Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/point-of-view).

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

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

**John:** And this is Episode 358 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the podcast we’ll be looking at point of view in scripts and how the choice of which characters have storytelling power changes how we experience a movie. We’ll also take a stab at answering some listener questions.

**Craig:** That sounds like a pretty classic show. I don’t want to put pressure on us, but it sounds classic.

**John:** It sounds very classic. It’s another crafty episode. We’re going back-to-back crafty, but you know what? You got to do that sometimes.

**Craig:** Got to. Got to. And you know why? We got to put these film school teachers out of business.

**John:** That’s the goal.

**Craig:** Yeah.

**John:** Speaking of business, people have written in to say, “Hey, would it be possible to download back episodes rather than having to buy the USB drive?” And we said sure. So, I can report that as of today you can now download seasons of Scriptnotes. Basically 50 episode chunks of Scriptnotes, which is handy. Particularly international listeners would buy the USB drives and they’d have to pay like an import tax on it.

**Craig:** Oh god.

**John:** Which is crazy. That’s no good. So we’ve broken all the first seven seasons of Scriptnotes into 50-episode chunks. Seven seasons. That’s essentially a year per season. So 50 episodes, plus the bonus episodes that went with that year. And they are available now. So you can go to store.johnaugust.com and download them. They are $5 per block of 50. So, in some ways the $2 a month you can get through Scriptnotes.net is a better deal. But if you want to own a bunch of episodes that’s a way you can do it.

**Craig:** You know what? I think the point is we’re giving people choices. And in this way they can determine amongst themselves what’s the golden age of Scriptnotes. You know, like The Simpsons had a golden age.

**John:** Oh, absolutely. Lisa, I chew-chew-choose-you.

**Craig:** Yes. Exactly. I think our golden age is always right now, today.

**John:** This moment.

**Craig:** Yeah. This is it. We’re always in the golden age, John, because you and I push things forward steadily and inexorably toward perfection.

**John:** That is completely the goal. So let’s make this a perfect episode.

**Craig:** It’s already done. I mean, it is perfect.

**John:** Done. All right, let’s start with follow up. Because perfect episodes have follow up. Listeners wrote in–

**Craig:** That wasn’t that great. That was decent Segue Man. But I think you may have slightly pushed us down a little bit below perfect there.

**John:** All right. We’ll try to dig our way back out of this hole I’ve created. Listeners wrote in with their favorite examples of exposition based on last week’s episode about exposition.

**Craig:** Ah, OK.

**John:** Dylan wrote about The Matrix. “When Morpheus is explaining Neo’s potential powers and comparing it to the agent’s abilities in the street crowd simulation Neo says, ‘What are you trying to tell me? That I can dodge bullets?’ And Morpheus brilliantly returns, ‘No, Neo, I’m trying to tell you that when you’re ready you won’t have to.’ This is a very simple info dump of you will be able to control the code of the Matrix and get super powers, but it does more than simply state it. It sparks the viewer’s imagination about what Neo could do to fulfill that promise of power. It’s more than information. It’s an invitation to dream up what Neo will come to be able to do and wait in anticipation to see through it.”

Nice. That’s true.

**Craig:** That’s exactly right. I loved Matrix. I love me some Matrix. And it is a tour de force of screenwriting. It is brilliantly efficient and compact even in its length. It feels to me like there’s five movies of stuff inside of The Matrix. I’m always amazed. When you think back to The Matrix you forget like, “Wait, oh my god, there was that whole thing in the beginning where he’s at a club dancing around.” And then, “Oh yeah, he’s in his office and he’s dodging those guys.” And then, “Oh yeah, there’s that bit where he’s in that room and he has no mouth.” And then, “Oh yeah, they have to get that bug out of his –“ that all happens before he even shows up in the stupid room to hear about the pills.

There’s just movies after movies after movies in one movie. I love The Matrix. It does it so well. And this is a great point by Dylan that exposition can be made fun if you essentially say I’m going to give you a bunch of information and then I’m going to give you mystery to follow. The screenwriter’s favorite friend, mystery.

**John:** Not confusion, but mystery.

**Craig:** But mystery. Exactly. So that you know that you’ve gotten some information. But you haven’t gotten it all. The boring, sad exposition tends to give you a feeling of completion. Oh, I’ve just learned everything. Bored.

**John:** Several other listeners wrote in to recommend the first Terminator, which I agree does just a fantastic job of exposition because it doesn’t tell you anything more than you need to know. It’s basically just the information that’s going to be relevant to this movie. Not a bit more than that.

**Craig:** Right. I mean, Jim Cameron is also master – master of that sort of thing. No question.

**John:** So Lars from Cologne wrote in, and I love it when people send in examples of things that actually have audio, so we’re going to be able to play this for you. He writes that, “Margin Call cleverly plays with the ‘explain it to me as if I was a five-year-old’ trope. One of the recurring jokes of the film is that the higher a person’s rank the less likely he is able to understand what is actually going on. The lead is repeatedly asked to explain in English what he discovered.” Let’s take a listen.

[Clip of Margin Call plays]

So Craig, talk to me about that scene in Margin Call. Why is that more helpful than just the guy giving information?

**Craig:** Well, you’ve got a challenge as a screenwriter. You have to be responsible to your story and to your characters, but you are also aware that there’s a room full of people. This was a problem that you could see, Adam McKay for instance, working over pretty successfully I think when he did The Big Short. The fact that you have characters who understand information doesn’t help the people in the audience that don’t. And so inevitably it is helpful to have a character on screen that can convincingly represent the audience or at least be consistent with the audience so that when they say just explain it to me like a lay person the expert has a chance to speak in a way that the audience can then understand. This is something that I had to deal with quite a bit with Chernobyl, obviously.

So, the trick then is to make sure that you have the right kind of character for that. Here it’s a little bit wobbly in the sense that it appears that this man runs a firm that is a financial firm but there’s a bit of a screenwriting trick here. It’s not necessarily the most elegant sleight of hand, where Jeremy Irons’ character says, “I assure you it wasn’t brains that got me here.” It’s clever. So, my character is that I’m kind of an alpha male that kind of bossed my way to the top, but maybe not the most believable thing in the world. Generally speaking if you run a financial company you don’t need to be spoken to like you’re a five-year-old or a golden retriever.

But that said, that’s what’s going on here. They’re trying to come up with a way to solve this problem that this screenwriter has.

**John:** Yeah, so if you take a look at the YouTube clip and don’t just listen to the audio, what becomes clear is that this is all happening in front of a room of other analysts. And so this guy is being put on the stand. So he, basically the stakes are will he be able to explain this thing in a way that Jeremy Irons’ character will accept. So there’s consequence and stakes and there’s a conflict happening there that wouldn’t naturally be there if it was just a straight information dump. So that’s one of the things I really liked about J.C. Chandor’s movie here is that it’s able to quickly explain some of the big things happening and let you see it from their point of view. And so as stuff is going south you understand enough about what the characters are facing that you can follow along on the trip. And so that’s a thing I really like about this movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. And also J.C. does a really good job of making the info dump subordinate to character feeling. And this is going to tie in nicely when we get around to point of view. You do get a sense that this is not simply a scene where people are going to talk about stuff that is technical. This is a scene about power and position and ambition and risk. So, that’s all good character stuff. And that’s why it’s an interesting scene as opposed to just blah-blah-blah.

**John:** Yep. Here’s our lesson about this financial instrument.

Well, let’s jump ahead. Let’s go to our big topic of point of view. So, this is a craft topic that I said we would talk about in some future episode. This is the episode we’re going to talk about it. So point of view I’m going to define as which characters in a story, movie story, a book, have the ability to drive scenes. Basically that they can be a scene by themselves and you will follow them. They can be a scene with strangers and you’ll still follow them. And in some stories it has a single POV. So only the hero can drive a scene.

Harry Potter is a classic example of, both in the books and in the movies, essentially, every scene has Harry Potter in the scene. And so you don’t get any information that Harry Potter doesn’t know. Other stories you could follow anybody in them. So classically an Altman film. Anybody who wanders through the frame, the camera could follow them and they could be in their own story.

Most films are going to have a mix of POV. You’re going to have obviously scenes driven by your hero, but perhaps you’re able to cut off to the villain and see the villain do stuff and see scenes that are just driven by the villain, or a supporting character, a love interest. So there are different choices. But the choices we make have to be deliberate. And they really help tell the audience how to watch your movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. I always thing about point of view as an answer to a question. With whom am I supposed to identify with in this scene? And by identify with I don’t necessarily mean I want to be like them, or they are like me, but rather I’m with them. Even if it’s a villain, sometimes I’m with the villain because the villain is considering the glorious possibility of so on and so forth, and I am with them and their ambition or their desire.

The big thing that I think a lot of early writers and frankly a lot of not early writers, a lot of practiced writers, make the mistake of doing is not choosing a point of view in their scene. To me, there is no possible way to create a successful scene if you do not know whose point of view you’re asking the audience to follow.

We are, I think, only capable of having one point of view in a scene. One. That means everything that transpires ultimately is about one person’s eyeballs, essentially. It doesn’t mean that we can’t have other people feeling things and wanting things and doing things, but it’s from one person’s perspective.

