**Chris:** It doesn’t fundamentally change that we’re all on the same side about this.

**Angelina:** That’s right. Well said.

**John:** Holly writes, “What percent has the salary of the agent risen compared to that of the writer they represent over the same time period? How can the agent/agency possibly be content merely repping a writer now after this? And is criminal and/or civil litigation being assessed for past wrongs?”

So on this first point, how much has the salary of the agent risen? I have no idea. We have no idea.

**Angelina:** We can’t know. Their books are closed.

**Chris:** We do know that the most powerful agencies, as agencies have an influx of billions of dollars in capital which happens when billions of dollars eventually are paid back to their investors, or at least hope to be paid back.

**John:** And some of that seems like inflammatory rhetoric when we point that out, but I think it’s important. The members need to know this.

**Angelina:** It’s true.

**Chris:** And by the way, I don’t care about agents being wealthy. It’s not a question of whether they have a lot of money. I think people misperceive the argument that we’re making there. It’s not about the idea that they shouldn’t pursue that. What it is is that when the agencies cease to be organizations principally concerned with raising our salaries and instead become organizations principally concerned with raising their own and those two are not connected—

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**Chris:** Then we have a real problem. So if they have investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of dollars, and you can’t possibly pay that off on the ten percent commission business, therefore you’ve got to go into the business for example where you are employers of writers, that’s a problem. It’s not really that those agents individually take home a nice paycheck. It’s precluding us from doing that.

**Angelina:** That’s right.

**John:** Yeah. Last two questions. Mike Royce writes, “What did Chris Keyser think of the UTA numbers blizzard?” So this was a presentation, a PowerPoint show put out by UTA that showed that they went through their books and found that writers on UTA packaged shows versus non-UTA packaged shows the packaged shows they actually made more money. What did you make of this presentation?

**Chris:** I think it’s playing around with numbers in ways that I don’t appreciate. Thanks Mike for asking me.

**Angelina:** [laughs]

**Chris:** So a couple of things. You guys can chime in here also because I think you know these answers as well as I do. The first is there’s no comparison that we can actually make in this world between package and non-package shows. Essentially 98% of television shows are packaged. And those that aren’t are of a different quality than the ones – by quality I mean by budgets and things. They tend to be small Disney shows. So it’s meaningless to say that packaged shows have writers who earn more money than non-packaged shows. There’s no apples to apples comparison.

**John:** There’s no alternate universe where there’s a bunch of non-packaged shows we can look at. They just don’t exist.

**Chris:** That’s right. The second thing is, of course, because they’re UTA-packaged shows it means ipso facto that UTA is representing the highest paid person on that show, the showrunner. That’s the reason why they have the package. So naturally those shows should have higher – was it average?

**Angelina:** Averages.

**John:** An average. They use average.

**Chris:** And by the way that’s another reason why. So you have this enormously high starting salary for a showrunner and that skews things. The third thing is, of course, they’re including commissions in all of that which means in the end all they’re really talking about is the commissions and we’ve spoken about that and why we think that pales in comparison to a 23 percent decline in above-scale income.

So in the long run those numbers aren’t particularly good. And I know we get attacked periodically for the fact that our WGA surveys, which are pretty good, they have thousands of respondents, a huge percent, they wouldn’t be worthy of journals. You couldn’t publish them. But they’re pretty information that we have about what writers are doing and they’ve been consistent what they’re telling us over the last decade.

So, we get it UTA. It’s just part of the game.

**Angelina:** I liked their graphics.

**John:** Oh, OK. Thumbs up on graphics.

**Angelina:** It looked good.

**John:** It looked good. Yeah, we don’t do a lot of graphics.

**Angelina:** We’re not fancy.

**John:** We’re not fancy that way. So we appreciate when people are willing to be fancy. I should say–

**Chris:** I feel, by the way John, I want to say I know it’s hard because this always depends upon whether you actually implicitly believe your leadership or not, but we don’t make up numbers. We don’t twist them around. We’re not asking people to take risks for no reason. We have no incentive to engage in a battle when writers for example are not actually making less money than they made before.

I understand that in a kind of war like this, you know, you begin to use all kinds of tactics. It is disappointing that an agency would manipulate its numbers in order to say to writers you shouldn’t be upset about something. Which they certainly should be.

**John:** Talking of numbers, Ivan writes “What is the voting threshold needed to approve this code of conduct? If we are to follow through on the promise that this is a democratic decision dependent entirely upon the results of the membership vote the precise percentage needed to pass the measure must be known in advance of the vote. For the sake of protecting the integrity of the resulting action or inaction I would ask that Mr. Keyser and the leadership disclose the percentage needed to pass the code of conduct.”

So, the threshold to pass–

**Chris:** To pass it. That’s just a technical question. Somewhere over 50 percent passes the code of conduct.

**Angelina:** 50.1.

**Chris:** 50.1.

**John:** So it passes the resolution to authorize the board–

**Chris:** To consider implementing. But remember the resolution says when appropriate after the agreement expires. And that’s really important because the truth is, first of all, David Goodman has been very clear, the president of the Writers Guild of America West, that the number will need to be overwhelming. The reason why none of us can give you a precise number is I think related to what you spoke about earlier which is the decision to impose a code of conduct has everything to do with a lot of things that are going on on the ground at the moment. So, it has to do with the total number of votes that we get, the percentage of the membership votes. It has to do with some assessment of the depth of support for the measure. It has a lot to do with what’s going on in the negotiation at the present moment, and might be going on up until the day that the AMBA expires, because we have the right to continue if we want to. So that assessment is somewhat fluid.

But people need to understand if you don’t want to leave your agent, if the code of conduct is implemented, don’t vote yes.

**Angelina:** Yeah. This isn’t like the SAV where we say give us a big stick so we can go scare people and we promise not to use it unless we absolutely have to. You should vote yes only if you’re willing to walk away from your agent. The leadership wants to hear your honest vote. We want the truth. And we will act accordingly. But if you don’t want to walk away vote no.

**Chris:** And yet it is still our goal to have enough – wield enough power to get what we need with the least amount of confusion and suffering.

**Angelina:** That’s right. That’s right.

**John:** Final question. Lawant writes, “What’s to stop anyone from starting a new agency that actually does what agencies are supposed to do?”

**Angelina:** Nothing. Come on in, boys, the water is fine.

**Chris:** And it’s a good business. It made a lot of agencies in the years before packaging very well to do and very important in the business.

**John:** There’s like 196 agencies. There are a ton of agencies, but could some of these agents at these bigger places decide I want to be in the 10 percent business and take their clients and go with them?

**Angelina:** I think they could.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** Sure. That’s how CAA was formed. That’s how Endeavor was formed.

**Chris:** Of course.

**John:** There’s always been a history of agencies just springing up.

**Chris:** Yeah. Right. And by the way in 1962 when MCA, the biggest agency in the country, went out of the agency business to become Universal Studios, other agencies took over.

**Angelina:** It’s a profitable business.

**Chris:** Right.

**John:** All right. Thank you for your questions that people wrote in. Thank you for these great answers. It’s nice to talk through that.

**Chris:** Thank you.

**Angelina:** You’re welcome.

**John:** And now it is time for our One Cool Things, where we talk about something we want to recommend to our listeners. My One Cool Thing is a book. It is Ask a Native New Yorker by Jake Dobkin. It’s just a really good book for anybody who is considering moving to New York City. And is just advice on everything that you will encounter as you move to New York City. He’s a very, very strong advocate for New York. Like almost too strong. He’s a little bit dismissive of all other cities. But sometimes that’s what you want in a person who is advocating for a city.

So, if you are considering in any way moving to New York City I would strongly recommend Ask a Native New Yorker.

**Angelina:** That’s cool. My One Cool Thing is my favorite show the last few years. It’s called Patriot. It’s on Amazon Prime. Created by Stephen Conrad. I will do it a disservice by trying to describe it. It is unlike anything I have ever seen. But it has such a huge, hard beating heart at its center. It is so optimistic while wrestling with the darkest parts of humanity that it just makes my heart sing. And I prostelytize it at every chance I get.

**John:** Hurrah. I should watch it.

**Chris:** It’s good. Can you call me back when you have One Uncool Thing? I have to admit I’ve been a little busy. I asked my writers’ room what to recommend.

**John:** You threw it out to the room for pitches.

**Chris:** Yeah. And I’m taking credit for it, which is what it’s like to do a show. They said there’s a show called Money Heist on Netflix which is a Spanish show about a group of people trying to steal from the Spanish Mint and they say it’s incredible. By the way, my favorite show in the last month or two is My Brilliant Friend on HBO.

**Angelina:** Oh, I haven’t seen that yet, but I heard it’s beautiful.

**John:** Yeah. Pen15 is also really good. There’s too much good TV.

**Angelina:** There’s a lot of good stuff out there. We should get paid for it. [laughs]

**John:** We should. We should get paid for it. That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. Edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Chuck Eyler. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I’m @johnaugust. Are you guys on Twitter?

**Angelina:** Not anymore.

**John:** Ah, she’s off Twitter. And so is Chris Keyser.

**Chris:** Yes, off. I’ve never been on.

**John:** Smart choices you’ve made.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there, leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find transcripts. We get them up about four days after the episode airs.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. And I may see some of you at one of these big public meetings.

**Angelina:** Yes, come join us.

**Chris:** Please come. Where are you headlining on Tuesday?

**John:** I’m out of town on Tuesday, so I won’t be able to do that, but I’m back for the Wednesday one.

**Chris:** Great.

**Angelina:** Great. We’ll see you there.

**John:** Cool. Thanks.

Links:

* [The Disney – Fox Merger](https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2019/03/disney-fox-merger-and-future-hollywood/585481/)
* [Upcoming WGA Meetings and Voting Info](https://johnaugust.com/2019/guild-sets-dates-for-meetings-and-vote)
* [Ask a Native New Yorker](https://amzn.to/2ULv8og) by Jake Dobkin
* [Patriot](https://www.amazon.com/Patriot/dp/B017APUY62) on Amazon
* [Money Heist](https://www.netflix.com/title/80192098) on Netflix
* [My Brilliant Friend](https://www.hbo.com/my-brilliant-friend) on HBO
* We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [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 Chuck Eyler ([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/393_Twenty_Questions.mp3).

Scriptnotes, Episode 392: The Final Moment, Transcript

March 25, 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 392 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie where we take a look at three stories in the news and discuss how they might be adapted to the big screen, or the small screen. We’ll also look at the final moment in movies, what they do and why they change so often.

Craig, it’s just you and me. We’re just two guys back talking on Skype.

Craig: Could we call this a classic Scriptnotes?

John: This is a classic Scriptnotes.

Craig: It’s the old original flavor.

John: It is. Yeah. So some new offices, some new equipment setups, but it’s still the basic Scriptnotes.

Craig: As long as it’s you and me, you know. As long as it’s you and me, I could foresee a day where – let’s say one of us were incapacitated?

John: Yeah, yeah.

Craig: If it’s me, the podcast goes on with someone else. If it’s you, not only does the podcast end, but I probably never say the word podcast again.

John: That would be really sad.

Craig: No, no. I mean, no. The part about you being incapacitated, don’t get me wrong, that’s tragic.

John: That’s tragic.

Craig: That’s tragic. And careful listeners will remember I believe we did broadcast our episode of Fiasco, is that correct?

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: With Kelly Marcel in which your character was incapacitated cruelly by the two of us I think. So, there’s a tradition of that. And it would be very, very sad.

John: It would be. I feel like I should put together a living will just for that scenario just to make sure that everyone understood my wishes if I were to become incapacitated.

Craig: That’s a great idea. Because otherwise this all collapses.

John: Do you think Jack Thorne could take over my place?

Craig: You know what? I wish he would. [laughs] That’s what like, you know, you say to your spouse after – how many years have you guys been married by the way?

John: Only married for–

Craig: Well, but together. Let’s call it effectively married.

John: 19 years.

Craig: 19 years. OK, so Melissa and I are at 22 or 23, something like that. Very similar. Your spouse turns to you and says, “You know, what if you had to be married to so-and-so?” And you’re like, “Let’s do it.” [laughs] “It sounds great, let’s go.” And then, of course, your fantasy turns to horror. Because here’s the thing. Jack Thorne is amazing, but you don’t know what you got till it’s gone.

John: Mm. That could be a lyric.

Craig: It should be. It should be the lyric of many things. I can just imagine myself just thinking, oh wow, look at me, stepping out on John August. Cheating with some other guy.

John: Yeah. The thing is you’re already cheating. You already have a whole second podcast recorded. I know about it. And you’re going to be dropping it week by week.

Craig: That is true. We haven’t announced that though, so we can’t talk about that. [laughs]

John: But this last week something was announced. A much anticipated trailer dropped showing how governmental corruption and arrogance led to massive destruction when a dangerous power source was accidentally unleashed. I’m talking of course about Aladdin.

Craig: Aladdin.

John: Which comes out May 24. So the trailer finally came out for Aladdin.

Craig: Yeah. Well, the big trailer. You had a teaser.

John: Yes.

Craig: And now this is the big trailer.

John: This is finally the good trailer. So I wrote the screenplay three years ago and I’ve really had almost nothing to do with it since. But correct me if I’m wrong, you also had some trailer out this week as well?

Craig: I had a teaser, a little 45-second teaser that weirdly was also about how governmental corruption and arrogance led to massive destruction when a dangerous power source was accidentally unleashed. Not quite as fun as Aladdin. It doesn’t have that pizzazz. But it is the 45-second teaser trailer for Chernobyl, the miniseries forthcoming to HBO. It arrives on May 6. We can now say that. May 6, the first episode airs. Or cables? It transmits on May 6.

John: It goes out into the world on May 6. And so because it’s a week by week thing it will start before Aladdin and it will be running still after Aladdin.

Craig: Well, they are a great pairing.

John: They are. Really.