**John:** Yeah. So I think you make a distinction here which I think was important to call out is that we can talk about point of view for an entire work, so the course of an entire movie, the course of an entire, so this book has a certain character’s point of view. It’s told from a certain character’s point of view. But every scene is like a little movie and every scene is going to have a point of view as well.

And so you may have scenes in which two different characters, we’ve followed them separately and we’ve seen them have separate scenes they can do stuff, but once we’re in a scene with them together you’re going to have to tell us which character’s point of view this scene is from. And sometimes you see writers not making that choice. Or, the writer may have made that choice but as it was directed, as it was staged in front of you, it wasn’t actually done from that character’s point of view. And that is a real challenge.

And so that’s a thing, even up at this last Sundance Labs I saw, I’ll describe this project in broad terms because it’s not a movie that’s out there for people to see yet, but it was a story that follows two young boys who have an encounter when they’re kids. Then it jumps forward 30 years. You see these two people as adults. We follow one’s person story. And then we cut to the other person’s story. And we know because we’ve seen movies before that eventually they’re going to meet. And in fact they do meet. But the question is when they meet who is driving that scene. And interestingly as the story was structured as I was reading it, it had gone back to the first character before the two characters met. And so I was saying that I think it’s from this character’s point of view because he controlled the last scene. The last person we saw driving a scene is the person we’re going to assume is driving the next scene.

And so we talked about like, well, if we took out that scene it would shift and we would still be in the point of view of the second character. And that’s a crucial distinction. We know they’re going to meet, but literally who are we going to meet first? Who is driving the scene?

**Craig:** Yep. Absolutely. And it is an important distinction to understand that there is the macro and the micro. And honestly I find point of view to be the most useful thing to discuss when you are in the micro. Generally speaking the large questions are answered. Who is the star of the movie? Who is the protagonist? Who is the hero? And so on and so forth.

But then you have these little moments inside of movies where you have a real choice to make. And so, you know, Harry Potter is certainly, you’re right, it’s from the perspective and the point of view of Harry Potter. But then here and there you have these moments where things, like a scene where Ron Weasley is watching Harry and Hermione together and he gets jealous. That’s from Ron’s point of view.

A lot of times the audience will make certain assumptions based on the way the scene unfolds. And one of the simplest assumptions they make is “The first character I see is going to be the person through whose point of view I will be experiencing this scene.”

**John:** Absolutely. So in the case of Harry Potter, in most scenes we’re going to probably see Harry first and then we’re going to see the supporting characters. Granted, over the course of eight movies we’re going to be used to sort of seeing a different one of those characters first. But you’re not going to have any scenes that are just one character or the other character. There may be shots or little action sequences where we’re only following one, but in terms of bigger sequences Harry is going to be around for all of those things.

So, if you are figuring out how to tell one story point from the book, you have to figure a way to visualize this information and keep Harry still centerpiece to all this stuff. There’s a great example in Goblet of Fire where quite late in the story Harry is captured by Voldemort. And there’s sort of an information dump that Voldemort needs to do.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** That’s an information dump that Voldemort doesn’t necessarily need to do for Harry Potter, but it’s very important for us as the audience to understand. And it’s important that Harry be part of that information dump because he is our way into this world.

**Craig:** Correct. And in the writing of that section in the book, and then by extension in the writing of the screenplay and the film that we saw, there is not just a metaphoric point of view but an actual point of view. An actual perspective. And this is a very useful thing to think about as well. When you’re writing these scenes if you decide that this – I always start by like, “OK, emotionally whose point of view should we be honoring here?” And then once I have that understanding then I start thinking about physical points of view, not just through eyesight but also through sound.

So, for instance, if you – a slight variation on the first character you see. You may see a character first and then we pull back to reveal that someone is watching them. Well clearly the point of view is with the watcher. You may be on a person’s face and you hear sounds and you know that they’re listening. But the actual physical point of view/point of sound is really important in scenes. It’s important because ultimately that is a huge part of how the director directs.

There’s no other way to make those scenes work unless you understand point of view because a lot of directing, just at least from the physical position, is angles. So the question is what are the angles? Where are we looking? Where does the camera go? Who is it looking at? And why?

**John:** Last week we talked about the scene from Aliens, and if people watched the scene you’ll see that even though Burke is doing most of the talking the scene is very clearly from Ripley’s point of view. She is the one watching and trying to process what he’s saying. And the camera work shows that. That it’s really favoring her and it’s favoring her reactions to his lines rather than him talking. So, it’s still her scene even though he’s the one providing the information and bringing what is new to the scene.

**Craig:** Yeah. And you can play games with point of view. You can make it seem like the point of view is one person’s and then it’s another. The great example of that is in the brilliant third act switcheroo in Silence of the Lambs where you think Starling’s point of view is one thing and it turns out it’s another and vice versa. There are scenes where two people have a long discussion and you’re not quite sure whose point of view it is. And then they get up and they leave and then we reveal that a person has been listening and they weren’t even in the scene but it was their point of view retrospectively.

Also point of view gives you an opportunity as a writer to shake things up. If you have a scene that maybe feels a little perfunctory or a little cliché but it fits nicely into your story and solves a lot of problems then maybe the answer for spice is point of view. How can you change that point of view? How can you make the point of view of that scene somebody that you wouldn’t expect? Suddenly the scene becomes so much more interesting and fresh.

Here’s a cliché scene. An 11-year-old kid is called in on the carpet by the principal. So it’s the principal yelling at the kid scene. Maybe it’s from the point of view of the principal’s secretary or assistant. Maybe it’s from the point of view of another kid who is waiting to go in next to be yelled at. You find fun, interesting ways to make these things happen.

Also, that scene, maybe the answer to that scene is, well, nine times out of ten it’s from the point of view of the kid because the kid is getting yelled at and we identify with the kid. What if it’s from the point of view of the principal? What if we’re identifying with the principal as they struggle to try and make this work? And then the kid leaves and we stay with the principal after.

And that’s what point of view and those decisions get you. It makes you think about what the beginning and the end of the scene will be and who your eyes should be on and who their eyes should be on. It’s an indispensable way of approaching scene work. And I think we honestly just saved a lot of people a lot of money for film school stuff.

**John:** So, let’s talk about the specific example you gave for a kid in the principal’s office and like what if it’s the secretary’s point of view or the principal’s point of view. Those are all really great, fascinating choices. And if it was the first scene of your story it would be really interesting and unexpected because like, “Oh, we expect it from the kid’s point of view and it’s actually from the principal’s point of view or the secretary’s.” But if it was the kid’s story, if it was about the 12-year-old boy, we sort of couldn’t stay with the principal’s point of view unless that principal is going to ultimately have storytelling power later in our movie.

**Craig:** Right.

**John:** So, the moment you decide to stick around with a character who is not established to be a major character, who is not established to have a storytelling power, you’re suddenly elevating that person. You’re saying like, “Oh, this is a person that we now have an expectation that we’ll be able to come back to and see independent individual scenes.”

There’s maybe like five or ten seconds where you can hold on a character after the main character has left before that character goes like, “OK, there’s something bigger there. There’s some expectation you’re setting.”

Just yesterday I saw Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. And the movie is – this is not a movie review – the movie is nuts in a way that I had not anticipated. I really enjoyed it. Partly because it does really odd things. And one of the odd things it does is there’s a young girl character who is not really established. You don’t see her. But suddenly like 20 minutes into the movie we’re cutting to her and her POV and she’s driving scenes by herself. And it sort of threw me at first. It was like what is this movie. And then I remember that the Jurassic Park movies always sort of cut to minor characters. They were always elevating these minor people who can suddenly do things by themselves. And this movie takes that and runs with it very fully.

But it becomes interesting later on in the story where she and other characters meet and it does get a little bit murky for me kind of who was in control of the story at that point. Because it wasn’t clear whose POV we really were in in some of those scenes.

**Craig:** It’s a great point you’re making that point of view more than line count or screen time determines the importance and the salience of any particular role in a story. The more point of view you afford a character, the more important they are, the more elevated they are in the tale. And you’re right. You can actually have quite a few people doing this. But when they all get together then you do have a problem because, again, I’ll just say it’s my rule, we as human beings really can only have one point of view at one time. And maybe it’s just the narrative is reflecting the biological. We have one field of vision. We have one field of sound. We can’t see two things at once and we can’t hear two things at once. We hear a combination of things or we see a combination of things, but that’s it.

And it’s just our one view. So in those conglomeration scenes it’s really important that the screenwriter make sure to figure out who is the point of view person here because I need to make it really clear in that moment, or else the scene will feel very trifurcated, quadfurcated, and so on and so forth.

So, sometimes the best thing to do with those characters that you’ve given point of view to is before you get to that conglomeration scene kill them. Wayne Knight in the first Jurassic Park has wonderful point of view scenes and then he dies. Because who needs him later?