Craig: You’re going to need the break, trust me. If you’re watching Chernobyl, by the time Aladdin rolls around you’re going to be like can I please just get a break?

John: I don’t know that my original screenplay for Aladdin will ever be seen in the world, but I would say there actually were more parallels to Chernobyl in my original screenplay than in the final movie.

Craig: Well, you know what? I’m interested to see – I’m fascinated by these Disney adaptations that are sort of auto adaptations in a sense, like self-adaptations, and how they do it, and how close it is. I mean, the trailer, you could see the trailer partly was sort of proudly saying, “Look, look, it’s the same.”

John: It’s the same movie but with real people.

Craig: It’s exactly the same. Right. Which I think is fascinating. But then you could also tell, I mean, it can’t possibly be entirely exactly the same. So I’m just fascinated by those aspects of auto-adaptation and how they work. And so after Aladdin happens and I see it I’m going to want to read your script. I’m fascinated by these things and how they evolve as it were.

John: Maybe someday they can make an animated version of Chernobyl.

Craig: You know, we’re working on that.

John: Complete the cycle. [laughs]

Craig: That would be, you know, yeah, no.

John: Follow up. So, in previous episodes we’ve talked about the WGA negotiations with the talent agencies about the future of the agency agreement. There have been some big meetings in the past, but there are some big meetings coming up. So those three meetings coming up are Tuesday March 26 at the Beverly Hilton, 7:30pm, Wednesday March 27 at the Sheraton Universal, also 7:30pm, and Saturday March 31 at the Writers Guild Theater, 10:30am. There will also be meetings on the east coast. I don’t have those details but you can look those up. Those will be talking to members about what’s going on, what’s in store. There will be a membership vote coming up so that’ll be why you’ll want to go to these meetings to learn all of that information.

Craig: And would it be acceptable for me to say that – seems to me reported widely – that at the very least now the guild and the talent agencies appear to be talking?

John: Indeed. So this past week I was in two negotiation sessions and, yeah, there’s chatting. It’s doing the things you do in a negotiation.

Craig: Good.

John: So that’s what we want.

Craig: That is an improvement over what was there prior, which is nothing. So, and certainly not the fault of the Writers Guild I should add.

John: Cool. Our big marquee topic I want to get into today is the final moment in movies, or I guess episodes of TV, but I’m really thinking more in movies. And this came to mind this morning because there was an article talking about the end of Captain Marvel. This is not even a spoiler, but at the end of the original version of Captain Marvel she flew off into space and they changed it so she flew off into space with some other characters. And it was an important change and sort of giving you a sense of where the character was headed next.

And it got me thinking that in pretty much every movie I’ve written that last moment, that last beat, has changed from the pitch to the screenplay to the movie. And I sort of want to focus on why that moment is so important and also why it tends to change so much.

Craig: Interesting. And it’s funny because for me because I’m obsessed with that moment it actually rarely doesn’t change – it doesn’t change much for me.

John: OK.

Craig: But that’s in a sense because I think I weirdly start with it. I don’t know.

John: I start with it, too. And so as I was thinking back to Aladdin, my pitch for it had a very specific runner that had a very definite end beat. And so when I pitched it to Disney and also I just pitched it casually to Dana Fox, it made Dana Fox cry that last line, the last image of that last moment. It’s not in the movie at all. It totally changed in ways that things change.

But I would say even the movies like Big Fish and other things which have been very much, you know, we shot the script, those last moments and sometimes the last image really does change because it’s based on the experience of sitting through the whole movie and sort of where it’s deliberated to.

So let’s talk about that last moment as a way of organizing your thoughts when you’re first thinking about the story and then what it looks like at all the different stages.

Craig: Well, to start with, we have to ask what the purpose is. You know, I think sometimes people think of the last shot in cinematic terms. Somebody rides off into the sunset. So the last shot really is about sunsets. But of course it’s not.

For me the final moment, the final shot, that last image contains the purpose of the entire thing. Everything comes down to that. If your movie was about the love between two people, then that is that final moment. We’ve talked about Lindsay Doran’s Ted Talk where she talks about how movies are really about relationships. And she would cite how sometimes she would ask people well what was the last image of some movie, The Karate Kid, and a lot of people don’t remember it is Mr. Miyagi’s face. Proud. It’s Daniel and then Mr. Miyagi looking at each other and there’s pride.

So, figuring out the purpose of that last shot is kind of your step one of determining what it’s supposed to be. And you can’t get there unless you kind of know what the hell your whole movie is about in the first place.

John: Yeah. I mean, movies are generally about a character taking a journey. A character leaving home and getting to some place. But it’s also about the movie itself starting at a place and getting to a place. And that destination is generally that last beat, that last moment, that last image. And so of course you’re going to be thinking about that early on in the process of where do you want to end up. And way back in Episode 100 there was a listener question and someone asked us I have a couple different ideas for movies and I’m not sure which one I should start writing. And my answer was you should pick the one with the best ending because that’s the one you’ll actually finish.

Craig: Right.

John: And if you start writing without having a clear sense of where you’re going to you’re very likely to either stop writing it or get really off track and having to sort of strip away a lot of what you’ve done. So, having a clear sense of this is where I think the movie lands is crucial. It’s like the plane is going to land on this runway tells you, OK, I can do a bunch of different stuff but ultimately I have to make sure that I’m headed to that place. You may not be signaling that even to the reader, to the audience, so that they’re not ahead of you, but you yourself have to know where this is going.

Craig: John, when you were in grade school and you had some sort of arts and crafts assignment and the teacher said you need to draw a circle, and you just have to draw a circle. You don’t have a thing to trace. Were you a good circle drawer?

John: I was a fair circle drawer. I know it’s a very classic artistic lesson is how to trust your hand to do the movements and how to think about what a circle is. Were you a good circle drawer?

Craig: No. Absolutely horrendous. If you ask me to draw a circle you would end up with some sort of unclosed cucumber. And the reason I bring this up is because to me the classic narrative is a circle. We begin in a place and we end in that same place. There is a full return. Of course we are changed, but the ending reflects the beginning. The beginning reflects the ending. There is a circle.

If you don’t know your ending and you don’t know how the circle finishes it’s quite probable that you won’t know how to start the circle either. That you will end up with an unclosed cucumber, like nine-year-old Craig Mazin attempting to draw someone’s head. This is how things go off. This is where, I think, people can easily get lost as they’re writing their script because they realize that the story has developed in such a way that it wants to end somewhere but it has really not a strong click connection to the beginning.

One of my favorite albums is Pink Floyd’s The Wall, I think it’s Pink Floyd The Wall. And Pink Floyd The Wall, they play little games, the Pink Floyd folks did, and one of the games they play in Pink Floyd The Wall is very low volume at the very beginning. You hear this tiny little song and then someone says, “We came in.” And then at the very end, the very end, they’re playing the song and it finishes and then you hear someone say, “Isn’t this where?” And that’s exactly the kind of thing that blows a 15-year-old boy’s life, but it also was satisfying. You felt things were connected and they chose to make the very last moment some sort of indication that the beginning is relevant.

It’s the way frankly Watchmen ends. It’s the same thing. There’s this beautiful come around with that last final look.

John: Now, because we’re talking about narrative circles I need to acknowledge that Dan Harmon has this whole structure thing that’s based on a circle where there’s a circle and there’s these little lines across it that characters go on this journey. That’s absolutely a valid approach if you want to think about story that way.

That’s not quite what we’re talking about.

Craig: No.

John: We’re talking about how in general a character leaves from a place and gets to a place, but in both cases they’re either finding a new home or returning to a previous home changed. And so just a character walking around in a circle isn’t a story. A character being profoundly changed and coming to this environment with a new understanding that is a change. And sometimes it won’t be that one character. Sometimes it’s the narrative question you’ve asked at the beginning of the story has gone through all these permutations and landed you back at a place that lets you look at that question from a new way.

So it’s either answering the question or reframing the question in a way that is more meaningful. So that’s what we’re talking about, the narrative comes full circle. There’s a place that you were headed and that place that you were headed reflects where you began.

Craig: No question. And it’s really clear to us how someone has changed when we put them back where they were when we met them. It’s just one of those things where you can say, oh, here’s the variable. Where we begin is the control. Our character is the variable. Start at the beginning, get me to the end, and let me see the difference. And sometimes it’s very profound.

You know, we start and end in the same place in Finding Nemo, but we can see how different it is in the same place because the variable has changed and that’s your character.

John: So, I’m finishing the third Arlo Finch book right now which is the end of the trilogy, and so each of the books has had that sense of like, OK, reflecting where the book began and where the book ended and there is a completion there. But it’s been fun to actually see the whole trilogy. And it’s like, OK, this is the journey that we went on over the course of this year of Arlo Finch’s life. And yes he’s physically in the same space but he’s a completely different character in that same space and has a different appreciation for what’s happened.

And so being able to go back to previous locations where things have happened you see that his relationship to them is completely different because he’s a different character having been changed by what’s gone on. That’s what we’re really talking about with that last beat and how the last beat has to reflect where the character started and what has happened to the character over the course of the journey.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, you would not – reading Arlo Finch you would never expect that he would end up a savage murderer, but he does.

John: [laughs] It’s really shocking for middle grade fiction.

Craig: Well it is. But then when you look back you go, oh yeah, you know what, he was laying the groundwork for that all along. It actually makes sense. He’s a nightmare. Then there’s the Dark Finch trilogy that comes next. Oh, you know what? Dark Finch trilogy is not a bad idea.

John: Dark Finch sounds pretty good.

Craig: You should do it.

John: I think it’s going to be a crossover with Derek Haas’s books about his assassin.

Craig: Oh yeah. Silver Bear.

John: Silver Bear.

Craig: Silver Bear. Dark Finch. That sounds like a Sondheim lyric. I love it.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: I love it. So, you know, when I’m thinking about these last images, everybody has a different way of thinking about this. But what I try and do really is actually think about it in terms of a last emotion. What is it that I want to feel? Do I want to feel comfort? Do I want to feel pride? Do I want to feel love? Do I want to feel hope? The movie that I worked on with Lindsay Doran, which is I think my favorite feature script, and so of course it hasn’t been made. They make the other ones, not those. The last shot to me was always an expression of the kind of bittersweet salute to the people who are gone. You know, it’s a coming of age story and the last shot when I just thought about the emotion at the end, the emotion at the end was the kind of sad thankfulness for having known someone who is no longer with you.

And I go, OK, I can wrap myself in that. That feels like a good emotion. And I know how that is reflected by the beginning. How you then express it that can change.

John: For sure.

Craig: And often changes frequently. But this is an area where I think movies sometimes fail because the system of movies is designed to separate the writer and her intention from the actual outcome, so a writer will have an intention like I want my movie to end with the bittersweet thankfulness for those who are no longer with us. That is my emotional intention. And here is how I would execute it.

Nobody else sees the intention underneath, or they don’t understand it, and they just go, “Well you know what? We don’t like necessarily the way they’re executing that. Let’s make a new execution. Let’s do this. Let’s do that. Let’s make it noisy. Let’s make it loud. Let’s make it funny.” And the intention is gone. And then you get to the movie and you show it and people go, “Well, the ending.” And you’re like, yeah, the ending, and that writer never really nailed the ending.

John: Ha.

Craig: You see how it goes? It’s just freaking brutal.

John: Yeah. That’s never happened to me once in my career. Let’s talk about what that ending looks like in the different stages. So, in the pitch version of it, you know, obviously we talked about in pitches that I would describe it as you’re trying to convince your best friend to see this movie that you’ve seen that they’ve not seen. So you’re really talking a lot about the characters and how it starts. And you may simplify and summarize some things, especially in the second and third act about stuff. But you will tend to describe out that last moment, that last beat, because you’re really talking about what is the takeaway experience going to be for a person who has watched this movie that you’re hopefully going to be writing.

So, in a pitch you’re going to have a description of what that last moment is because that’s really important. It’s the reason why someone should say yes to reading your script, to buying your script, to hiring you to write that script. So that last moment is almost always going to be there in the pitch, even if it’s not fully fleshed out, to give you a sense of what you want the audience and the readers to take away from reading the script.

Craig: What I’m thinking about in a room where I’m relaying something to somebody is ultimately how do I want them to – I want to give them a fuzzy at the end. I want to give them some sort of fuzzy feeling. I don’t want to give them plot. If I finish off with plot, so for instance, let’s say I’m in a room and I’m pitching Star Wars.

What I don’t want to do is get to the end and say, “And in our last shot our hero receives a medal which he deserved.” What I want to talk about is how a kid – I would bring it back to the beginning and say this farm boy who didn’t know about this world beyond him, didn’t know about the Force, who didn’t know about the fate of his father or the way he can maybe save the world, he is the one who saved the galaxy. And at last he knows who he is.

See, some sort of sense of connected feeling to the beginning. If you’re selling plot at the end then what you’re really selling is what Lindsay Doran calls the end that people think is the end but not the actual end.

John: Well, let’s take your example of Star Wars because you might pitch it that way, but then when it comes to writing the script you actually have to write this scene that gets you to that moment. And so as you’re writing that scene at the last moment you’re looking at what is the medal ceremony like, who is there, what is said, but most importantly what is the emotional connection between those characters who are up there. Actually painting out the world so we can see like, OK, this is why it’s going to feel this way. This is clearly the intention behind this scene but also I’m giving you the actual things you need to give us that feeling at the end.

And so in the script stage what was sort of a nebulous description of like this is what it’s going to feel like has to actually deliver on that promise.

Craig: Yeah. I always wondered – I hate being the guy who’s like would it be better if a movie that everybody loved ended like this – but the last shot of Star Wars is the medal ceremony, right. And then you have them looking at each other, and so the emotion is the relationships between them. But I always wondered what would happen if the last-last shot of Star Wars was Luke Skywalker returning back to Tatooine a different man and kind of starting a new beginning, a new hope. You know, that vibe of returning. I always wondered if I would feel more at the end if I saw him return.

John: I think it’s worth exploring. I think if you were to try to do that though it would just feel like one more beat. It would feel like the movie was over when he got the medal and you had this swell. Whether the journey was this is a kid who is all on his own who forms a new family, so like going back to where his dead family was wouldn’t feel like the kind of victory.

Craig: Dead family.

John: Dead family. So I think you want to see his joy and excitement rather than sort of the – I would just imagine the music would be very different if he had gone back to Tatooine at the end. It wouldn’t feel like a triumph.

Craig: Yeah, no, you’re right. And I guess then the payload for that final bit is really the looks between Leia and Luke and Han and Luke. That it’s we’re a family, we’re friends, we did it. We went through something nobody else understands.

John: So let’s say you’ve written the script, you’ve gone into production, and 100 days of production there’s finally a cut and you see that last moment in the film and it’s different, or it doesn’t work, or the way you had it written on the page doesn’t work. In my experience it’s generally because the movie sort of got – the actual movie that you watched isn’t quite the movie that’s on the page just naturally. And as people are embodying those characters things just feel different. Obviously some scenes get cut, things get moved around. And where you kind of thought you were headed is not really where you’ve ended up. And so you have to make some sort of change there.

In some cases it’s reshoots. In some cases you’re really shooting a new last scene. You realize this was not the moment that we thought we wanted to get to at the end. But in some cases it is just a matter of this shot versus that shot. Whose close-up are we ending on? You talk about Mr. Miyagi. I bet they tried it a bunch of different ways and it would make more sense to end on Daniel rather than Mr. Miyagi, but ultimately Mr. Miyagi was the right choice.

They’re thinking about what does the music feel at this moment. How are we emotionally landing, the payload here. And the music is going to be a big factor. So, there’s going to be a lot of things conspiring to get that last image, that last moment of the movie. And you may not have been able to anticipate that on the page.

Craig: No question. And this is why it’s really important for you to understand your intention because it may work out that your intention didn’t carry through in the plan. But if we know the intention and we have married the beginning to the end then the beginning has set up this inexorable domino effect. You have landed at the end. You require a feeling. Let’s see if we can make that feeling editorially a different way. And if we can’t, OK, let’s go back and reconsider what it’s supposed to be.

In rare circumstances you do get to a place where you realize, oh my god, having gone through this movie it’s really about this. It turns out we care more about this than this. This relationship matters more than this relationship. OK. So, now we have to think of the beginning, let’s recontextualize what our beginning means and then let’s go ahead and fix an ending.

But the ending can never be just – do you know what? “It just needs to be more exciting.” That’s nonsense.

John: The danger is a lot of times in test screenings they’ll see like, OK, the numbers are a little bit low here and people dipped at the end, so let’s add some more razzmatazz to this last little beat, or like an extra thing. And generally people don’t want more. They don’t want bigger or more, they just want to actually exit the movie at the right time with the right emotion. And that’s the challenge.

Craig: Right. How do you leave them feeling is the biggest.

John: So sometimes though the opposite holds true. Just this last week I was watching a rough cut of a friend’s film. And he has this really remarkable last shot and these two characters and their relationship has changed profoundly. But as I watched it I was like oh that’s a really great last shot/last moment for kind of a different movie than I saw. But when I looked at the movie I had seen before that I was like, oh yeah, you could actually do some reconfiguring to get you to that moment and actually have it make sense. So it was really talking about this is where we get to at the end. I think you’re not starting at the right place. And so therefore you may want to take a look at those first scenes and really change our expectations and change what we’re following over the course of the movie because doing that you could land at that place and it would feel really meaningful.

Craig: Again, the beginning is the end is the beginning. Right? If something is not working in that where your circle is supposed to connect up and you ended up with an open cucumber, then either the ending is wrong, or the beginning is wrong, or they’re both wrong.

John: Ha.

Craig: But it’s usually one or the other. And it is I think tempting at times to say, “Well, since the ending is the last thing, everything else is the pyramid and this this thing sits atop the pyramid, this is the easiest thing to fix.” And, John, you’re absolutely right. Sometimes the easiest thing to fix is the beginning.

John: Yeah. Change the expectations of the audience as they go into it and you can get them there.

Craig: Match them to where they’re going to arrive.

John: All right. That is our discussion of that final moment. Now let’s talk about the very, very beginning where we think about what these movies could even be. So in previous examples of How Would This Be a Movie we talked about articles from the news. Many of those cases those things have become movies. And so at least they’ve been optioned as movies.

Craig: We’ve been making people money left and right.

John: We really have been. I mean, I think if anyone deserves a packaging fee it is–

Craig: Man.

John: [laughs] Craig Mazin and John August of Scriptnotes fame.

Craig: I mean, you’re joking, but literally we’ve done more in those situations than a number of agencies have in certain packaging situations.

John: Indeed. So, obviously the story that we couldn’t escape this past week was operation Varsity Blues. This was – so this is not going to be a big thing we’re going to talk about – but this is the story of the college admissions scandals that ensnared Felicity Huffman, Lori Laughlin, a bunch of other VC folks. It was all anyone could talk about in Hollywood. And I will say while I can’t describe what happened in the negotiating room, I will say that every moment that we weren’t actually talking about the negotiations was completely talking about this whole scandal. I almost wanted to have a five-minute free period where we could all just talk about – it’s crazy, right?

Craig: Get it out of your system.

John: This is nuts.

Craig: Yeah. There’s a current feeding frenzy, you and I are both aware of this, that many, many, many people are attempting to get the rights to. I guess one of the main articles – the main article, you know, that’s one of those stories where I think life rights actually is really useful because some of the people within the story if they granted life rights you’d get more information. Obviously the perpetrators aren’t going to be granting anything anytime soon.

But so that one will be a movie. So probably not a good idea for us to go on the record as to how, or show, or something. That’s inevitable.

John: The story broke Tuesday morning. My first email about it from a producer came at 12:38pm, so just three, four hours after the story broke I already got my first like, “Hey, would you ever consider writing this thing?”

Craig: It was on Wednesday?

John: Tuesday.

Craig: Oh, Tuesday, OK, yeah, so I didn’t get one until Wednesday. [laughs]

John: All right, well, I mean–

Craig: Same thing.

John: I don’t want to say it, yeah, but, yeah.

Craig: No, of course, you’re one day better than me. Or, or, you’re one day better than me. There’s really no alternative.

John: In this segment though rather than talk about specific articles or specific incidents, I want to talk about three big story areas. And so we’ll have links to some articles that talk about that story area and in some cases one of those articles might be useful. But really I want to talk about what is the kind of movie that we do in this space.

And so the first, there’s two articles we’ll link to. One is about an unvaccinated boy who got tetanus and tetanus is a disease that shouldn’t exist anymore. But if you don’t vaccinate your kids they can get it. He was in the hospital for 57 days, $800,000 worth of medical expenses. Another story that could be helpful here is about a kid who defied his parents and got vaccinated against their wishes. I think he ended up testifying to Congress about why he did that.

So, Craig, I mean, talk to me about vaccines.

Craig: Well, I think I’ve gone on record a number of times as stating that not only am I violently pro-vaccine, but I’m violently anti-anti-vaccine. Of all the things I can tolerate in other people I think anti-vax is probably the lowest on the list. I mean, I’m literally telling you if I had a choice between sitting in a room with a Neo-Nazi or an Anti-Vaxer, I think I would go with the Neo-Nazi. I think at the very least I could say let’s – I’m just going to talk to you as a Jewish person and let’s see how this goes. [laughs] You know? We’ll sit in the room together. But an Anti-Vaxer, no, they’re dead to me. They’re dead to me. Their minds are not only not functioning in any way I can even approximate respecting, but they are through their smugness and arrogance, they don’t even have the common decency to be hateful people. They’re just aggressively stupid and they are killing other people with their outrageous, smug stupidity.

John: So now that you’ve stated your position on this–

Craig: My carefully–

John: Carefully nuanced position.

Craig: Carefully nuanced position.

John: Let’s think about how a vaccine story could work. And so there’s a couple different templates which come to mind. First is sort of the classic huge disease outbreak situation. So we have movies like Contagion, Crisis in the Hot Zone – I guess Crisis in the Hot Zone was never a movie. It was always supposed to be a movie. I read a zillion scripts on it, but I don’t think it ever became a movie.

Craig: Yeah. There’s–

John: Outbreak.

Craig: Outbreak. And Contagion. There were quite a few.

John: And so that’s the thing where a superbug gets out and suddenly half the world is decimated. I mean, World War Z is in some ways the same kind of thing where everything spirals beyond control.

Craig: Someone eats the wrong bit of monkey mean and there it goes. We’re off and running.

John: Something goes amuck. That doesn’t feel like the most, I mean, you can keep making those movies as long as you want to. That doesn’t feel like quite what we’re talking about here.

Craig: No.

John: I think that sense of an individual choice, an individual story is probably more compelling. Talk to me about Ethan Lindenberger from Norwalk, Ohio. He’s one of the kids in this article who does sort of defy his parents and gets vaccinated by himself. I mean, he’s an interesting character because it gives you a way in because you can both love your parents and love your family and yet feel like you have to do this thing that is in opposition to their wishes which is a classic kind of heroic framework.

Craig: Well we typically will see this kind of story told in the context of religion. Someone grows up in a cult or even in a – let’s just call it extreme end of a mainstream religion. And they love their parents but have to get out. Eventually they realize it’s not correct and they have to get out. Although in some cases clearly they don’t love their parents. Their parents are abusive and they have to get out.

And that’s exactly what this reminded me of. Essentially he says, listen, that his mother loves him but she was “steeped in online conspiracies that made him and his siblings vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases like ongoing measles outbreaks. I grew up under my mother’s beliefs that vaccines are dangerous. He’d show her scientific studies but said she instead turned to illegitimate sources that instill fear into the public.” Essentially his mother was a cultist.

And, by the way, that’s what Anti-Vax is. It is a flat-out cult. It is a cult based in fear and instead of worshipping a central person character what they worship is a central theory, a charismatic theory if you will.

So, there is a natural kind of narrative structure for a story where someone has to get out. And what you’re doing is retelling it in the context of science, and medical science, which I think is kind of an interesting angle on it. If it were me, I think I’d be going – because I’ve thought about this. You know, I’ve thought about doing a limited series on the rise of anti-vaccination which has always been with us by the way. I mean we say it’s a rise. There’s always been fear of vaccines. And the fear of vaccines is directly connected I think to the fear of people who are smarter than us.

I think there’s a direct line. It’s the same thing when we look at fear of elitism, fear of expertise, fear of those smart people, fear of the scientists, and then a direct line to fear of vaccines. It’s always been there but the current story that begins with the charlatan Andrew Wakefield and continues to this day to me is deserving of a – there’s a good exploration there. I’ve thought about it.

John: Now, the counter narrative is also an easy thing to see. So, the opposite movie which is basically that vaccines were a conspiracy. That secretly they always knew they were doing harm. That story we’ve seen a bunch, too. So, it feels like there’s going to be an upcoming one at some point about the opioid crisis and how big pharma was–

Craig: Oh there is. Steve Zaillian is working on it right now. It’s going to be brilliant.

John: Yeah. So we always have that kind of thing where like there is a secret government cabal hiding information about the real truth of these things. I agree with you that I think the cultist template or basically escaping from the cult template or the – I hate coming to realize, but the character who discovers that what they thought was true was not true is a meaningful way to think about it. The Matrix is essentially that, too. That sense that the world is not the way you thought it would be.

And I think what’s interesting about the vaccine situation is because the enemies are invisible and kind of ancient. Because no one has any experience with measles we think that measles doesn’t really exist. And it’s almost like one of those like don’t do that or you’ll attract the dragons. Like no one has seen dragons for 500 years. I’m not sure they ever really were there. As these diseases break out you realize like, oh wow, measles is terrible. Tetanus can kill you. These are things that are real issues.

Craig: Yeah. In a very real way Chernobyl is a story about what happens when people decide that because something hasn’t happened it can’t happen. And it won’t happen. It’s just inherent to the human condition. We pretend because we don’t know these things.

And, yes, there’s a weird line because you don’t want to end up as the person who is walking around saying, “Don’t you understand? Just because you haven’t seen ghosts doesn’t mean that ghosts aren’t there.” No, there’s an absolutely wonderful reason to presume that ghosts aren’t there. This is different. We know that vaccines work and we know that there are diseases that kill people. And the fact that we have eliminated polio because of vaccination doesn’t mean now that we don’t need to vaccinate because polio is not a thing. It’s a thing.

Mitch McConnell had polio. Which he seems to have forgotten, mind you. No, it’s a thing.

So, for me I keep thinking about this story in terms of the villains. Because I find the villains fascinating and horrifying. And there’s a danger in feeling like your axe-grinding if what you’re doing is building a narrative around a hero who is just yelling all the time, “Don’t you understand?”

John: The Jeff Goldblum character.

Craig: “Vaccines are great.” No, the Jeff Goldblum character is amazing as a kind of like background, “Do you know, uh, maybe we shouldn’t, uh, do this.” But in a show like this what you could end up seeming is just facile if your show is built around a CDC scientist or medical doctor.

John: Totally.

Craig: At Harvard Med who is saying, “Don’t you understand? You’re killing people.” Yes, we understand. And then you’re just going to repeat over and over? I want – it’s the villains that fascinate me. I want to expose them with the hope that some people would see themselves in it and think twice.

John: Yeah. That’s the goal. So, it feels like the characters we’re going to be looking for is who is the one who has a journey, well it’s probably somebody who starts in that world and leaves that world and recognizes that world for what it actually truly was. That feels like the classic thing.