**John:** There’s, and this again I don’t think is a spoiler, that Henry Woo, the character played by B.D. Wong in the Jurassic Park movies, shows up in this movie again. And it was strange to me that he didn’t seem to have point of view. For a character who has been established through the whole franchise he’s not allowed to drive any scenes by himself. And it felt like he had sort of earned that. But also if you look at the course of the actual movie that we’re watching, he shows up kind of late. And so it might have felt strange to give him that power so late in the movie, to elevate to a place so late in the movie.

When you do shift POVs and we do unexpected things with POVs you do get a real jolt of energy. So I think back to Gone Girl. So, Gone Girl as a book, which I loved as a book and was dying to write the adaptation of that, is told – it’s alternating chapters between the husband and the wife. And for reasons I don’t want to spoil in the story that structure would not continue necessarily, but then when it does continue in ways you couldn’t imagine being possible in the movie it’s so thrilling that we’ve changed POV midway through the movie. And we’ve changed our sort of fundamental rules of how we watch the movie change halfway through. It was a great adaptation of a really great story that was told from a specific point of view and had to change its point of view in order to work as a movie.

**Craig:** Yeah. It is thrilling. It’s exciting. It’s jarring. And when it’s done well it is as exhilarating as any car chase because you are creating a kind of emotional freefall in people. And one of the thrills we get I think from going to movies and watching television shows is the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s point of view, somebody else that’s wildly different from us. Frankly that’s what we do as writers all day long, right? But when we receive it passively it can be – because it’s surprising, it’s awesome. And it can really wobble the ground beneath you for a bit in a fun way as long as it is done expertly and you feel like you’re caught. When it’s not, then it just feels clunky or confusing or you start to say to yourself I don’t really know what I’m supposed to feel here or why. These are the things that we want to try and avoid when we’re shifting points of view radically.

It also occurs to me that sometimes when we talk about stock characters or when we see a movie and we complain about a character that feels cliché that they aren’t really getting a proper point of view. Rather, they are only existing in someone else’s point of view and therefore they exist to serve a function. OK, so you’re going to be the judge in the trial. Well, you’re never going to get a point of view. You’re just there to go, “Overruled,” so that the prosecutor whose point of view we’re living in or the defendant whose point of view we’re living in can see it and hear it. And one way to avoid those kind of cliché stock characters is to consider that perhaps maybe they deserve some point of view.

But, then you got to make space.

**John:** Yeah. You got to make space and make sure that you’re not creating an expectation with the audience that your movie will not be able to match.

**Craig:** Correct. Correct. It’s tricky.

**John:** Let’s talk about general guidelines for when it makes sense to limit point of view and when it makes sense to broaden out point of view. So, some benefits to limiting POV is it does make your audience identify very closely with whoever that central character is. Generally if you’re limiting your point of view to one character like in a Harry Potter situation you’re going to identify very closely with Harry Potter because he’s in every scene so it’s driving everything. And particularly if you have a character whose experience may be different than sort of your audiences it can be great to limit POV because then you’re seeing everything through his or her eyes. And so if you have a tale of racism and you’re seeing it through this black character’s eyes, I think an audience might be able to understand and empathize with it in ways they wouldn’t see otherwise because we so closely identify with this central character. That’s a huge advantage to that.

It really focuses your storytelling because you’re only providing information that that character can actually get to. And so that’s helpful. So anything that the audience wants to know, the character needs to know, too. And so you’re following in his or her footsteps as they’re going out and trying to do these things. And so we identify very closely with characters if we limit the POV to those characters.

On the other hand, if you broaden POV suddenly your movie can feel much more expansive. Because suddenly you can cut to Egypt. You can cut to Morocco. You can see all these different parts of the world and so you establish new characters when you want to establish them. That’s hugely helpful, too. If you’re the kind of bigger, epic-scale story that makes sense. If you’re Game of Thrones, you don’t want to limit it to one character’s point of view, because you have to be able to jump around and have different characters be the hero of one story and the villain of another.

**Craig:** Perfect thing to mention, Game of Thrones, because when people talk about George R. R. Martin’s books they literally refer to point of view characters. So, generally speaking in his chapters there is a character that is sort of the point of view. And they get an inner life. They have an inner voice. And the events unfold through their eyes and their experience. And you’re absolutely right. Any kind of epic story demands it, I think.

And you should kind of know, I think, from the sort of story you’re telling whether or not you want to be expansive in your points of view or you want to be limited. But, some other things to think about beyond just scale is how much your character is meant to know. If there’s certain kinds of mystery or if there’s a certain sense of powerlessness, generally speaking it’s great to side your perspective with characters that have less power and less knowledge because then there’s more to learn. And there’s more to know. And that’s interesting. And it’s instantly sympathetic.

We don’t really want to share the POV of people that know a lot or are in control. We don’t need Morpheus’s POV really ever. We just don’t need it, except maybe for instance in the scene where he needs to break free from the agents and run and jump we are in his perspective because at that moment he is very powerless. He is weak. And he isn’t really sure he’s going to make it or not. There you go.

**John:** Yeah. A crucial example. So most of what we’ve been talking about has been sort of movie point of view and the things about which character the camera is on. Those are sort of movie conversations. But point of view is always a part of fiction. It’s always been one of the classic things we talked about. Going back to Pride and Prejudice. We are at Elizabeth Bennett’s point of view and not Darcy’s point of view. And we see the story through her eyes rather than his eyes.

Sometimes, just like in movies, it’s good to change point of view. It’s good to change point of view in books as well. So like the first Arlo Finch book is entirely from Arlo’s point of view. We only know information that Arlo knows. And if there’s information I had to get in there I had to have Arlo be present for that information to come out.

The second book for reasons that become clear when you actually read the second book, we do break POV at one point in the story. And my editor was really nervous about this, but then as we talked through it it actually makes sense that we break POV and suddenly the rules of sort of who we’re allowed to follow in the world shift a bit. But hopefully by that point you are comfortable enough with the characters that I’m breaking POV to that it makes sense.

**Craig:** Yeah. I can’t remember which Harry Potter book began with an entirely different POV of somebody coming home and finding Voldemort in his house or something. It fills the world out. And partly it also creates a complex reading experience because we are asked as readers to build little walls in our mind. Like, “OK, I just learned something and saw something but the character whose POV I’m going to be following for the rest of the book has not been there or seen that. I’m going to put a little wall between them. They don’t know that stuff.” And then ideally the story at the end will link it together and then they will learn it and in the learning of it we’ll learn something else and so on and so forth.

But it’s exciting. You just have to do it really deliberately. You can’t – that’s the thing, we always say everything is about being specific and being intentional. As long as you know what you’re doing and why it should work.

**John:** It should work. And exactly the scenario you described where a story starts with a different character’s POV before going back to the hero, that’s a very classic movie thing as well. So how many movies have you seen that start with some rando people you’re never going to see again? They’re establishing some nature of the world or some nature of the fundamental problem before we get to our main characters. That’s classic.

**Craig:** Yeah. Beginning of Scream for instance. We never see Drew Barrymore again, but it’s entirely from her point of view.

**John:** Absolutely. So it’s teaching us how to watch the movie. So, don’t feel like you’re breaking POV just to do that introduction to the world thing. That’s very classic. Or the tag at the end. That’s also well established.

**Craig:** Yep. I really do believe that honestly that’s worth one year of film school.

**John:** Done. Or at least one season of Scriptnotes.

**Craig:** One $5 season of Scriptnotes. Agreed.

**John:** All right. Let’s try to answer some questions. And full disclosure, we’ve not read any of these questions. We did no prep work. So Megan has read these questions but–

**Craig:** I have news for you. Full disclosure. I have never read any of the questions. So, you will not notice any difference from me but John may seem very off his game. We’ll find out.

**John:** All right. We’re going to start with Preston in Salt Lake. Preston writes, “I am currently writing a script where the main character decides to change his name about a third of the way into the movie. This coincides with a huge decision to forego his family title and take a completely different path than he’s been presented with before. I want to call him by his new name after he makes the decision so it’s clear that he fundamentally sees himself as a different character, but I’m worried it will be jarring for the reader if I suddenly change the main character’s name on page 40. I definitely don’t want them to get confused and think I’m talking about a completely different person.

“So what do you think the best way is to alert the reader of the name change? Should I just write character X will now be referred to as character Y in bold? Should I warn the reader this character’s name will change when I first introduce them on page one of the script?”

Craig, what would you do in this situation?

**Craig:** We get this question all the time. People get so worried about this sort of thing. Well, first of all, it rarely works to be honest with you. It rarely works, but it can. And it’s the kind of thing that’s actually more of a problem in the read than it is in a watch if that makes sense. But, you definitely don’t want to start the movie off by saying someone’s name is going to change. No. Just go ahead and just say so-and-so will now be referred to as so-and-so and put that in bold is fine.

I also think it would be fair, at least a couple times, for one or another person to mistakenly refer to them by their old name and have them be corrected. It helps the reader. But, yeah, generally I’m not sure what else you can do other than in the moment make it quite clear this is what’s happened.

**John:** Yeah. I’m not a huge fan of changing a character’s name in terms of the title tag, so like the little – I guess they call it call character cue. It’s so weird that it’s a thing that exists in every screenplay you’ve ever read but the character’s name over the dialogue, is it character cue? Whatever you want to call that. I’m not a huge fan of changing that just because if you’re flipping back and forth in a script you can get confused about who you’re actually talking about. If they have a first name that’s not going to change, keep that. If there’s some way to keep them the same person. Because think about it like that little character cue is like the actor’s face. You’re seeing the actor’s face and they’re saying this thing. That’s the same person the whole time through. So, I wouldn’t go too nuts about changing that if you can help changing that. Let the story do it, but think about that little character cue as being the actor’s face. And the actor’s face as an audience we’re still going to know it’s the same person.

So, if we’re going to know it’s the same person I would try to keep the character cue the same.

**Craig:** Yeah. I’m with you. If you can, to avoid it, it’s helpful. OK, so our next question is from Derek in LA. He writes, “I work in the script department of one of the studios in a job that involves not only processing screenplays for recent releases or titles still in development, but also occasionally converting a very old script into a digital file. We had one of these archive scripts this week that dated all the way back to 1935. And while I always expect some differences in formatting and terminology, this one had a term I’d never seen before and can’t seem to find anywhere else. The term is Jackman Shot. That’s Jackman Shot.

“From the context, it seems to refer to any composite shots used in a scene, for example footage of a plane superimposed over a map or miniature ships to create the background of a scene at a dock. But when I tried to find some definition or other use of the term I came up with nothing. As you might expect, it’s impossible to Google the phrase and find much of anything other than pictures of Hugh Jackman. When I asked around our office no one else here was familiar with the term either.”

So he’s turning to us. John, have you ever heard of the term Jackman Shot?

**John:** I have never heard of the term Jackman Shot. But I suspect what he’s describing it as is probably true. That it’s some sort of composite shot. It’s some sort of process shot. And it makes me think back to another James Cameron script. I think it was the script for Aliens where it says like in uppercase it’s like Panaglide through something. So like panaglide as a thing, which is a name for like a Steadicam kind of shot. And so Jackman Shot is probably the same kind of thing. Whatever the state of the art thing is they were doing at that time that the screenwriter put in there to describe this type of visual effect.

**Craig:** Yeah. Maybe there was like a guy named Jackman that came up with that thing. You know, like that early composite shot. Or there was some machine they used called the Jackman that would make the composites. Beats me, man. Jackman Shot.

**John:** So I love special film terminology and I’ll always hear these great terms and then forget them because I don’t have the chance to use them in any meaningful way. So, some terms I will describe which I will not remember the actual name for because I’m not going to Google them while I’m saying them is so you know the shot, Craig, which is from the top of the actor’s head to a little bit above his kneecaps which should show the holster, like if he’s wearing a gun. What is the name of that?

**Craig:** Cowboy.

**John:** The Cowboy. The Cowboy Shot. What is the name of the kind of not really visual effects shot but where two actors are having a brawl and then they pass behind a window and you clearly swapped out stunt actors.

**Craig:** That’s a Texas Switch.

**John:** Texas Switch. See, they’re all Western kind of terms. I love these kind of special things. But you can also use them in your script without necessarily knowing – I wouldn’t necessarily call it out as a Texas Switch in a script if I were using it.

**Craig:** No, you just – that’s something that you just know. Yeah, because if you call it out as a Texas Switch what you’re saying is it’s fake. And you don’t want to do that in your script. You just want to be able to do that on the day on the set. Yeah, and similarly a Cowboy is something you only hear on set. And less and less. Two Teas is another one. I don’t know if you ever heard that one.

**John:** I don’t know Two Ts.

**Craig:** Two Ts is basically two breasts. Two breasts and up. So, it’s that shot that’s not quite a close-up but it’s not thigh high.

**John:** Like a medium essentially?

**Craig:** Yeah, it’s a medium. Haircut, you know. People don’t notice this. A lot of times when you’re looking at close-ups the frame gives the actor a haircut. There’s something about having a little bit of space above the hair that seems weird. You want to be close enough that you feel like if you start to give them a haircut then you feel like you’re intimately with them. It’s a strange thing. But I’m going to start walking around saying Jackman Shot. You know what, maybe we should Jackman this one.

**John:** I want to say back to the top of Derek’s question, so I think it’s great that he’s in the script processing department that’s actually processing these really old scripts because that is a real worry is that some of these things will kind of get lost to history because they only existed as printed things that can fall apart. So in processing them and getting them as digital files they can stick around forever which is a very good thing. So, I don’t know what you’re using to do it. If you’re using Highland to melt them that’s fantastic. But whatever you’re using to get them into a format that people can enjoy them in the future that is ideal.

**Craig:** Well done, Derek.

**John:** Jared writes, “My daughter just graduated from elementary school and received two academic achievement awards for the grade six education ceremony. One for French as a second language. The other for creative writing.” Congratulations Jared. “Her teacher described her saying I believe this student was born writing. She writes in her spare time. She writes in class. She writes at home. I know from listening to the Scriptnotes podcast that you excelled in writing from an early age.” Is that true for you, Craig? It was true for me. Was it true for you?

**Craig:** It is. Yes.

**John:** It’s true. “I was wondering if you might be able to suggest a bit of direction as she moves onto high school. I’d really like to help her foster her growth in this area before life bogs her down with stress and squelches that creative spark.”

Craig, what would you do to continue to stoke her love of writing?

**Craig:** Just let her know that you love that she loves writing. And there’s no reason that life should bog her down in stress and squelch her creative spark. The people that tend to bog teenagers down in stress and squelch their creative spark are adults who are demanding that those children be something the adults want them to be. It sounds like you’re the sort of dad that doesn’t do that. Sounds like you’re the sort of dad that wants her to be what she wants to be.

Now, fair warning here, Jared. You may be getting more excited about this than she is. Children, I can tell you from my experience, change dramatically as they go through puberty. Their interests change. Sometimes – and very frustrating for parents – sometimes they just lose interest in something they’re really good at.

**John:** Yeah.

**Craig:** And it can make you panic a little bit. Don’t. Because they’ll either come back around to it or they won’t. The important thing is your job ultimately isn’t really to foster her growth. Your job is to support her as she reaches for things. It sounds like she’s fairly well self-directed in this regard. If she loves writing she will keep writing. And as long as you tell her that that’s a lovely and wonderful thing she’ll keep doing it to her heart’s content. And we’ll see how her heart develops. It’s as simple as that.

**John:** Yeah. I will say that sometimes there’s that fine line between supporting your child and then you’re expressing interest in what a kid likes and what a kid does can sort of backfire to a degree. Like as they hit puberty, like the fact that you like that they like this thing makes them not like the thing. There’s weird stuff that can happen.

So, I would just say be present for it. If there’s opportunities you see for her that she can do stuff, support those. As you go into junior high and to high school there are all sorts of opportunities to be in sports, or be in band, and be in all these other things. There are very few opportunities for like being in creative writing. But if there are like creative writing classes, clubs, whatever, stuff like that that she’s interested in, go for that. Go support that. Because that’s going to be helpful. But I would just say read whatever she wants you to read.

So my mom, to her credit, like I could write anything and my mom would happily stop whatever she was doing and read it and proofread it. And that’s good. Sometimes one of the most frustrating things about writing obviously is that you don’t know if it’s any good and you don’t know if it actually makes any sense. And so to be that set of eyes, to say like, “Oh yeah, this was good, I see what you were doing here, thank you for sharing it with me.” That can be a lot.

**Craig:** Yep. And avoid the temptation to become her instructor, her teacher, her coach. Don’t do that. If she’s really into it and wants to get some outside help or development then just say, great, let’s find you an interesting class to take or perhaps there’s somebody that actually does discuss creative writing one-on-one with kids. Probably not. That’s all good. Try and have other people do that. You just got to be aware of the syndrome John is discussing which is very real. At any point if she begins to suss out that you are deriving some sort of benefit from it it becomes tainted. So let it be her thing.

**John:** The other thing I would sort of caution you towards but also make sure you’re aware of is things like Wattpad or sort of the online communities where people write and people share their writing and get feedback on their writing and stuff like that, there can be good things to that. I mean, fan fiction really springs out of that. It can be a source of joy and positivity. But it can also be a source of great negativity. And so just the same way that you’d be mindful of any social media she might be starting or any other things in which strangers can be influencing her self-esteem I’d watch out for that as well. Because they’re so fragile at this point.

**Craig:** They are. And those things can be crab barrels where nobody wants to let anybody out of the barrel. I mean, I see it on the Reddit screenwriting thing. I’ll go on there and every now and again I’ll just see people giving each other advice and I just think why. Why are you asking these people for advice? And why are these people giving you advice? Because you’re all kind of in the same boat here. And I’m not sure there’s value there.

There’s a precious few amount of professional screenwriters that I look at and go you know what I would like their advice on this. It’s such a dangerous thing. And everybody wants to give advice because it makes them feel good. And sometimes they like to tear things down because it makes them feel good. So, another excellent point from John here. Just, you know, there’s something you could do. Maybe protect her from the angry world of online crabs.