The villain, it could be a quack. It could be a person who is profiting off that fear. But it probably is more that even kind of accidentally charismatic cult leader. Basically people start to believe him or her and that creates a sense of self-esteem and then they can’t have their self-esteem challenged by science or reality. And that becomes a fascinating loop there.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, you can see a story about parents who – let’s say the mother convinces the father that vaccines are terrible. And so they don’t vaccinate their child and then eventually their child dies. And these two people have to come to grips with it and they can’t. And there are ways – by the way, this is one of the most fascinating areas because this is one of the few areas where it’s more likely that women will be the villain. It’s fascinating just demographically. For whatever reason, this seems to be more prevalent among women than men.

So, and that already fascinates me because then I can get out of the usual thing as well. Because we’ve seen a billion male cult leaders. Haven’t seen too many female cult leaders. That’s exciting.

John: Yeah. It’s good. All right, our next story area is the Boeing air crashes. And so this is of a relatively recent Boeing redesign of planes. Two of these planes have crashed. A bunch of other countries grounded the planes saying there’s something fundamentally wrong here. The US stalled for a bit and has now grounded those planes. So let’s talk about this situation, this area, and figure out what are the interesting stories in there.

So, our friend John Gatins wrote the movie Flight. So Flight was a great movie about a plane crash or plane near crash and a remarkable pilot.

Craig: It was a crash.

John: Oh, it was a crash. It was a crash that wasn’t as bad as it could have been.

Craig: Right.

John: And there have been other movies about plane crashes. Where are the story areas in this Boeing situation?

Craig: Well, we’ve got a few potentials. Sort of the obvious one is the – we’ll call it the big political story. Why are these planes still flying around in the United States while other people cancel them? The problem is that the United States grounded the planes quickly thereafter. So that story gets a little short-circuited. That feels like a little bit of a footnote.

Then there’s the investigation angle, you know, how did this plane crash. And then I think connected to that one is where I would probably start, which is why is this plane this way to begin with? That is fascinating actually. I don’t know if you’ve read about why they think this has happened and what led to it, but quick summary is that they continually need to update these planes to appear as if they’re selling something new and something that is more advanced. And advanced means saves money. That means more fuel-efficient. That means you can fly longer with less fuel, less drag, all that.

And Airbus is Boeing’s main competitor. Airbus is rolling out their new planes. Boeing freaks out. We’ve got to rollout our new planes. We don’t have new planes. Let’s take the planes we have and make them fly cheaper by making the following modifications. And they do. Because technology progresses.

But what they find is in making those modifications – and they’re so slight, right, they’re shaving things off here and there – that in certain circumstances the engines themselves are creating a little bit extra lift. So, if the plane is pointing up a little bit too much then it could theoretically start pointing up a lot too much. So, they just go ahead and build a thing into the system that automatically will lower it back down if that happens. They don’t tell anyone. Or they do, but they bury it in manuals. And the presumption, current presumption, may be proven wrong, is that in both cases of Ethiopian Airlines crash and the Lion Air crash, which look almost identical, that this system engaged incorrectly and the pilots didn’t understand what was happening. And so they started correcting for the system that was correcting and there was a feedback loop and the whole thing came down.

John: Yep.

Craig: And so you trace it all the way back to the same story we’ll hear about airlines where they say, my god, we just saved American Airlines $14 million a year by removing one olive from our salad. That’s kind of the same thing that’s going on here, except it’s leading to death apparently.

John: Yeah. So I think the challenge of that kind of a story is figuring out how you put characters in there that are compelling. And so you can have the investigator character who is going through and figuring all this out. You could do a more Chernobyl kind of situation where there’s a group of people that we’re following or we’re looking over the course of time. We’re figuring out how we got to this place or we’re moving back and forth to do it.

I don’t know that it’s going to feel especially compelling. I mean, it’s totally possible that we’re going to find that there’s some moment in there that really is groundbreaking and blows it all open, but I do worry that it’s not a movie. It’s really more of a good documentary than a narrative film. The actual just reporting of the facts may be more compelling than – just because unlike Chernobyl we’re not going to have great visuals. We’re not going to have great things to see. We could theoretically have two plane crashes, but there aren’t going to be cinematic moments. Does that make sense?

Craig: It does. And since I’ve seen Chernobyl I know that – I’ll just spoil it. The explosion happens very early on, really early. This is a kind of a one-incident plot, right? Plane crashes. What I find fascinating about complex disasters is not the thing that begins it but rather this terrible dragon’s tail that extends behind it that gets worse and worse and worse and worse.

So it never stops in a sense. With something like this you’re absolutely right. And it reminds me a little bit of the Sully movie. Was it called Sully? Was that what it was called? Sully?

John: Yeah. Which I never saw. Did you see it?

Craig: I saw it. And, you know, well first of all it was fairly apparent to me that they had just created a lot of drama that wasn’t true. The government inquiry board suddenly got very evil. Yeah, I mean, ultimately I just thought this doesn’t need to be here.

John: No.

Craig: I mean, very good filmmakers. Excellent filmmakers. Great actors. Great people involved. I just ultimately it didn’t feel like it rose to the test for me at least of I didn’t learn anything great other than Sully is a hell of a pilot.

John: Yep. Well let’s talk about this story area then. So rather than specifically these crashes or these Boeing planes there’s that sense of what you’re describing if this is really what caused these planes to crash was the kind of algorithm, this kind of automation that people weren’t aware of that had a good intention but went awry. So, you can very much envision as our Teslas start being able to drive themselves more, one bug could result in huge catastrophic problems. And so that sense of unintended consequences of automation, or these things which we rely on to keep stuff functioning properly goes wrong.

So, if for example what if it weren’t that there was one specific problem and this one specific design, but there was something more fundamental and we had to ground all the planes like what happened after 9-11. That is the kind of impact that you see that really does change how we live our daily life.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, air travel is essential to everything. And interestingly in the days following the second Boeing 737 Max crash, Max-8 crash, a number of people started asking American Airlines and Southwest Airlines, the two US carriers that use those planes, “I don’t want to fly on that plane. Can I get my money back? Or is there another plane?” And both airlines essentially said the same thing which was we’ve flown tens of thousands of flights with these with no incident. And that’s true.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It’s still the safest form of travel there is. And this is one of those areas where like radiation I’ve discovered, there’s certain things that we find to be dread. Certain diseases. We dread certain diseases when we should really be dreading other ones because they’re the ones that are way more likely to kill us. Like we’re terrified of rabies but we don’t seem to be particularly worried about, I don’t know–

John: Heart disease.

Craig: Heart disease. Exactly. We’re still eating our pastrami sandwich while we’re talking about how terrible rabies is. And really very few people get rabies. Radiation, dying from radiation, I watch people refuse to put their phones up to the heads, but meanwhile the banana they’re eating has more radiation than the phone. By the way, so does flying. People are terrified of flying, but cars are constantly smashing into things. 35,000 people a year I think die on the road. Cars are bursting into flames. We have no problem with it. I was thinking about this in the context of they’re starting to talk about using drones now to move people around. Air cars essentially. And, you know, sooner or later an air car is going to crash. And someone is going to die. And everyone is going to lose their minds.

But that day 15 other people in Southern California alone will die in auto accidents. And no one will even care.

John: Yeah.

Craig: We struggle with this.

John: We discount the things that happen every day and focus on those rare things because they’re just so spectacular.

Craig: Exactly. They’re spectacular. And ultimately we know, well, if I get into a car accident I could survive that. If I get into a plane accident, no. And that’s what terrifies us. We’re not in control of the plane. Something else is.

In the case of this story I think there is something fascinating about the notion of how we put things in the hands of computers and then we’re terrified that the computers will let us down. But almost every single time, in fact, sorry, every single time when the computer lets us down is because a human has let us down. The computers aren’t writing their own code.

John: They will someday, but not yet.

Craig: Not yet.

John: Not yet.

Craig: [laughs] Not yet. So, what happened here was something akin to when a doctor gives you a pill to solve a problem, it does except it creates a new problem, so he gives you a pill to solve that problem. And you get pill on top of pill. And in this case it seems like they’re solving one problem that creates another problem, to they make a new thing to solve that problem, but it creates a new problem. This is a human thing. It’s about money.

John: Yep. All right. Something else we can’t control is the weather and this winter has been–

Craig: I can.

John: I always forget you have weather control. You and Storm from X-Men are our weather controllers. This winter has had some spectacular extreme events in weather across the US. We’ll link to two articles, one about the historic number of avalanches in Colorado. Another one about the Bomb Cyclone which is what they’re calling this huge winter–

Craig: Bomb Cyclone.

John: Bomb Cyclone!

Craig: Bomb Cyclone!

John: This huge winter storm complex that has sort of parked in places of the US. So let’s talk about extreme winter and what kinds of movies we can find in what’s happening in this big winter not-wonderland. Horrorland.

Craig: Weather is tough, right? I mean, because it’s slow and what we generally end up with are movies like The Day After Tomorrow where it’s cataclysmic, supernaturally cataclysmic weather where we’re taking it and speeding it up so it’s happening at a geo-storm. You know? And so it’s science-fiction essentially. Because what we don’t know really how to do is make a story out of a two-degree increase in average temperature in an area.

John: Yeah. Let’s try to separate that out because I think it’s hard to make the climate change movie because it’s just hard to sort of see the actual thing. We can talk about that another time, but like showing that is really hard to do even though it’s probably much more important than any given storm.

But we do have templates for survival stories in extreme weather.

Craig: Right.

John: The good thing about weather is it’s a disruption of ordinary daily life which is fertile ground for narrative. Because it breaks characters out of their usual routines and being broken out of their usual routine we can see them do things and take chances and go on journeys they wouldn’t otherwise take.

Craig: Yeah. Human versus nature is a classic. And there’s this inner sense we have when we watch those narratives that what we’re seeing is the human finally understanding who they are and the depths of what they can do because they’ve been pitted against nature. It speaks to an innate human desire to master nature. Right? I will beat you. I will defeat you. And you won’t beat me.

And we like those stories. We like them but they often are very similar. You just see – you find ways in where, OK, what makes The Perfect Storm better than, you know, this movie about the river overflowing. And you find the differences, but there is a real formula to it. Doesn’t mean bad. I like a good formula movie. But in this case I wonder if out of this new round of stuff the most story valuable thing that has come out is just the phrase Bomb Cyclone because, I mean, how is Bomb Cyclone already not a movie on – which channel makes Sharknado?

John: I think it’s Sci-Fi Channel, yeah.

Craig: Yeah. Like it just seems like Bomb Cyclone is terrifying.

John: Well, some of what’s happening in this last round is that we’re having snow storms in places that are not used to snow, and that can be fun, you can do a comedy where it’s like this snow day in Atlanta. Like they just don’t have – completely out of context for what they’re sort of used to.

Craig: That’s a good idea. Good idea. Stop there. That’s a great idea. To me, somebody should make that movie. That’s funny. Snow Day in Atlanta. I love that.

John: That sense of everyone is knocked off their normal routine. No one knows how to deal with this thing. So it’s a fish out of water story in some ways, too.

Craig: It’s a fish out of water story, but then it gets people to do stuff. And then things that maybe you wouldn’t have dealt with you deal with. It’s classic comedy stuff. And somebody falls in love. And there’s a snowman. There’s a snow fight. But it’s fun.

John: It’s fun.

Craig: It’s fun.

John: It’s fun.

Craig: I love it.

John: Classic other template for this is trapped, basically where you have characters stuck together in a place where they have to deal with a thing. For some reason we are fascinated with storms trapping characters at motels. I can think of so many examples of that. Where characters are forced to interact in ways they would not otherwise be interacting. Drama. Thriller. Those are sort of the classic ways to get into this. But I guess what’s important is in all these situations the weather is an inciting incident. It’s a reason why these characters are in this situation. But it’s rarely the actual villain. Because the weather is not personified in a way. It’s not a dragon you can defeat.

Craig: That’s exactly right.

John: You just get through it.

Craig: Yeah. Apparently everyone on planet earth saw Bird Box on Netflix.

John: I never saw it.

Craig: I’ve seen some of it. I won’t spoil anything. The bad guy, the monsters, whatever you are, you don’t even see them. That’s the point. You don’t see them. So they might as well be the weather. The plot is if you look at them then you go crazy and want to kill yourself. So you can’t look at them, so what you end up with is people trapped together in a house with this bad weather/alien presence outside. And the personified villain – so Eric Heisserer who wrote that script clearly understood exactly what you just said in a way that Shyamalan did not when he made The Happening. Because he thought the wind will be scary enough, or plants. They will not be.

And so what Eric Heisserer very smartly figured out early on in his writing process – I haven’t talked to him, I just know this is what happened – he said, oh my god, the weather isn’t personally scary. So he essentially created two tiers of effects. This is a very screenwriter solution but it works. Most people who look at this thing will go crazy and kill themselves. Some people will go crazy but basically go and evangelize and try and get other people to look at the thing.

John: Ah.

Craig: And therein you have your personified villain. It’s essential for a movie about the weather/aliens.

John: Another good example I can think of is Stephen King’s The Fog. And so you have a bunch of characters trapped in a supermarket, surrounded by this supernatural fog. And it’s the dynamics of those characters within that space and them jockeying for power is really what you’re following. The same can be said for The Walking Dead where the zombies are weather.

Craig: They’re weather. Exactly. We have seen the enemy and it is us. So, Stephen King does the exact same thing in The Dome. You know, OK, let me trap you. You’re facing a common enemy. And let me watch you rip yourselves to shreds instead.

John: Yep. So, I think if we’re going to do a movie about the Bomb Cyclone or any of this extreme weather it’s probably going to fall into either the snow day in Atlanta template or here is an ensemble drama about characters trapped in a situation. Those feel like the natural ways to do it. Because I don’t think we want another Goldblum situation where someone is explaining the weather. That doesn’t feel like–

Craig: [laughs] Goldblum situation.

John: But honestly you could stick Jeff Goldblum in all three of these movies that we’ve pitched today. So, you can definitely see him being the plan expert who is telling you I warned them not to do this but they did it anyway.