**John:** Yeah. Crabs.

**Craig:** No one wants to get crabs.

**John:** Do you want to take this last question from Larry?

**Craig:** Yeah. Larry asks, “I’ve recently had an offer from an indie producer that liked one of my scripts. First-time director. Micro-budget. We haven’t gotten into brass tacks, but I have the feeling the offer to me will be something like, well, we can maybe give you some backend points if you hold our feet over the coals. And the size of the budget requires a number of script compromises. But, they want to shoot it so there’s that. The script itself has been pretty well-received by everyone that’s read it, including a reader for a decent sized indie studio, but no offers from anyone else.

“And personally I’d call it a good script not a great script. My question is how much value do I place on getting a script of mine shot? Do I throw caution to the winds? First-time director. No/little money for me. Shooting compromises and all. Or do I hold it back and wait for something better? I hate the idea of taking the wrong step forward but I also find I generally regret inaction more than action.” Oh, Larry does sound like a writer, doesn’t he, John?

**John:** He does sound like a writer. So, I would say, Larry, is this is a moment where you need to trust your Spidey sense. And your Spidey sense is “Will this person, this director in particular, make at least a good movie?” So you think great is fine. Let’s leave out great. Do you think this director has a vision for making this movie and having this movie turn out well? And really wants to make the movie for the right reasons which is to make a good film.

If not, then I don’t think it’s worth your time to have this movie be made if you don’t think this movie could be made at least to a good level. Because you might say even it’s not a lot of money, it’s going to be a tremendous amount of your time. It’s going to be your first thing produced. You want it to be a good experience even if it’s not a good amount of money. And if your Spidey sense is telling you that it’s not going to be a good experience I’d walk away.

If you really do spark to this director and think he or she has a real vision for doing your movie despite the low budget, then I’d say go for it. Craig, what’s your feeling?

**Craig:** I’m going to be a little more crazy than you. You know, because I don’t like to get too much more crazy than you. You’re my benchmark for crazy.

**John:** Benchmark of sanity, all right.

**Craig:** Yeah, you’re my benchmark for sanity. John is right. You have to kind of weigh your Spidey sense here, but maybe put your thumb a little bit on the scale toward doing it and here’s why. This isn’t, from the way you describe it, your life’s work. This is not the thing that you’ve pulled from your heart that represents who you are. It is not your magnum opus. It’s a script that you think is pretty good. It’s not a script that has lit the world on fire, but somebody wants to make it. And you haven’t had anything else made it seems like to me.

So, there is an enormous educational value to having any of your work produced. Not just because you see how your words and your scenarios translate into moving images and sound, but also you get an experience of what it means to have somebody else direct your work, produce your work, edit it, release it, all that stuff.

It doesn’t sound based on what you’re describing like this is going to be a high profile thing that will embarrass you until the end of time if it does kind of fall on its face, because it’s micro-budget and it’s indie. But you never know. Sometimes it’s catch a falling star kind of thing. It might work.

But more than anything I think it would be really educational. I think you would learn a lot. My guess is that the amount of money between not much and what you want isn’t a great gulf. And really the only financial value to these things are if they become one of those lottery ticket one-in-a-million things like My Big Fat Greek Wedding or something, so in that case backend points would be wonderful.

So, I would say if it feels bad, if it feels abusive, if it feels like they’re going to wreck things, don’t do it. If it feels like you’re not really sure then maybe err on the side of adventure.

**John:** Yeah. I think that’s a good way to think about it. That’s probably a good split in terms of how much recklessness Larry should approach this with. And I’ll also remind you that just because it’s not the big breakout thing doesn’t mean it’s not useful. And so Quentin Tarantino had a movie before Reservoir Dogs. Doug Liman had a movie before Swingers. And we don’t think about those. We think about those other movies being their first movies, but they did other things before that. And so this could be that thing before that thing.

Or, it could be Reservoir Dogs. You don’t know. So, maybe be bold as long as you have some belief in these people.

**Craig:** Yeah. That makes sense.

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

My One Cool Thing is Bubble. It is a podcast written and created by Jordan Morris. And so it is a scripted podcast. I’m generally not a big fan of fiction podcasts. I’ve just never really gotten them because sometimes they feel like radio plays. I’m just never quite sure where I’m supposed to sit in these things. I guess it’s sort of a question of POV. I’m not quite sure what these things are.

This one I just loved. And so Bubble tells a story, this kind of post-apocalyptic place. It’s this protected space. But there are monsters that run around. There’s a service you can hire to kill the monsters that sort of works like Uber or Lyft. It is really, really funny. And the feeling of the show, it has a bunch of actors who are all great and really, really funny. But it also has a narration that kind of feels like if you were at a script reading, a table-reading of your script. And the scene description was like really, really funny and sort of self-aware. And so the narrator for all that is fantastic, too.

So, I just really recommend it. There’s four episodes out right now. It’s delightful and it feels like kind of Buffy the Vampire Slayer as a podcast. I just adored it. So I recommend Bubble.

**Craig:** Wow. Bubble by Jordan Morris. OK. I’ve got a fun game that I’ve been playing and it was sort of a surprise. It was like surprise game. Because the iPhone games or iOS games – I don’t talk about Android – they’ve kind of moved toward that console game structure where they have what they call AAA games, you know. It’s like The Room is a AAA game. It’s an indie game but everybody stops and goes oh The Room 3 is out, let’s buy it. As well you should.

Then there are a lot of like also-ran games that kind of live in that space. They oftentimes stink. You give them shots but a lot of times they’re just blah. And so, you know, bored, I found one. I was like, well, it’s probably not going to be great. And it’s kind of awesome. It’s called Alleys. It’s a game mechanic I haven’t quite seen before. You are exploring this abandoned city. Fair warning: the graphics are not up to The Room snuff. It’s not that level.

The way you move around is a bit clunky. The controls aren’t clunky. It’s tap. That’s it. But the actual animation of you moving through the space is a bit clunky. But the space is quite vast. And the mechanics are you’re basically finding three kinds of things. You’re finding keys. You’re finding check-in points. And then you’re finding resource cards. And you will run into obstacles that require either the right kind of resource card or a certain amount of keys which keys you burn. So they’re kind of like a – there’s two kinds of resources. There’s the kind that keeps building up and then the kind that you burn through. So keys when you use them they’re gone. So, OK, this door takes eight keys.

Then there are the check-in things where you need to have this many check-ins and that doesn’t go down, but the bar you have to jump in terms of number check-ins goes up. It’s really interesting. I like it. It’s kind of cool.

And there’s some interesting meta games clearly put in there that are kind of deeper involving some code language stuff I have to figure out. It’s kind of – it’s way more than I thought it would be. So it’s a big surprise. I mean, I’ve been playing it for a while and I don’t feel like I’m even halfway done. So, Alleys.

**John:** Fantastic.

**Craig:** On iOS.

**John:** Very nice. And that’s our show for this week. So, as always, our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Luke Davis. 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 like the ones we answered today. But we are always around to answer your questions on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We’re on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there you can leave us a review. That helps people find the show.

All the back episodes for the show are at Scriptnotes.net. You can subscribe there for $2 a month and get all those back episodes. But you can also now get the albums. So the individual seasons of Scriptnotes in 50-episode blocks are available at store.johnaugust.com.

We also have a few of the USB drives left that have the first 300 episodes of the show.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you’ll find the transcripts. Those go up about a week after the episode drops. And that is our show for this week. Craig, thank you so much.

**Craig:** Thank you, John. That was, in fact, perfection.

**John:** It was amazing.

**Craig:** See you next week.

**John:** Bye.

Links:

* [Scriptnotes Digital Seasons](https://store.johnaugust.com/) are now available!
* [Margin Call](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmHl7hKlVj4) uses the ”plain English” trope a little differently.
* Justin Dise walks through the [basic shot types](https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/tips-and-solutions/filmmaking-101-camera-shot-types) in a blog post for B&H.
* [Bubble](http://www.maximumfun.org/shows/bubble), a podcast by Jordan Morris
* [Alleys](https://www.alleys.tw/), an immersive escape mobile game
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](http://johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [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/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Luke Davis ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_358.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found [here](http://johnaugust.com/2018/writing-animated-movies).

**John August:** Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Episode 356 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

This week Craig and I have switched places. He is in Europe while I am back in Los Angeles. Luckily I am not alone. Across from me I have Linda Woolverton, a screenwriter whose credits include The Lion King, Homeward Bound, Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent, and of course 1991’s Beauty and the Beast. She also wrote the book for the stage musical Beauty and the Beast for which she received a Tony nomination. Linda Woolverton, welcome to Scriptnotes.

**Linda Woolverton:** Well thank you.

**John:** I could have gone on for about another five minutes with your credits because they are so vast. And like these are just some of your feature credits, but you also had TV credits from before then and after then. You’ve done a lot of stuff.

**Linda:** Well, I’ve been writing professionally since over 20 years.

**John:** Yeah. Well, I’ve been writing for more than 20 years, but I don’t have anywhere near the credits that you do. It’s just remarkable.

**Linda:** Well, thank you. You know, it’s hard work.

**John:** I sort of want to start with that last credit because Beauty and the Beast, the 1991 movie, I looked it up on Box Office Mojo and I looked up the adjusted gross, all-time adjusted gross income for it. It ranks number 133 of all films adjusted gross income. And that is higher than Iron Man. It’s higher than Toy Story. It’s higher than five of the eight Harry Potters. And then, of course, that also spawned the live action movie from 2017 which made $1.2 billion. So I guess this may be an insensitive question, but Linda Woolverton you must have gotten so much money off of Beauty and the Beast. Can you just give a sense of how much money you’re really talking?

**Linda:** That is a really appropriate question given where we are right now in terms of the business and feature animation and feature animated films being made into live action films.

**John:** Of course.

**Linda:** So, the important thing to note here, we’re going to talk about financial gain, is that feature animation is not covered by the Writers Guild of America. Which means that there are no residuals. There’s only up front. And I was paid I’m going to guess $35,000 to write the script. Took me four years, as animation does. There was nothing else. Oh, there was a bonus when the movie was made that Jeffery Katzenberg gave us checks. Howard Ashman was there. Alan Menken was there. And the directors, Gary Trousdale and Kirk Wise. He handed us a check for $100,000 each. I was blown away. I had never seen that in a check before.

So, I was like, “No!”

**John:** So many zeroes.

**Linda:** Really. Howard Ashman tore it up and threw it him.

**John:** Because that was a pittance. Even back then.

**Linda:** For him.

**John:** Yeah. At that time to be paid $100,000 as a bonus. So I want to make sure everyone’s clear. You were paid $35,000 up front for these four years of work on Beauty and the Beast. And your backend was zero. Well, $100,000, it was that $100,000 check.

**Linda:** Gift.

**John:** Gift. That was what you’ve received from writing one of the biggest movies of all time.

**Linda:** Yes, now, luckily I wrote the theatrical version of Beauty and the Beast, which is a whole different ballgame.

**John:** Having done a musical adaptation, it’s a very different thing.

**Linda:** Completely different thing.

**John:** You control copyright in these stage play versions of what you’ve done. And that is probably a much more lucrative thing. I can guess you’ve made more than $35,000 off of that.

**Linda:** A little. Because the show ran 13 years on Broadway. Traveled around the world twice. And it just opened in China. So that’s very lucrative. Just a little note here, when we did the deal for the theatrical version, Disney – it was really interesting – they had ownership of the movie. Right? Because they owned the movie. So I had to proportion out my royalty as per all the new stuff I wrote. So my royalty, which if it had been a full royalty it would have been a wonderful thing. But it’s only partial royalty.

**John:** I am in the same situation with Big Fish. So I wrote the stage play version of Big Fish, having written the screenplay of Big Fish, but Columbia is considered the author of that. And so they could have brought somebody else in to have written the stage version of Big Fish and I would have had no participation in it whatsoever.

**Linda:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** It’s not a great situation. But, in your case and in my case we got to stay on those projects and that’s fantastic. But I think what’s so interesting is not only did you not get residuals on the animated version of Beauty and the Beast that you wrote, but while your name is listed in the credits for the live action Beauty and the Beast you don’t have a piece of that either because that is – animation is not covered by separated rights. Had the original movie been live action and covered by the WGA, you would have gotten a piece of the live action remake as well.

**Linda:** Probably. Because if there had been an arbitration, because I did not work on the live action. If there had been an arbitration I’m 99% sure I would have gotten at least shared credit, which means I would have had a participation. So, it’s unfair with a capital U. But it is what it is.

**John:** So let’s get into that. Why animation is not covered. Because Craig and I have talked about this before, back in Episode 317 a listener wrote in with a question basically saying “How could animation not be covered by the Writers Guild of America?” And the long answer is long, but the short answer is that back in the days when animation was new the WGA didn’t think it was necessary to cover that. And so the Animation Guild began covering the writing of animated features. The Animation Guild is part of a larger guild, IATSE. They represent animation writing at the major studios. And the WGA can’t just go in and take it back because it’s another union thing. So, US labor law is preventing us from trying to go in and get that.

So it is a real frustration. And I think also a real cautionary tale for people writing in other genres that don’t seem like important things at the moment, but will become very important things.

**Linda:** Right.

**John:** I look to videogame writing. And I look to people doing things that don’t yet feel like they are on the level of film and TV writing but could be one day.

**Linda:** Yes. Yes. It is definitely a cautionary tale. And I didn’t know. Someone from the guild Board of Directors asked me, you know, well you signed the paper. True. I signed the paper. But I didn’t even know that there was a WGA at the time. I was this Saturday morning writer. I wasn’t in a guild at that point. And I went over and wrote a feature film.

So, you don’t know what you don’t know.

**John:** So let’s go back into some of that history because you were a Saturday morning writer, but what were your first writing credits? What got you started? And what made the leap into being able to write a feature animation?

**Linda:** It all began when I wrote two young adult novels. I had just left my job at CBS. I was on a desk and I wanted to be a writer. So I wrote a spec Muppet Babies.

**John:** I remember Muppet Babies. It was a great show.

**Linda:** I wrote a spec. And I didn’t sell the spec but I got work off of it. I started writing Berenstain Bears for Saturday morning. And then my career just never stopped. I was writing Saturday morning for like four years.

**John:** That was here in Los Angeles?

**Linda:** Yes. Here. Really fun. Really fun. Great group of people. You know, it’s just a little group.

**John:** So, in that era of TV animation were you writing as a room or were you just going and pitching a show and being sent to write it? What was the process of writing a half-hour like a Berenstain Bears, or they aren’t even half-hours. You’re writing little smaller segments.

**Linda:** They’re like 15 minutes.

**John:** So Muppet Babies. Was that written as a room or was that written – each individual writer just went off and wrote it himself.

**Linda:** I have never written in a room. Ever. Don’t know how to do it. No, you know, Berenstain Bears, it was very funny. It was my first job, so they gave me an outline. And they said here’s the outline. We want you to write the script. If it’s no good we won’t pay you. And there you go.

**John:** That’s a non-WGA sort of situation.

**Linda:** Exactly.

**John:** Here, work on this for spec, and then if we like it we’ll choose to pay you.

**Linda:** Yes, we’ll choose to pay you.

**John:** But if not it’s a useless thing that you’ve spent weeks writing.

**Linda:** Yes, exactly. So, that worked out. And the process was here’s an idea. Pitch the idea. Just like anything else. Here’s the idea, pitch the idea, pitch a take, and then they hire you and you go write it and then you get paid. So, that went on for – I had a really fun time. And then I just couldn’t think of anything more for silly creatures to do. And I had just seen a Disney animated feature that I didn’t think was very good.

**John:** Are you going to say the name? This pre-Little Mermaid. Little Mermaid is the moment where–

**Linda:** Little Mermaid is the revolution, whatever it is, of animation.

**John:** It was a ground-breaker. And that’s a whole special episode of Scriptnotes. We had a whole episode just talking about The Little Mermaid as a breakout moment.

**Linda:** Oh really?

**John:** Yeah. So, it was a pre-Little Mermaid feature you saw which wasn’t especially good, and that inspired you to say, “I can do better than that.”

**Linda:** Yes. So I went to my agent. I did have an agent. And I said I would like to go try to work at Disney. And she said, “No. They don’t read animation Saturday morning writers, because it’s not real writing in an interview.”

**John:** That whole thing about it’s not real writing is an ongoing thing in animation, isn’t it?

**Linda:** Yeah. It’s an ongoing thing. Yeah. What real writing is? Real writing? So I said, but I have these books, you know, I am a real writer. Here’s a hard cover book published by Houghton Mifflin with my name on it. Does that prove anything? So I drove my book over to the lot and it there was no dwarf building. This is way–

**John:** Pre-dwarf era.

**Linda:** Pre-dwarf. And there was no guard. So I just walked in and put it on the desk and said maybe somebody here wants to read this. And I left.

**John:** Wow. I can’t believe that worked. But it worked apparently.

**Linda:** It worked. My phone rang on Sunday and it was Charlie Fink had picked it up. He was probably hanging out with the receptionist. Picked it up. Read it over the weekend and called me and said you have to come work for us.

**John:** Well that’s great. So they say come work for us. Was it a specific project already at that point, or was it just a general come in and pitch things? What was the idea?

**Linda:** I did have an idea. Several ideas and pitched them. I came up with an idea that they didn’t do. But they offered me a live action Winnie the Pooh.

**John:** Sure.

**Linda:** I mean an animated Winnie the Pooh feature.

**John:** Feature.

**Linda:** I wrote that. They didn’t make it. But it opened the door to Beauty and the Beast.

**John:** I think a lot of writers we talk with, they get hired to do something that doesn’t actually go, but they can demonstrate that they are a good writer who can work with people and that’s what gets them the next job. And one of those things becomes the assignment that actually happens.

**Linda:** Right. Exactly. So that’s OK. You know, you’re getting paid. You’re honing your skills. You’re proving what you can do. And you’re bringing what you bring, which is really important I think.

**John:** So at the time that you’re writing the animated Winnie the Pooh, or eventually you’re brought in to write Beauty and the Beast, are they bringing you in as a special like they’re assigning you this project and you’re writing this, or are you working on a weekly basis? What was the nature of your relationship with Disney at that time?