Craig: Right. Exactly. Exactly. Where do the Madea movies take place, by the way?

John: Oh, I don’t know.

Craig: I mean, I think he shoots them all around Atlanta and Georgia.

John: It feels like they should be in Atlanta.

Craig: So Madea’s Snow Day just feels like–

John: Done.

Craig: How is Tyler Perry not already writing that?

John: The poster, just make the poster and the movie follows.

Craig: Madea’s Snow Day. I would actually see that.

John: [laughs] I would see Madea’s Snow Day, too.

Craig: I would. I would see Madea’s Snow Day. I have no problem with that. None.

John: All right. If you have ideas for other How Would This Be a Movie do send them our way because we do gather those up together and Megana will put them in a nice little package and we’ll look at them again. I think it’s always fun to look at these areas because honestly that’s what Craig and I kind of do all day. Just random things are thrown in our general direction and we have to say like, oh, what kind of movie is this. And that’s what kind of movie it is.

Craig: If you become a writer in Hollywood, and I think a lot of you would like to be, those of you who are not already, this is what you do a lot of the time. This is it. So, if you hate the idea of doing this, hmm, mm. That’s all I got to say.

John: Yep. To bring this all back together I would say that in any of these movies that we’re sort of half-pitching here it’s going to come down to what is that final moment. What is the takeaway from this thing? Because if it’s just like a bunch of weather happens or a plane crashes that’s not a movie. It has to be about what is the last thing you’re taking from this thing that made it worthwhile to be listening to this pitch, to be reading this script, to be watching this movie.

Craig: 100%. These two things are not unrelated.

John: Great. It’s time for our One Cool Things. I have a Kickstarter for my One Cool Thing. It is the Humblewood Campaign Setting for the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. So you and I have both encountered these things that are Kickstarters that do a special new little world for within the DND universe. Humblewood is absolutely adorable.

Craig: It is.

John: So, I first came across these because Leesha Hannigan who is an artist who did some work for us for One Hit Kill, she has some of her characters in this. They are these adorable foxes with swords and rabbits and mice. And it looks absolutely incredible. So, just encourage you to check out the Humblewood Campaign Setting for Dungeons and Dragons.

If you don’t play DND you’re not going to get a tremendous amount out of this, but it’s worth looking at the artwork because it’s just really incredible.

Craig: And it does seem like if you are introducing your kids–

John: Oh my god, it would be perfect.

Craig: Yeah. Particularly, you know, not every kid likes the kind of classic monster stuff, and blood and guts, and brains with sharp teeth sticking out of them and all that stuff. This is definitely more kid-friendly. It’s softer but it’s cuddly. But it’s still DND so you still get to kill stuff. I mean, come on. But you’re doing it with an adorable mice character named Jerbeen, or sorry that’s his race. He’s a Jerbeen, which means he’s a mouse person. It’s adorable. Adorable.

John: And Aline Brosh McKenna will of course love the owl knight, a Strig, and Aline loves owls. But, I mean, come on.

Craig: She loves owls. And then there’s Corvum – looks like sort of Necromancy/Crow guy. Very good. If you love birds, and you love DND. No, it is. It’s adorable. It’s absolutely adorable. Don’t worry about the it not happening. Their goal was $20,000 and they’re currently at $127,000.

And here’s a thought. Make some stuff for DND. People like it.

John: They do like it.

Craig: Yeah. I love it. My One Cool Thing is an article from NewScientist.com. We will include a link in the show notes of course. And it’s fascinating. I did not know this. Here’s the headline: Humans couldn’t pronounce “f” and “v” sounds before farming developed. Like how many F sounds are in that sentence itself?

So essentially a group of linguists have determined that our jaws before agriculture were aligned in a certain way where it was all about chewing hard food. And because our jaws were aligned in a certain way we couldn’t actually align things so that the bottom teeth could touch the top lift to make “f” or “v.” It just didn’t work.

John: It’s top teeth and bottom lip, right?

Craig: Sorry, did I say bottom teeth and top lip? I meant bottom lip and top teeth. You’re absolutely right. What if I was like, oh, is that how you say it?

John: I tried to picture like an orc doing it.

Craig: Exactly. But what happened with agriculture once we started to farm our food became easier to chew. And it led to changes in human jaws and teeth. And thus with the jawbone not having to do as much work it doesn’t grow to be so large and now you can make F and V sounds.

John: That’s nice.

Craig: I love stuff like this.

John: I love evolutionary biology. I love how stuff all fits together. And sometimes it can be magical thinking, like oh it must be this way. And who knows maybe they’ll find that this isn’t quite accurate for some reason. But it does track and make sense and also reminds me that humans have been around for a long time. There used to be many different species of humans in our sort of giant family. We ended up doing different things because of where we ended up. It’s cool.

Craig: I love it. I love anything that reminds me of how much animalistic meat blobs we all are.

John: Yeah. That we’re mammals.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, we’re special mammals but we’re mammals. We’re mammals. We’re meat.

John: We’ve got big brains and we’ve got really nimble hands and that got us a lot.

Craig: Thank god for soft food. It’s my favorite food.

John: Soft food is so, so good.

Craig: The best.

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 Jim Launch and Jim Bond. 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’m @johnaugust.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts and Stitcher and wherever you listen to podcasts. If you’re there leave us a review. That helps people find the show.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. We’ll have links to the articles we talked about. You’ll also find transcripts there. They go up within the week of the episode coming out.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. It’s two bucks a month to listen to those back episodes.

Craig: $2 a month. Come on.

John: Come on. We also sell packs of 50 episodes if you just want to buy those. They are at store.johnaugust.com.

Craig, lovely talking about all these things with you.

Craig: John, another great episode of Scriptnotes.

John: And I’ll talk to you next week.

Craig: Bye.

John: Bye.

  • Aladdin in theaters May 24th!
  • Chernobyl first episode on HBO May 6th.
  • Unvaccinated Boy Got Tetanus, and Ohio teen defies parents and gets vaccine.
  • Trump grounds Boeing 737 planes
  • Extreme Avalanches in Colorado and Bomb Cyclone Storm
  • Humblewood Campaign Setting for DND kickstarter
  • Why Humans started saying “f” and “v”
  • New Highland 2 videos and tutorials
  • We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
  • You can now order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon
  • Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session here.
  • T-shirts are available here! We’ve got new designs, including Colored Revisions, Karateka, and Highland2.
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Find past episodes
  • Scriptnotes Digital Seasons are also now available!
  • Outro by James Llonch and Jim Bond (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 391: When It’s All Said and Done Transcript

March 15, 2019 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](https://johnaugust.com/2019/when-its-all-said-and-done).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 391 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program we welcome back Aline Brosh McKenna to talk about what she learned producing four seasons of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend. We’ll also talk about Emma Thompson, agency-affiliated producers, and more.

But most importantly welcome back, Aline.

**Craig:** Yay.

**Aline Brosh McKenna:** Yay. Let’s do the happy dance. We’re dancing. We’re up. We’re dancing. We’re flipping.

**John:** I just saw a happy dance, because Aline on her laptop showed me a musical number that no one else in the world has scene, well except for everyone at CBS and everyone on her show. But I got to see a musical number from one of these upcoming episodes.

**Aline:** Yeah. Exciting.

**John:** It was a happy, upbeat number.

**Aline:** It was a beat, yes, indeed.

**John:** Yes. How are you feeling? Are you feeling happy and upbeat?

**Aline:** You know, we just literally – I’m coming from my last post. We delivered the episode to the network. We’ll probably have a few things. They don’t tend to have a ton. But we’ll probably have a few things to hammer out. And I’ve been struggling to like, you know, one of the things as a writer is learned to try and write not from my head but from my body. And it took me a long time because I was such a head/grades/homework person. And so now I’m trying to experience these things without like chewing them over in my brain too much and just sort of like feeling it in my body.

And I’ve slept a ton since we wrapped. The last bit of it was just chugging through Count of Monte Cristo like drawing Xs through days because it had gotten so physically taxing towards the end of shooting. Because what happens is we finish writing the season and then the next day we start prepping the finale, which I direct. And so the amount of focus that you have to have as a director, even though it’s a different kind of focus from writing, but switching from the kind of brain focus of writing into the physical discipline of directing–

**John:** The stamina.

**Aline:** Yeah. There’s a lot of physical elements to directing and just sort of keeping your energy up. And then you’re responsible for everybody else’s energy. And so that kind of buoyed me through that. And then we wrapped about three weeks ago and I’ve been – you know, we’ve still been in post. And it’s funny, this year – so our post facilities are on the same lot where we shoot. And every year it’s a very peaceful little time, a little during that hiatus. But this year we were wrapping – literally wrapping the lot. And so any sadness I had not processed really welled up because literally they were running the sets through a wood chipper and carting things off.

**Craig:** [laughs] Oh my god, that’s awesome.

**Aline:** Yeah. And so you’d see parts of our experience were literally being dumped in the garbage.

**Craig:** Wow.

**Aline:** And there was a day where we started sort of madly scavenging things because we wanted to save them and give them to people and there was no systematic way of doing that, because we’d been so focused on making the thing. I mean, our script coordinator, he posted a thing about, you know, in the last four seasons it’s 2,900 pages. You know, the amount of output is just staggering and I have to say 90% of what I was experiencing towards the end was like excitement about finishing my homework.

And I think I’m still in there, but I think it hasn’t – you know, the thing you take for granted as a screenwriter, which I like I’m just going to get up and go get one of those croissants with cream in it, and like try that before I start writing. When you’re doing a show you just – you know, one of the first things I did after we wrapped was I went to Rite Aid. And I walked through Rite Aid and I went like do I want this lip balm, or this lip balm. And it felt very human.

So, I’m entering the human realm again.

**Craig:** Yeah. You’re reentering.

**John:** You went through a whole campaign. Like a political campaign where your person got elected, which is fantastic, but now the next thing happens. Or college graduation.

**Aline:** Yeah. It’s an intense – it’s just that it’s a cycle of four years. And I think as screenwriters you’re accustomed to, you know, many years of development and then the shooting period is maybe an intense – with prep and everything – four or five months or something. But to have had, you know, on and off for five years been working on pretty much the one thing, I don’t think I’ve quite processed it.

**John:** Today let’s do some of that processing live on the air.

**Aline:** OK, great. I haven’t seen my therapist yet, so let’s do it.

**Craig:** I’ve got a beard. I’ve got the processing group beard, so I should be fine.

**John:** Should be good. Before we get to that let’s talk some stuff in the news. So, it was about a week and a half ago now Emma Thompson sent a letter to the folks at Skydance Animation. They had recently hired former Pixar chief John Lasseter to run their animation division. And Emma Thompson said basically I’m out. She was supposed to be doing this movie called Luck and she said, nope, not going to do it. And it’s because you hired John Lasseter.

There’s one paragraph in here which I thought was really sort of telling. She writes, “Much has been said about giving John Lasseter a ‘second chance.’ But he is presumably being paid millions of dollars to receive that second chance. How much money are the employees at Skydance being paid to GIVE him that second chance? If John Lasseter started his own company, then every employee would have been given the opportunity to choose whether or not to give him a second chance. But any Skydance employees who don’t want to give him a second chance have to stay and be uncomfortable or lose their jobs.” Which is really a great way of framing it to me that I don’t think I’ve seen in sort of any of this discussion of the #MeToo movement. It’s that he has a chance to sort of come into a company, but they don’t have a chance to sort of necessarily leave.

It’s that sense of like you have a choice of where you work but only to a limited degree. What was your first take on this letter as you read it, Aline?

**Aline:** Well, you know, what really strikes me is that we just as a society we have a completely different way of communicating in every way. There was a time when she could have written that letter and we never would have heard about it unless she had decided to give it to a newspaper or publish it in the trades or something. And what’s really struck me is in addition to the sort of social movement it’s inextricable from the social media that has allowed people to put their voice out there directly. And so all of the conversations that we’re having about what as a society we believe to be the norms and how people are supposed to respond to things are just not anymore mitigated by layers and layers and layers of slow-moving newspapers and magazines. Everything happens very instantly.

It just really struck me that, you know, somebody says something, she gives her opinion, you know, she speaks her truth, she says what’s important to her. It’s immediately disseminated to all of these people and we’re having conversations that we’ve never had before. And it’s really interesting that the voices are being heard as there’s these different means of communication. And that’s what I have been struck by is that, you know, anybody who has something that they want to say there’s just such an immediacy to these conversations in the culture right now.

**John:** Well it doesn’t seem like there’s a distinction between a private letter and a public letter.

**Aline:** No.

**John:** This was written with the understanding that it probably would be out there in the world.

**Aline:** Yeah. I mean, the analogous somewhat similar thing was, you know, our show is at CBS and there were a couple of things, you know, the Les Moonves investigation started. And then there were a couple moments where articles came out that were really disturbing. And I felt comfortable saying to the folks at CBS like this is – we’re uncomfortable. They knew the people who worked for them were uncomfortable. And I don’t know that in my career I ever would have felt comfortable saying to the corporation that I worked for like oh this is uncomfortable.

And, you know, we have all seen – we’ve talked about this on the show before – but we’ve all seen bad behavior, people that we knew were behaving badly. I did a movie at the Weinstein Company. But I never thought, I mean, truth be told I didn’t see the Harvey stuff that came out, but you know even though I did see Harvey be abusive I never felt like I’m going to call anybody there and say, “Hey, this guy is a raging rageaholic, treats people horribly.” You just kind of went, shrug.

And now when that Les thing came out I felt comfortable saying to the folks that I work with at CBS, you know, as women doing a feminist show this feels uncomfortable and they understood. I mean, the people that we were talking to understood. But I just – the whole conversation has changed dramatically everywhere, not just in our business, to this point where people feel really, really, really comfortable speaking out publicly.