**Linda:** It wasn’t weekly. It was a contract.

**John:** So just like writing any other feature.

**Linda:** Any other feature. Yeah. Only I didn’t know how animation worked.

**John:** Let’s talk about how animation works, because this is so different. I’ve done three animated movies. And so much of the process of writing an animated film, like the script looks almost exactly the same, but the actual process of making it is so different from live action, not just in terms of the development of it, but then with the live action feature you are writing it, and then you’re shooting it, and then you’re editing it. And those stages are pretty distinct. In animation you’re sort of doing all those processes at the same time. You’re writing a script and you’re hopefully going off and you’re able to get at least one chance to write a script when it’s just a script. But from that point forward it goes through this process of being broken down into shots and storyboards and then into animatics. And it becomes this living thing.

And your script, while still important, isn’t as central as this animated thing that’s in this sort of raw form in front of them. And you have the ability to keep changing story things quite a lot later in the process than you do in live action. It’s a very different situation. It’s not like the editing room. It’s like the clay is still moldable a lot longer.

**Linda:** It’s moldable for years and years.

**John:** Yes.

**Linda:** And what’s interesting about the process, you know, it’s sort of a given that the project will take on a different form from the written word to a different medium, which is usual. Then it will go from that to the next step. But it’s sort of a given that at some point in time the whole thing will get thrown out and you start again.

**John:** Yeah.

**Linda:** If you’re lucky. So, that’s just how that process works. And there’s a lot of, you know, I would say it’s difficult to be a writer in feature animation because they really – you sort of like aren’t on the same par as people who are artists. It’s an artists’ medium. It is not a word medium, even though it’s a story medium.

**John:** It is very much a story medium. But that story is being translated through artists’ hands who are doing some of the functions where in live action the actor would be doing it. The artists are the actors who are making this thing come to life.

**Linda:** Exactly.

**John:** And stuff changes through that process.

**Linda:** It does. It absolutely does. But, again, story is the most significant thing. And the story as a writer as the story-maker, you know, I still believe that we are as significant in feature animation as in a live action feature film.

**John:** Absolutely. And especially the movies that have done well have had their writers as an integral part of the process the entire time through because those are the people who just the keepers of story. The people who can see past that beautiful artistic moment that you created to this is the journey the character is on and this is how we have to get through this.

**Linda:** Because it’s so fragmented. And one person is in charge of this sequence and one person is in charge of this sequence. Which was so confusing to me when I first did Beauty. It’s like well how do you have a singular voice? How do you keep that singular voice? Because every sequence had a different tone as per the person who was boarding it.

So, you know, I fought. I had to fight. I had to fight for Belle. Because Belle was losing her way. She was going backwards, back to being the victim princess, and I had to kick and scream to make her not.

**John:** Also she’s in many situations the only human character on the frame. And everyone else is big and broad and special. And so that’s a thing that happens, especially in animation, but also in live action where the hero becomes the least interesting character on the screen because everybody else can be wild and crazy and be driven by their Id. And the hero has to be this sort of moral compass moving board. And I can totally imagine how Belle could be reduced to just princess of the castle.

**Linda:** Yes. So we couldn’t let that happen.

**John:** No. And you didn’t. Am I correct that Beauty and the Beast was the first animated film nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture?

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** And that was a crucial ceiling to break through, because to be able to think of these movies as not just like a good movie for children, but an actual good movie for adults and for everybody else.

**Linda:** That was a huge breakthrough. It was like on a par with all the other live action movies that year. Silence of the Lambs won.

**John:** Yeah. But Silence of the Lambs is a great movie.

**Linda:** It is.

**John:** Nothing to take away from that. But I think just to be on the same list as Silence of the Lambs–

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** Or these other sort of movies for adults is a crucial thing. And I don’t know if we’ve gotten to a place where Pixar movies could be Pixar movies if we hadn’t gotten an Academy Award nomination for Beauty and the Beast. I do think it was a ground change of sort of how seriously we’re going to take animated films.

**Linda:** Well that’s about the money, isn’t it? Isn’t it about the box office?

**John:** Well, yes. So, I think the box office is a crucial thing to be talking about though because we’re recording this as the Incredibles 2 has just opened and sort of set all sorts of records. Like everybody wants to be that movie. It’s a well-liked movie that is making a tremendous amount of money, so everyone wants to be able to do those things. And very few people can do those things. Disney can do it. Pixar can do it. They’re the same company now. Every once and a while Fox Animation or Warners will have something else that breaks through. But it’s really tough. And it takes a tremendous amount of investment and years of commitment to make an animated movie. Much more so than to make a live action movie.

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** Anybody could just write a check for $100 million and make a big live action movie. You can’t just write a big check and make an animated movie. Essentially the research and development on making it is just so much greater.

**Linda:** It is. It’s much greater. Yeah. And I’m writing one right now for a company called Skydance.

**John:** So Skydance’s logo used to be often in front of like Paramount Features. They’re a big pool of money that invests in movies and they’re starting animation now.

**Linda:** Yes. They’re starting a live animated feature division, but I guess they produce television now as well. And big budget live action features under the Paramount umbrella I guess. So, there’s three in the pipeline at this moment in time. My one was first, but we got put back because it’s a hard subject. Again, it was one of those like let’s throw it all out and start again. So, you just sort of like I had forgotten all this.

**John:** Well, you choose to forget that. It’s like having a newborn.

**Linda:** Oh, yeah right.

**John:** You forget the darkness of those first months. And then it’s like, “Oh no, but they were so cute. You look at the photos, like oh it was delightful.” And then you’re like, “Oh that’s right, this is what it’s like.”

**Linda:** That’s right. This is what it’s like. I forgot.

**John:** Here’s one of the differences is that making a normal live action movie you’ll go through those places where everything falls apart, but it will fall apart in sort of script land and then you’ll start shooting and then you’ll have troubles during shooting and there will be challenges and there will be a terrible first cut and you’ll get through it. But at no point will you be sort of like a ways into it and then just like, “OK, we don’t know what this is. We’re going to change who the lead character is of the story.” And that happens almost every time in animation. It’s just so regular to know that you’re going to have the complete upset.

**Linda:** Yeah.

**John:** And it’s still surprising. I will say the stop motion movies I’ve made with Tim Burton have been somewhat of an alternative to that because you can’t go back and rejigger things very easily. Because once you’ve shot a frame it’s just sort of shot. And so the most that could happen to us with is we could reboard and reschedule some things for sequences we’re not quite sure of yet, so like if there’s things where like we’re not quite sure how it’s going to work out we’ll put those towards the end of the schedule and so we can sort of see what we’ve got and then write towards those sequences which were not set on, but we can’t do that thing which they can do on Frozen and other movies and just like let’s change that entire sequence and let’s make Elsa a very different thing.

We can’t do that in stop motion the way that you can in traditional or sort of CG animation.

**Linda:** I had the best time of my life working with Tim Burton.

**John:** So tell me about your experience. What was good about that for you?

**Linda:** Working with Tim?

**John:** Yeah. I have my memories of Tim, but I’m curious what it was like from your side.

**Linda:** From my side it was, first of all I was intimidated by him. But he agreed to direct Alice in Wonderland. And I went to London to meet with him and I was intimidated. You know, it’s Tim Burton. But when we started talking, you know, he doesn’t make complete sentences because he finishes it in his head.

**John:** Absolutely true.

**Linda:** So he’ll say something and he won’t finish it, and then he’ll say, “But you know what I mean?” And I realized first of all I did know what he meant and I knew who he was.

**John:** Yeah.

**Linda:** Because he came from here. And it came from animation. So, I got it. And then I was able to kind of connect. And I found him to be so open and many directors I’ve found they want to put their stamp on it immediately. They want to just stomp on what was there and sort of show it around and make it theirs. And I didn’t find that with Tim at all. I found suggestions and he’d say, “Well try this,” and they were great suggestions. And he was very, very supportive. And, you know, we had to throw a bunch of stuff out for budget-wise, and I would say how about we throw this out. “No, no, no, we’ve got to keep that.” So I found him to be fantastic.

**John:** Yeah. What I love about Tim is that he treats a writer like a department head. You are the department head in charge of the script and the story. And he treats you with the respect that he would treat a costume designer, you know, a Colleen Atwood, or a great DP, or a production designer, and like lets them run with this thing. And will give them guidance, but like he sort of trusts that you know what you’re doing. And so often directors don’t trust that you know what you’re doing. And that makes a huge difference.

**Linda:** Huge difference.

**John:** Do you know the backstory? I had the competing Alice in Wonderland project. You know that there was a whole thing here right?

**Linda:** I don’t really know the whole thing.

**John:** Well, let’s go through it. So here’s what happened is at the same time that Disney approached Tim about your Alice in Wonderland, because you had written it first for Disney, right?

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** I was approached to do an Alice in Wonderland project for Sam Mendes. And Dick Zanuck was the producer of both movies.