**Craig:** Yeah, well, it’s like the great tradition of the open letter. You could write, I mean, look, she put this in the Los Angeles Times, so that’s kind of old school, but the difference is where you would write an open letter to blah-blah-blah and have it printed in something like the Los Angeles Times, the people who would know about it would be the people who read the Los Angeles Times. And if they wanted to share it with somebody they would have to show them their copy of the Los Angeles Times.

**Aline:** Or like clip it. Remember when you used to get clips from your parents?

**John:** Absolutely.

**Craig:** Yeah. Exactly. Send you in the mail, like, look you were in the paper. So no question that social media amplifies voices. But I want to give Emma Thompson a certain kind of – maybe it’s a credit that other people wouldn’t give her – but we’re a show about writers. It was beautifully written. She’s such a good writer.

**Aline:** She really is.

**Craig:** People forget that Emma Thompson is such a good writer. Really, really great. Maybe – I don’t know, I hope people don’t forget how good she is at writing.

So it was gorgeously written and I personally appreciated that a lot of what she was talking about didn’t shy away from the topic of money. I think that we sometimes get a little squeamish about money. Sometimes people look at something like this and say, “You’re diminishing the principled argument by talking about the notion that people should be paid.” And the fact of the matter is that’s what people who don’t want to pay you want you to think.

Right? Because quietly John Lasseter is getting paid. And her point is, you know what, the people who are here they’re not getting some sort of John Lasseter hazard pay. Nor are they having a chance to say, “Listen, I don’t want to work with John Lasseter, so I’m going to leave, but you should still keep paying me because I didn’t hire this guy.”

**Aline:** Do you think it would have been different if John Lasseter had started his own company and therefore every employee there would have had a choice?

**Craig:** Of course.

**Aline:** As to whether – it would have been different.

**Craig:** Of course.

**John:** It would have been different.

**Craig:** No question.

**Craig:** That’s the point that Emma Thompson makes in the letter is that like if he had started his own – I think she even says in other places in the letter that she believes that a person can turn a new leaf and you can give people chances, but it has to be on the terms where you’re voluntarily going towards them rather than them being hired on as your boss.

And, you know, I remember during this last presidential campaign someone asked like, well, Trump how would you feel if Ivanka was being sexually harassed. And like, “Well, I’m sure she’d leave. I’m sure she’d quit.” That as being a solution to the problem of sexual harassment is absurd.

**Aline:** Privilege.

**John:** And is incredibly privileged.

**Craig:** Well, there you go. I think that Emma Thompson is an example of somebody that has that privilege and is using it on behalf of people who don’t. This is very admirable. And because of course she’s wealthy. She doesn’t need to do this job. She can walk without suffering these tremendous consequences.

And also you can’t quietly blacklist Emma Thompson. But if you are dealing with – and remember, animation is not union. So, there’s already a kind of inherent potential for abuse. And I would argue that that potential is realized frequently if not all the time. So you have people who can absolutely be put in situations where simply by speaking out and saying I don’t want to do this their reputation can be quietly tarnished to the point where it’s hard for them to get work somewhere else.

So she’s using her privilege here in a wonderful way. And she did it kind of super smartly I thought. I don’t know, I just thought this was a really well done – it was a well-written and also well-argued point.

**Aline:** I wanted to ask you guys a question. I’ve noticed that the letters of protest and the letters of accusation and the letters of pain that people have written have been gorgeously written. And all of the apologies have been terrible.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Terrible. I mean, we have yet to see – I’m still waiting for an apology that is an apology.

**John:** Well, we talked about the Dan Harmon one which wasn’t written but was a spoken apology and that was–

**Craig:** That wasn’t bad.

**John:** The distinction between is it was an apology that was actually accepted and it had an intention and it was accepted as an apology and people could sort of move on past it. And I agree with you though. I think the folks who are putting their thoughts together about what happened and why it was wrong do so very articulately and the folks trying to defend themselves, maybe because there is no great defense for it, do not come up with really coherent explanations. Because they try to explain it away rather than trying to take it in and understand it and address it. And that’s the frustration.

**Craig:** It’s hard to apologize. Because the best apology is the one that is personal. It is face to face with the person you’ve heart. These kind of ritualized public apologies are already very difficult to pull off because they feel so calculated. They are calculated. And so–

**Aline:** Just none of them have followed any of the principles of apology.

**Craig:** Correct. [laughs] Because I think that partly they are doing it reluctantly. You get the sense that they’re being dragged in there to say in front of the principal I’m sorry that I wrote on the desk with the Sharpie. They just, you can tell. And then some of them just aren’t apologetic in any way, shape, or form. Bill Cosby and Harvey, yeah, unrepentant.

**John:** Yeah. The last point I will say we talked about Emma Thompson has the privilege to be able to turn down this job. I do wonder how many writers and artists and actors are being approached to do stuff at this company and are passing and they can’t say why they’re passing, but they’re finding excuses to not do it. Because this is a thing we see in TV and movies all the time where like you get that pass, like oh they’re busy, they’re finding another excuse for why they’re not doing it. But I do wonder if ultimately Skydance Animation is very much hurt by Lasseter’s being there because talent may silently choose not to go there, even if they’re not writing the letter that Emma Thompson is they may be making their own choice like I don’t want to be associated with it.

**Aline:** Well there’s a meta conversation happening in the entire culture now. There’s sort of this thread of conversation about events that are happening but also about pieces of culture, you know, television shows and movies and books are all surrounded by this little buzzing orb of conversation about them as well. And so it’s interesting when you see the reaction to certain movies like Green Book where people feel like the context was insufficient.

It’s hard for things to exist on their own, for business deals to exist on their own. Everything is now again webbed together because of the instantaneity of our culture.

**John:** Yeah. So let’s segue here. You made it through four seasons of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend without – I can’t think of any sort of major horrific things happening.

**Craig:** Give her time. Give her time. There’s still some time left.

**John:** There was a scary thing that happened quite early on about where the show was going to end up, but at any moment you could have had some – an actor or some crew member or some writer do something that attracted negative attention and have a whole spotlight on it, but you managed to dodge that. So congratulations. I don’t want to jinx it because your final episodes are still left to air, but congratulations.

But before we get into your exit interview where we talk about what you did and what you learned, I thought we’d go back to 2014 when you came on the show. This is December 2014, Episode 175. It was the 12 Days of Scriptnotes. And you came on along with Rachel and you described this new show you were going to do. And so let’s take a listen to what you said about the show well before it aired.

[flashback]

**John:** So you did what we’re all told we should be doing is you actually went off and you made a TV show.

**Aline:** Yes. Well, that was not intentional at all. And I think we’ve maybe talked about this before. I had done TV at the beginning of my career and I was not looking to go back at all. And every once and awhile somebody would ask me, but this idea of just going in to TV to do TV, which a lot of features do, feature writers do. They just kind of wander over there because it’s there and people say it’s groovy, I wasn’t interested in.

And then in my procrastination I was on Jezebel and I saw a — yup, which I know you guys are all on.

**Craig:** Totally. Yeah.

**Aline:** And I clicked on the animated video of a satiric take on Disney princesses with this amazing singer. And I went to see who had done this thing and you obviously can’t see who — I didn’t realize that the person who wrote it was also singing. And then I got bumped to her other videos and it was written and sung by Rachel Bloom. So, I went to — she has a YouTube Channel.

**Craig:** If only she were here!

**Aline:** And I went to Rachel’s YouTube Channel and I watched all the videos and I got really excited. And I called my best friend, who is my actual best friend, not my showbiz best friend, but my actual best friend Kate who works in showbiz, who works for a television studio and I said you’re going to love this, I know you’re going to love these. This girl is amazing. You should meet with her. So, we had a meeting with her and she’s, in the videos Rachel is very like sexy and super-hot.

**Craig:** But in reality —

**John:** Yeah, there was a conjunction coming that was not going to be your friend.

**Aline:** I was expecting, well, I was expecting like someone from the planet Glamazon, like I was expecting a very actressy thing to show up. And she showed up and in my mind she was wearing cargo pants, which she does not own, so she claims she wasn’t wearing them. But she was wearing sort of like jeans and a t-shirt.

**Craig:** Is that bad?

**Aline:** And she was wearing like what Craig wears.

**Craig:** Well, that sounds pretty great.

**Aline:** [laughs] So, she came in and I could see right away that she was like a writer girl, you know, and she’s also an amazing actor, and singer, and all of these things. But in her heart of hearts she’s really a writer girl.

[flashback ends]

**John:** 2014. So, now, Aline, we’re now in 2019. If you could travel back five years and give yourself some advice to the woman who was sitting there planning this show what could you tell her? What were the things that would have helped if you had known?

**Aline:** Well, it’s interesting. I remember that I thought the show was dead because we had given it to Showtime. We had our first notes call and, you know, the three of us have been in the business a long time. I knew two sentences into it that we were screwed and she did not because she thought they just had some notes and we would fix it. And I just knew they weren’t going to pick it up.

And so I remember thinking when we were on the show I got to make sure as many people as possible know who Rachel Bloom is. And the thing I was happy about was that we had made a $4.5 million audition tape for Rachel. And so I knew that even if it never got picked up that people would see her and see how extraordinary she is.

You know, there are a lot of things that I wish I had known, but I couldn’t have known them before I did them. And before I experienced them. And so neither of us had run a show before. And, you know, the smartest thing that we did was surround ourselves with people who could help us and give us advice and listen to them. And in our writers’ room we had two other executive producers when we started. One was Erin Ehrlich and the other one is Michael Hitchcock.

And they had both done a lot of television and they just were so helpful to me in particular about running a room and doing all the other stuff and how that could all be done. And frankly also they just put their bodies on the line. Any moment from season one that I wasn’t on set, and I couldn’t be on set for most of it because I was running the room, Erin and Michael alternated every single episode. So, producers go on set, but the rest of our writing-producing staff was sort of inexperienced. And so in subsequent seasons they would cover their episodes on their own. And now they’re all like super experienced and they’re all sailing off into the world. But Michael and Erin covered every bit of the first season on set for me.

**John:** So just imagining the advice you’re giving to your younger self, it’s to hire really carefully. And so you were looking for the people you want to be around all the time who actually know what they’re doing.

**Aline:** Well, this is where being judgmental came in handy.

**John:** Oh god, yes.

**Aline:** Yeah. Snap judgments. I mean, we had the same writing staff all four years pretty much. And I think that I did a good job of choosing people because I was an older lady who really trusted my gut about people. I think when you’re younger you think, well, I’m not sure I feel – it’s the same thing of head and body. You know, sometimes when you’re younger you just feel, I don’t know if I feel comfortable with this person but my head is looking at their resume and they’re saying…

And so I had learned to sort of like trust my gut on people. And I learned a lot about the process. It’s interesting. You know, I went into doing that show, a lot of it was that I wanted to protect Rachel. Like physically protect and protect her work. And, you know, protect her schedule. And for whatever reason that was something outside of myself that was like a non-selfish act that really drove me the whole time. And I would say towards the end Rachel would be like, “I’m OK.” You know, she had learned to sort of do some of those things for herself and figure out her comfort level. But there was something about that maternal role that I played that really drove myself in.

I’m trying to think of something really important that I learned.

**John:** It’s natural instinct to be maternal, to be paternal, and yet you don’t want to undermine somebody. You want to make sure that people actually have the ability to make their own decisions at all times. And that’s a think I’ve seen with the two of you being really good about. And so even over the time that I’ve known you I would say that I see you more in a sisterly/colleague way and less of a mom/daughter.

**Aline:** Yeah. It’s changed. So here in the thing I would say that I learned how to do the most is I really learned how to listen. Because Rachel and I are not partners. I mean, we have a certain percentage of the time where we are like eerily in agreement. But then we have I would say maybe more than most partners, because we both came from being like single authors, we disagree because we come from such different backgrounds.

And I really learned to shut up and listen. And Rachel after a while would say to me, “How open is your mind?” And that’s a helpful thing to say to me because, you know, I would just like – and just today she wanted to change something, my first reaction was like, no, I’m not going to like that. And I just took a breath and she did it with the editor and I watched it and I liked it. And I’ve learned to – you know, you build such a carapace of such a thorny exoskeleton as a screenwriter and television is just so collaborative. I mean, movies are, too, but television you can’t possibly do it all yourself. And so I really learned to listen much better.

Really learned to like – and part of listening is shutting up.

**Craig:** Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. That’s exactly right. It is a practice that will punish you if you are in a situation where you must listen to somebody that you don’t respect. Somebody that’s frustrating. I’ve been in that situation many, many times. But it is a situation that will reward you endlessly if you trust that person. It all comes down to trust.

So, what happens is someone says something and if you trust them instead of freaking out and going oh my god let me just catastrophize, because if I am subject to doing what you just said I’m going to basically want to drive my car off of the cliff.

**Aline:** Right.

**Craig:** But if you trust that person then you can just relax. You can listen. You can hear them out. And you know what? Sometimes they’re wrong, too, and they’ll trust you.

**Aline:** Oh yeah.

**Craig:** But you don’t have that panic. The panic is the worst.

**Aline:** Yeah. And we did learn to be better, but also to say, “Hey, this person is really passionate about this, so I’m going to listen extra hard.”

There were a few practical things that I can pass on. I stopped watching cuts before I went to bed. Because I would watch cuts and I would get really upset about something not being right. And there was – it was 11 o’clock at night and there was no one there for me to say do we have this coverage, do we have that, but do we have a two-shot, do you have an over here?

And so I stopped watching them at night and then I stopped watching them at home the first time. So the first time I always watched it with the writer of the episode and the editor. And the writer of the episode had been there on set. And that way I could say, oh, OK, this isn’t working. Do you have this? Do you have that? And they could tell me in real time whether they had it or not so that I could make the plan.

Because I would watch cuts at night and then I would sleep unbelievably – and it would always be a jagged dream that partly had the episode. You know, a lot of what you have to learn how to do is turn your brain off. It’s like being a parent. You can’t run a show if you’re depleted and miserable. You can’t parent if you’re depleted and miserable. And sometimes there’s just things that are not going to happen and are not going to be perfect. You know, my husband always says, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” You know, there’s just moments where you’d have to say that’s good enough, I’m turning this off, I’m turning this in. You know, this is fine.

And other places where you’re going to strive for excellence and for me it was always the writing was where I tried to – and the editing, frankly – are the ones where I tried to maximize the amount of shots we got at something. So let’s rewrite it again. Let’s do another room. Let’s take a few people.

And then the other thing I learned is I had a staff of 10 people the first season and we all held hands and walked around together the entire time for 18 episodes. We were all limbs entwined sitting around a table the whole time. And it took me a long time to figure out how to split my room, so that some people were outlining and some people were in the room with me. And then I developed a system of doing room rewrites with only three to five people. And Erin really encouraged me to do that. That was very helpful.

Another tip I will give. If you are in charge of starting a new pilot, a new television show, a new movie that you’re directing or producing or whatever, make t-shirts. I’m a big believer in this. We did a pilot. We had a very short prep time, very short shooting time. And everybody when they got there got a t-shirt because you’re trying to build school spirit very quickly. And at the end of the season everyone was exhausted this season and I bought t-shirts for everyone that had, “I’m not sad, you’re sad,” and some quotes from the songs for a finale t-shirt. Now, I’m saying a lot of people did not care, but for some people it’s just that little extra bit – any school spirit you can find. Bringing donuts to the office. Finding extra fun things to do so that when people are there they are still – we all got into show business because we wanted to have a fun job and not what we thought of as a boring job. And so it’s good when you can to preserve that feeling of – and it also sort of plays against my slight natural taciturn-ness.

**John:** So, I think we talked about this on the show before that I did a TV show right after Go, and so this is ‘99/2000. And I had a genuine nervous breakdown. The world just melted down around me and I got fired after three episodes as I got off the plane. And I was just so relieved. And so hearing you talk through this stuff it’s both triggering but it also helps me recognize how I really couldn’t have known how to do that. Like I didn’t have – I didn’t have any training, but I didn’t have any life experience about how to deal with other people and sort of what the expectations where.

So, I didn’t surround myself with people I trusted. I didn’t listen to my gut on those situations about who I was hiring, where we were doing this, logistically how it was going to be possible. And I couldn’t do what you’re doing in terms of prioritizing which of the jobs are going to be my jobs and which of the jobs are better left to somebody else. And so I was trying to cover set while also writing and also being in the editing room and thinking about music.

**Aline:** People do that. Someone was telling me about somebody who like there are frequently people who are on set all day and then have their writers’ room start really late or go to editing at 8pm. And you have to make as many decisions as you can, not because – this is the thing that I think is not quite visible to people is that having one person approving things is not there because that person is so amazing. It’s because it’s the military and you need to just ask one person. And it’s like you can’t, you know, costumes can’t be in a situation where they have to ask five people because you’ll slow down the process and speed costs money, and money is opportunity to do cool things.

And so I’m very decisive so that was good for me in terms of like costumes, props, sets, locations. That’s pretty easy for me to make decisions. And I learned when to loop Rachel in, like if it was important for her to look at a costume. But a lot of the times it’s like someone’s jeans and leather jacket. It was fine.
I’m a systems-oriented person. My dad is an engineer. And so the other thing I would say is like when you go into any new process just rigorously applying trial and error. Like this worked for this episode, this didn’t. This thing worked, this didn’t. I was not accustomed to being the locust of power. I did not understand what was happening half the time. So, I did not understand that people were nice to me who were not being nice to other people. I’d never experienced that before.

**Craig:** Isn’t that weird? That’s a weird one, yeah.

**Aline:** I did not know that was happening.

**Craig:** It happens.

**Aline:** Yeah. So it happened a few times my experience with someone was completely different than other people’s experience with someone. So I learned that you kind of half to poke around and ask and sort of check in about other people’s experience of things. And also because you want your writers to tell you when they don’t like something. You want people to come to you when they have an issue. But I’m not still totally used to the thing of people sort of moving around you in a way where you’re disrupting molecules because of your authority. I think for me anyway, I can’t speak to everyone, one of the things I tried to do was take down those barriers as much as I could so that people, actors, department heads, people felt comfortable saying to me, “I need help here, or I have an issue here,” because as a screenwriter you know you have smart things to say and maybe no one has asked you. And I know that all these people have tremendous expertise.

The flip side of that is sometimes you just don’t have time. And sometimes you’re just taking the hill and so you’re going – black pants Thursday, you know, five o’clock, no to this actor, yes to – you don’t have time always to check in with people. But as much as possible I tried to amplify the voices and try to listen to people as much as I could. And that took like EQ to figure out.

And also everyone who works on the show knows that I loved it when someone took something over. You know, like when one of the producers on the episode – like what’s the timeline of this? Be like ask the producer. I was always looking for things that other people could supervise.

**John:** Could figure out for you.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** Well, so, but this is your first time also supervising a whole group of writers. So I want to talk about the writing itself. Craig when he went off to do Chernobyl he just wrote the whole thing himself. And it would have been impossible for you to have written the whole thing yourself, or for you and Rachel to do the whole thing together. Even when it was the smaller Showtime order you would have had to bring in a staff.

So, how hard was it to have control over those first drafts – I know you were always like the last typewriter. Everything went underneath your fingers. How do you give that up? And how do you also coach a writer who is not getting something or not getting some aspect of the voice of the show?

**Aline:** Well, you know, a lot of showrunners I talked to said that they really struggle with getting drafts in that they could use. And I always put myself in the shoes of the writers. We were all learning the voice of the show. We were all learning what the stories were going to be like. We were all learning how our act breaks were going to go. So, I didn’t expect people to be like nailing it perfectly. I expected those drafts to make a contribution in terms of testing the story that had been broken in the room. And I encouraged the writers to check in with me if they felt that something fundamentally wasn’t working.

I expected to get some good character moments and jokes and lines out of the drafts. But I always knew that the drafts were going to come into the room at some point. So, I was always in a gratitude space about whatever was handed to me. And we all got better at writing episodes over time as we identified the voice of the show and the pace of the storytelling. We all got better. And so it got better over time.

I mean, I felt and feel so privileged. If I talk about this long enough I will cry. I feel so privileged to have worked with this group of people. This is an exceptionally smart, brilliant, helpful, loving group of people. And when we would hire assistants I would always say you’re not going to be able to figure out who the nicest person in this group is, because everyone is so nice. They just were lovely to the office staff. They were so helpful and supportive of me.

And also just so brilliant and hilarious. And to me, to have a draft and put it up, whether I had started it, or Rachel had started it, or Rachel and I had started it together, or someone else had written it, to put pages up and then have between five and 10 people weigh in and be brilliant and give notes and shout out jokes, I mean, what a privilege. And they’re an exceptional group. I mean, we two people have their own shows already that graduated from our show. One person is on Mrs. Maisel. And then one of our writers went to The Simpsons because Selman asked me if I had anybody. That part of it was just an enormous privilege. That was my sanctuary, that room.

And then another thing I did that might be helpful for showrunners is that, so my screen was always up at all times because we were writing. And then I also did all my approvals while they were there. Because if I waited all day to approve costumes and props and all that stuff every department would be crazy. So I would just throw up the emails and say, “Look at this prop, look at this costume.” So they all did it with me and that’s one of the reasons we have so many showrunners coming off our show.

I made sure that everybody on their episode was in every meeting, every production meeting, concept meeting, on set. And then while we were writing I would say this production, what do you guys think? What do you guys think? We’d put up the casting videos. You know, I’m very opinionated so sometimes I ignored them and sometimes people would get annoyed, but I think everyone appreciated the access.

**John:** Everyone saw what the job of showrunner was. And so they could imagine themselves doing that job.

**Aline:** Yes. So even our staff writer now has her own show. And she, you know, saw those decisions being made on the fly every day. That also means they saw every email and text message that came up in four years, so they managed to only see one sexy email from my husband.

**Craig:** I’ve seen way more sexy emails from your husband than that.

**Aline:** Yeah right. My desktop is messy and one of our writers, Jack, it drove him nuts because my system for saving things was to throw them in the trash.

**Craig:** Oh my god! No!

**Aline:** Yeah. So I basically any time I was done with a draft or whatever I would throw it in the trash. And then if I needed it I would search and sometimes it would be in the trash.

**Craig:** Can you just please quickly take John’s pulse. Is he OK? [laughs]

**Aline:** You should talk to Jack. It made him insane. And also on my text files I would start to text someone but not finish the text, which means that on the left side–

**Craig:** They’ve got the bloop-bloop-bloop.

**Aline:** Well, they would be half open and nothing on there. And he would be like you just have to delete those. I can’t look at it. Because I’m organized but not fastidious. So every single writer in that room looked at my screen, my computer screen, for five years. And, you know, it is like being a parent. I’m not perfect. I hope I did a good job. I love them tremendously. See, I told you I was going to cry. I think I did as much as I could right. I’m sure I did some stuff wrong. But everybody there knew how much I valued them. And, you know, I just feel extraordinarily privileged.

And then at the end – so I made, it was four years, so I made everybody letterman jackets for senior year. And it has the name of our whole staff, which is again the same people the whole time, and their names. And then a little saying of whatever they said the most in the room. And so, of course, Rachel said, “How open is your mind?” And one of our writers, who is a vegetarian, would often order in the thing that she got, she hated, and so her patch said, “This is just a pile of lettuce.” Because when you order a salad and you’re a vegetarian and they take all the stuff off it, you just end up with a pile of lettuce.

**Craig:** [laughs] It’s a pile of lettuce.

**Aline:** So, going back to – I started writing, I’m doing a movie for Netflix, so I started writing a screenplay on my own. It’s exhilarating and I’m loving it, and I’m making a big mess and no one is asking me any questions. And I’ve already written the first scene, and I wrote the last scene. And then I wrote a set piece in the middle. I’m doing it in whatever order I want to do and no one is asking me any questions. You know, but I miss them. So I feel liberated. It’s so much like parenting. You hope that you do a good job. You know you’re not perfect. And then, you know, then they leave home and you’re left on your own. But then you can pick your own Netflix shows.

**John:** Yeah.

**Aline:** Do you know what I’m saying?

**John:** That’s nice. Aline, as you know I’ve seen every episode of your show. I just love it. And it’s been a delight to do Q&As with you and other stuff along the way. But I think I’m especially happy that you got to do it on your own terms. That you got the four seasons. You got to sort of enter where you wanted to, exit where you wanted to, and sort of do the whole thing. That you’re not at this moment thinking like, “Oh, what if they pick us up for another season?” You got closure. And so often in TV there isn’t closure, at least not classically in TV. There’s no closure. The chance to land the plane. And I’m so excited that you got that.

**Aline:** Well, now that we’re saying that, this is an opportunity for me to publicly – a shout out to CBS and CW. You know, writer things – we spend so much time shitting on executives, but Kate Adler, Amanda Palley, Amy Reisenbach, David Staff, Michael Roberts, Tracy Blackwell, Mark Pedowitz. I could go on and on. But those were the ones who dealt with the scripts. But I could go on and on. We had extraordinary support. The PR teams. The casting. The ethos of everyone making the show was like this is one that we get to do for fun. This is one we get to do the right way.

And you know what? It was so lowly rated that we just did not have those pressures that you have when you have a successful show. Like nobody was asking us to hump anything weird because they just – there’s nobody watching it anyway. It’s such a niche thing. Netflix is made for niche things. We go to Netflix a week after we stop airing. So in some ways that’s how people consume the show. And I got to say I can’t stress enough that the executives gave us total freedom and Mark Pedowitz said to us when we went there, “Never pull yourself back. If we need to pull you back we’ll do it. But never pull yourselves back.”

**John:** That’s great. All right, changing topics, so two weeks ago we had Chris Keyser on the show and we talked through the agency agreement. So we’re in the middle of trying to figure out this agency agreement. And we talked through the difference between packaging, attaching elements to things, and the problem of packaging fees.

But a thing we didn’t get into very much is the rise of these agencies as producers. And so there are two big production companies that are affiliated with agencies. So there’s Wiip which is affiliated CAA, and Endeavor Content which is associated with WME. And a question that’s been coming up a lot this week is like, “Wait, do you want those things to go away?” And to me, no. I want those things to stay. I want more buyers.

It’s the thing we talked a lot about on the show is that as studios keep consolidating down smaller and smaller there’s fewer buyers for things. When you and I started in the industry there were 10 places you could go with a spec script and it’s just gotten narrower and narrower and narrower. So, we want to have all those places that are buyers but we need to figure out a way to sort of get those places to not be conflicted with their agencies.

Have you faced any pressure to go to one of those places, Aline?

**Aline:** You know, I just don’t – I have not interacted with this a ton. And I’ve not been approached, but that’s partly because I’ve also been in a convent.

**John:** Yeah. You’ve been locked away for four years. Craig, do you get approached to do anything at Wiip?

**Craig:** No. And I – I’m not sure that we do need them, I mean, just to push back a little bit. There are more buyers now than I recall before. I mean, there’s still the traditional studio producers, talking about television but also for movies, but we also have Hulu, we also have Amazon, we also have Apple, we also have Netflix. Netflix on its own is buying more content than I think everybody else combined. So, I don’t know if we do need them.

And my question ultimately about Wiip and what’s it called, Endeavor Content, is I guess what I would say is – I know the answer, really, it’s rhetorical, but why? The only reason they’re doing this, literally, is money. Now I know that sounds absurdly naïve for me to say. Of course it’s money. But, you know, you can do a lot of different things to make money. If you really want to make, I think we’ve said this on the show before, get into hedge funds. You’ll make way more money way more reliably. What is the purpose? If the purpose of an agency is to gather people who love advocating for artists and getting them employment and putting things together to see these things happen and making deals, all the stuff that I can imagine would attract somebody to the agency business, why do they also need to do this? It just feels like pointless greed. Like they looked at a number and said, “You know, we could make money. And there’s a lot of money coming in from overseas. Let’s just take some of it and we’ll just make things. And we’ll put this flimsy little paper screen between ourselves and this so that, you know, we can essentially say the agency doesn’t control the production company and the production company doesn’t control he agency.”

But as we said when we were discussing this topic with Chris, what possible thing could these companies have to offer investors other than we also represent a lot of clients you might want?

**John:** Yeah. So, I’ll play devil’s advocate here. I think you could argue that they know their clients. They know the deals that their clients could get other places and they’re able to get them better deals than they would get other places. And so that’s a true thing I’ve heard from some writers who have made projects at these places is that they’ve gotten a better backend definition than they would get other places because they can, because they can offer them that.

There’s always the question of like, you know, would any other bunch of money-chasing talent offer those better back ends just to get the talent to do stuff there? I mean, the same way that Amazon and Netflix are offering better money for writers in some cases than other places are. I wonder and I worry that you have these two companies doing that and any other money that wants to chase after that talent they knock on CAA’s door saying, “Hey, I want to hire this client.” It’s like, well, yeah, or we could do this with you. We could do this with you through Endeavor Content. It gets back to the problem of, yeah, in that gate-keeping function they’re also kind of funneling everything to their own projects. It’s like they have a first look deal with all their clients.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, you couldn’t come up with a more classic conflict of interest than this. I mean, they could teach this in business school. It is the definition of a conflict of interest. That’s the part that I just find so shocking. I mean, you can call it Wiip if you want, but what it is is CAA. At least Endeavor they stuck their name in there. They didn’t even bother.

It’s just a classic conflict of interest. And, by the way, what shows does Wiip produce? I don’t even know.

**John:** I don’t know either. I’m sure it’s a good list.

**Craig:** Do we need them?

**Aline:** I just think we should not stop until every single person in the world has a production company, music festival, podcast. Where everybody has some side hustle. We’re like the side hustle generation.

**John:** I think right now in 2019 maybe we’re all content creators. But until we’re all our own networks and all our own studios – maybe that’s our real goal. So, maybe Aline next you shouldn’t think like what’s the next TV show you’re going to do. Because you’re thinking of like what is the TV company that you’re going to found.

**Aline:** Well, what I think is hilarious, you know, the Fyre Fest thing which those movies have been so riveting, and then there’s the Theranos thing which frankly I can’t get enough of. There’s this sense now in the culture that like you don’t have to do a thing, you just have to super seem like you’re doing a thing.

**John:** Oh yeah, for sure.

**Aline:** And people seem to like perform their tasks and their lives and their parenting and their dog-owning and their relationships more than they have them. And some of the things now with the podcasts and everybody has a production company and everyone is streaming and everyone is like – I wonder if it will all go back to people having sort of an artisanal where like all they do is making the one product. But I feel like we’re all being called upon in our lives to be presenting this like 360 fully realized, which is how people can start fake companies based on nothing and keep them going for an incredibly long time because it goes back to what we were talking about before which is like I don’t know how you could – you know, before it would be like people who print business cards that queued to nothing. Well now you can do full social media onslaughts and have, you know, entire – the Theranos lady got money from every single man with a million dollars she got a million dollars from based on turtlenecks, blonde hair, deep voice, and like–

**Craig:** The deep voice is my favorite.

**Aline:** It’s the best.

**Craig:** The fake deep voice. I love that.

**Aline:** It’s the best. And then also like just a good patter. And I think that everybody wants to be in everything.

**John:** Yeah. I mean–

**Craig:** Sociopaths gonna sociopath.

**John:** I mean, both Fyre Festival and Theranos they feel like amazing pieces of performance art. And so if you take them as that rather than businesses that hurt people, as performance art bravo. Give them some awards. Where are their awards?

I often feel like Ryan Reynolds deserves some sort of special Oscar for marketing or ability to promote himself, promote the products. You look at how he promoted the Deadpool movies, they were masterful. And Deadpool was as much the marketing of Deadpool as the movie itself. I loved the movies, but his ability to engage as that character was spectacular.

You found Rachel off of her YouTube videos. So just to think about she had a sense.

**Aline:** Oh yeah. And, look, a lot of it is for the good. A lot of this unmitigated content, like I just bought a book and optioned a book and the way I got to the author was I followed her on Twitter, she followed me back, I message her. And then we went through official channels. But now more and more I reach out to people directly the way I did with Rachel and then move on to the red phase. But you’ve had that personal connection. And that’s why I think that – it’s like anything. Much of it is for the good. Some of it is just complete hell scape. Humans are humans. And if you read Sapiens it explains a lot.

**John:** With your book thing I wanted to – a writer I was talking to this last week, she was saying that she was optioning a book. And so she told her agent, oh, I read this book that’s really great. It’s kind of out of print in the US, but it’s a British author. And the agent said, “Oh, no, no, no, let us deal with that and we’ll rep the rights for you and we’ll put it together as a package with you and the book and the rights and so you won’t have to spend any money.” And I asked her like well how much would the option have really been? My guess is the option was either a dollar or a thousand dollars. It wasn’t a big book.

And so now this agency has a package with her and this book and all this stuff and it’s like I don’t think that helped you. I don’t think that really gave her any extra hands. Because when you say you’re buying this book, you’re forming a relationship with this author and then ultimately you’ll set it up together. But you’re not giving your agency the power to do all this stuff.

**Aline:** Yeah. I mean, I’ve driven a lot of my own business historically. I mean, my TV agent now is like extremely helpful. And I’ve had very, very helpful agents along the way. And I was with someone for 17 years. And agents are great and they offer a lot of value and they open a lot of doors. But ultimately we’re all chasing our own stuff.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Yeah. All right. It’s come time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a streaming show, because all things are streaming shows these things. It’s a Very English Scandal.

**Aline:** Oh, I loved it.

**John:** On Amazon Prime. It’s just great. And so it happened months and months ago, but I missed it. But now I can see it. So it’s Ben Whishaw, Hugh Grant. They’re both fantastic. Russell T. Davis wrote it. Directed by Stephen Frears. And what someone was pointing out today as I talked about it is that it’s only the three episodes – it’s just three episodes – is like 180 minutes. It’s actually shorter than many movies. And so as we’re talking about what sort of like what is a TV series, what is a movie, I got to kind of say you can really look at it as a movie that comes in three parts.

**Aline:** I think Frears is 78.

**John:** That old? Wow. That’s great.

**Aline:** I think. 77 or something. He’s amazing. He’s one of my favorites. In terms of directors who have style, that it’s both gorgeous and signature and invisible, he’s really one of my favorites. He did The Queen. I love Frears.

**John:** So I went into it expecting The Queen. I went into it expecting a serious drama, so I had no idea how funny it was going to be. And it was great.

**Aline:** Yeah.

**John:** Craig, what do you got?

**Craig:** I’ve got a game. You know I’m endlessly looking for something to fill the space that used to be filled by The Room, The Room 2, The Room 3, The Room 4. So there’s this other game called Birdcage. It’s very simple. It’s Room-like though in that you are presented with a little puzzle that’s very tactile, move levers, solve some puzzles, flip a switch. But each stage is basically a bird is in this elaborate trapped birdcage and you have to go around the birdcage and solve the puzzles and flip the things and eventually open up the birdcage and the bird gets out.

So, Birdcage 2 is out. God, I don’t know, I assume it’s like three bucks or something like that. It’s not expensive. Totally worth your while. Easy to play. It’s in levels so it’s a super casual game for your phone or iPad. Loved it.

**John:** Loved it. Cool. Aline?

**Aline:** I have a tip. You know how when you get a dog you get obsessed with other dogs that look like your dog?

**John:** Totally.

**Aline:** Right? And like it’s all you want to do is look at pictures of dogs that look like your dog. So we got a Jack Wawa, which is like not a dog that we had any interest in.

**John:** Like a Jack Russell/Chihuahua—

**Aline:** It’s a Jack Russell/Chihuahua mix.

**John:** It’s a great dog.

**Aline:** And it really was happenstance that I went to a shelter actually with Rachel and then I dove into this pit with her and I came up with a little tiny, which Will didn’t want and was not a kind of dog I’d ever been interested in. So then of course now I’m obsessed with Jack-Wawas.

So if you go on Instagram any breed that you’re into that’s your particular mix, #Jackwawa really is one of the most soothing things that I do on Instagram is to follow other dogs that look like Jimmy. Quite enjoyable. My whole family does it. Rachel follows it, whatever her dog thing is which I think is Border Terrier. And it’s just a delight.

And then we have all these other dogs that we look at and we’re like how much does this one look like Jimmy. This one is like Jimmy but is just completely white. This one is like Jimmy but less furry. This is just hours of enjoyment.

**John:** I’m so happy you have a dog.

**Aline:** That has been my other One Cool Thing of my whole – I mean, it’s crazy that – like I’m going to explain to you what’s good about having a dog. Like I just realized what’s good about having a dog.

**Craig:** We know.

**John:** Dogs are good. We all have dogs.

**Craig:** The greatest.

**John:** Some wrap up stuff from me. If you are not sick of hearing my voice, I just recorded 23 videos about Highland and sort of how to do different things in Highland2. So they’re little tutorial things. So if you’re curious about how to do stuff in Highland2 there will be a link in the show notes pointing you towards those things.

Also I’m trying to hire another coder. So we have Nima Yousefi who is our main coder, but we’re hiring somebody in sort of – not an intern. It’s like a full on paid job, but it would be a great job for somebody who is in college, just out of college, who does some iOS coding. There’s a job description we’ll put in the show notes. But we need somebody to do some work on an iOS app for us, and that might be a listener.

**Aline:** Black turtleneck, low voice.

**John:** 100%. That’s how you recruit them. I’m not looking for VC money. I’m just looking for a person who can code.

**Craig:** But definitely lower your voice.

**John:** Lower your voice.

**Craig:** Lower your voice.

**John:** And that’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Victor Krause and I picked it because it kind of reminds me of the 90210 theme.

**Craig:** Aw.

**Aline:** Aw.

**John:** Yeah. So Luke Perry died this past week. I never met him. Did anybody meet him?

**Craig:** No.

**Aline:** No. He was married to someone I know and by all accounts is a lovely person.

**John:** By all accounts was just lovely. And so I feel so bad for them, for the family.

**Craig:** It’s so tragic.

**John:** For everyone on Riverdale who has to figure out how to deal with that. But anyway, sorry for that. But it’s a delightful theme by Victor Krause. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place you can send longer questions. For short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust. Aline is @–

**Aline:** I think it’s @abmckenna. [sic] (correct @alinebmckenna)

**John:** Well there will be a link in the show notes. You can find us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify or wherever you listen to podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there leave us a comment. You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts.

You can find the back episodes of the show at Scriptnotes.net, or you can go to store.johnaugust.com and download individual packs of things. You can listen to the 19,000 times that Aline has been on the show, but in particular The 12 Days of Scriptnotes one, Episode 175, where we first talk about it.

You can hear Rachel Bloom’s first song on the show, which is the Scriptnotes theme to When Will I Be Famous. And the answer was–

**Aline:** Pretty soon.

**John:** Pretty soon, Rachel.

**Craig:** Shortly thereafter.

**John:** Aline, it is always a delight to have you on the program.

**Aline:** Thank you. You know what? I get a lot of props for this. People always stop me. They really continue to dig this podcast. And it’s the thing I always recommend when people ask me what they should be doing.

**John:** Scriptnotes.

**Aline:** Yep.

**Craig:** This podcast is like, we’re turning into like the Meet the Press of writing podcasts. It’s been on for 40 years.

**Aline:** Yes. It’s an esteemed institution, especially because it’s been around forever.

**Craig:** God.

**Aline:** Well, John is on the cutting edge of this stuff.

**John:** But, I mean, the fact that your entire show–

**Aline:** When is your music festival, John?

**John:** It’s got to be soon. But your entire show fits within the Scriptnotes show.

**Aline:** That’s right.

**John:** It’s nested within Scriptnotes.

**Aline:** That’s right.

**Craig:** Crazy.

**Aline:** That’s right.

**John:** All right. Bye.

**Aline:** Bye.

**Craig:** Bye guys.

Links:

* Emma Thompson’s open [letter](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-et-mn-emma-thompson-john-lasseter-skydance-20190226-story.html) to Skydance.
* [Episode 175 Transcript](https://johnaugust.com/2014/scriptnotes-ep-175-twelve-days-of-scriptnotes-transcript)
* [A Very English Scandal](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07D3DQFKM)
* [Birdcage 2](http://pinestudio.co/birdcage.html)
* Instagram [#jackwawa](https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/jackwawa/)
* New Highland 2 [videos and tutorials](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOJ7j13MYughtFygR1KYIRw/featured)
* We’re hiring a coder! If you’re interested please send an email to assistant@johnaugust.com
* You can now [order Arlo Finch in the Lake of the Moon](http://www.amazon.com/dp/162672816X/?tag=johnaugustcom-20)
* Submit entries for The Scriptnotes Pitch Session [here](https://johnaugust.com/pitch).
* T-shirts are available [here](https://cottonbureau.com/people/john-august-1)! We’ve got new designs, including [Colored Revisions](https://cottonbureau.com/products/colored-revisions), [Karateka](https://cottonbureau.com/products/karateka), and [Highland2](https://cottonbureau.com/products/highland2).
* [John August](https://twitter.com/johnaugust) on Twitter
* [Craig Mazin](https://twitter.com/clmazin) on Twitter
* [Aline Brosh McKenna](https://twitter.com/alinebmckenna)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 Victor Krause ([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_391_when_its_all_said_and_done.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 (75)
  • 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 (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.