**Linda:** Right.

**John:** Which is just an impossible situation for Dick to be in, but being the uber-producer he was and the wonderful gentleman he was he was making it work as best he could. But it became this crazy situation where like I was trying to write this movie for Sam and Sam was going off and doing another movie. Tim was going to do his movie. Mine was for Warners. Yours was for Disney. And it became a place where it’s just like “Well this is just silly. This is just not going to happen.” And so ours went away and yours went into production. And so the choice was made for Dick. He didn’t have to sort of choose between which of his directors he was going to work for. But it was nuts that there were going to be two live action Alice in Wonderland movies in the same space.

**Linda:** I find that when that happens, when you hear that there’s two competing versions of a project, one of them ultimately goes away.

**John:** But sometimes they don’t and it’s always crazy. So Deep Impact and Armageddon is an example of where both things happened. There is the other Jungle Book movie which is coming out. That’s crazy. Mowgli.

**Linda:** That’s right.

**John:** So it does sometimes happen that both movies exist, but you don’t want to be the second movie most times.

**Linda:** No. No you don’t.

**John:** And we were going to be the second movie. So I wrote a movie called Monster Apocalypse for Tim. And we were getting close. And Pacific Rim went into production and we looked – someone read both scripts and is like that’s too close. We’re going to be the second giant robot movie and we don’t want to be the second giant robot movie.

**Linda:** Right. So whoever gets there first.

**John:** Yep. First to cross the starting line is the thing. It’s tough. But, anyway, I’m glad your movie exists and you got it made and you got to make a sequel and that’s fun. I visited Tim on the set while he was doing your movie and it was in Burbank and they had – actually, no, it was down in Culver City. And they had this giant green screen stage and I’d never been in a space that was that much green. It was really painful to be in that set. And Tim had these special weird tinted glasses so he wouldn’t get headaches from it. But it was just so strange being in a space where I just had no idea what anything was.

**Linda:** What was up, what was down.

**John:** Yeah. I mean, the costumes were beautiful, but there was no set.

**Linda:** He kept having to leave and just get his perspective and reality in the blue sky and all that during that whole process. So, yeah.

**John:** But let’s talk about – that movie was a live action movie and there was a tremendous amount of CG and animation. But there’s other kinds of movies like Justin Marks and his Jungle Book that Jon Favreau directed which are essentially animated movies with like one live action element. And now you wrote the original Lion King, but now they’re going to do The Lion King as an all CG thing with real actors voicing those parts. We’re at a place right now where it’s really difficult to say whether that movie is an animated movie or a live action movie.

My understanding is its being shot as a live action movie technically under WGA, but we’re going to run into situations where is that animation or is that live action and we have to fight to keep them.

**Linda:** Who is going to make that determination though? Studios aren’t because it doesn’t behoove them to because they will have to give up something. So, who’s going to decide? What percentage of real people are in it? So, if it’s all CG, does that make it animation?

**John:** That’s the question. I mean, the original Lego Movie is a WGA movie because there’s a live action element to it. The second movie does not have that and it is not a WGA movie. And the difference for what a writer gets off of writing One versus Two is tremendous. And so my hunch is that there will be some movie that will come up, it will be a big enough fight to say this should actually count as a live action movie that WGA and SAG and DGA will all step in to say like this really needs to count as a live action movie. And whether that becomes a lawsuit or there’s some way that you intervene to say like “You have to be acknowledging this as that kind of movie.”

Zemeckis with his stop motion things, those have been WGA movies to date. And so hopefully that’s a good precedent.

**Linda:** That would be wonderful. So that’s it? So the last Jungle Book was WGA.

**John:** Yes.

**Linda:** The Jungle Book. Is there a definitive–?

**John:** No, there’s not. It’ll be figured out at some point. Well, most people go by if there’s one live action person in it, if there’s a real identifiable human being in there that is filmed then it’s not an animated movie. But there’s going to be weird test cases where you’re just not quite sure what it is.

And what happens if the original Lego Movie, if they’d taken out the live action element would it still be a WGA movie? If something starts as a WGA project can it go into animation and come back out? These are difficult situations and you and I both know writers who are in those situations.

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** Folks who are being hired on to write projects where it’s not quite clear whether it’s going to be animated or live action or a combination of it. And they’re getting hired generally by the worst possible terms.

**Linda:** You know when you’re being hired to write a story, to me it’s like the furthest thing on my mind in the beginning anyway, when I was young and naïve, is how much I’m going to get paid, or how, or what it’s going to land as. I’m concerned about telling the tale. And I’m thrilled to be able to tell the tale. And much less for a big company like Disney that it’s going to be seen around the world. That’s huge.

**John:** Yes.

**Linda:** So the last thing on my mind is like, “Well, do I get residuals for this?” Didn’t cross my mind. So, I think it’s really important for writers who are making a leap from live action to animation to be very conscious, especially the new marketplaces.

**John:** Absolutely. So we were talking about, so Skydance is a new marketplace. But there’s Netflix. There’s Apple. There’s Amazon. There’s new people who are making movies. And if those people make movies under a WGA contract that is so much better for writers like you and me who are trying to make a good movie and actually get paid for it.

**Linda:** Right.

**John:** Than if they were to do it under an Animation Guild contract or no contract like Pixar is done under.

**Linda:** Right. So, when I went to Skydance, you know, I understood intimately the unfairness of it. So, I said, “Well, if you want me to do this then you have to give me a contract that’s as if it’s a WGA deal.” And I actually foolishly didn’t sort of press them to join the WGA, because I actually didn’t know that I could do that, or had that sort of clout in any way. But they agreed. So my contract is as if a WGA contract.

**John:** Which is better. And so I think what we’re going to be looking for in the next ten years for feature animation writers is places where we can get an actual WGA deal, best case scenario. That’s fantastic. That’s great. But in places where we can’t, how do we get coverage there on individual projects, for individual writers, that give them some of the benefits of a WGA contract. That gives them some protection, some backend, hopefully some credit protection.

I looked at some of your credits and you’re listed as additional material by, which is not a WGA credit.

**Linda:** No.

**John:** It’s madness that you could have worked on a movie and clearly would have gotten credit under WGA, but wouldn’t get credit because the studio decides.

**Linda:** The studio decides. Yes. So even in the Skydance project, it won’t be WGA arbitrated. If there are other writers, they’ll decide.

**John:** So ideally you want to get some coverage for that. The other situation which many writers find themselves in is that maybe you’re going back and forth, you’re writing some animation, you’re writing some live action, and getting your pension and health covered between those two things can be really difficult. And so a writer you and I both know said like “Well thank goodness I’m on my wife’s health insurance because otherwise I wouldn’t have health insurance because I don’t work enough in WGA projects. I don’t work enough in Animation Guild projects to get it covered.” And that’s foolish.

**Linda:** And that’s a really scary thing. Like I don’t get WGA coverage on this project and I’ve been on it for two years already. So, thank god I have points, the points system is still working for me.

**John:** So, we’ll explain to listeners that when you work on WGA projects you accumulate points which sort of count against times where you’re not working. So, because Linda and I could be on a project for two years without sort of new income coming in there to sort of pay your things, you have points that sort of carry you over those stretches where you’re not on a new project.

**Linda:** It’s like credits.

**John:** It’s like credits essentially.

**Linda:** Yeah. Then you use them up.

**John:** You use them up. Yeah. And so then you’re looking for the next WGA job because otherwise you’re going to be out of health coverage.

**Linda:** Right. Exactly.

**John:** Scary things. Well, let’s talk about other changes that are out there because just this last week it was announced that Jennifer Lee is taking over as Chief Creative Officer at Walt Disney Animation. Jennifer Lee was on here to talk about Frozen. She is fantastic. She’s a real writer, so it’s great that she’s taking that over.

Pete Docter is taking over that slot at Pixar. Again, a real screenwriter. I would hope that’s somewhat good news for writers overall. They’re both places that really value story. So, maybe there could be some progress made at those two places, at least in terms of we can’t get WGA deals, but at least we can get some better consideration of what it’s like to be a screenwriter working on these projects. A little bit more parity with what we’re getting for writing live action and what we’re getting for animation. I would hope.

**Linda:** Right. I would hope, too. I don’t know if he’s going to change the nature of Pixar, because they’re a non-union joint. So, who knows?

**John:** Who knows?

**Linda:** I hope though that can change a little. And I don’t know Jennifer Lee.

**John:** She’s great.

**Linda:** Well, that’s fantastic. It would not be anything I’d want to take on because, you know, being a screenwriter is one thing and being in charge of all the everything of animation is a whole different ballgame. So, I wish her luck.

**John:** I mean, yeah, it’s more like producing. Or, it’s running a studio really.

**Linda:** Yeah, it’s running a studio.

**John:** It’s all the management aspects of that, but also the creative choices. And so I have a hunch she’ll do a fantastic job of it, but it’s tough.

Like you, she’s also – she went through and adapted her own thing for the Broadway stage, so she’s got that experience too. So, we’ll see.

Do you have any regrets not having gone back and tried to sort of run the show? You haven’t directed any features. You haven’t produced other things. If you were to do it again would you have made different choices in terms of the kinds of things you – the kinds of other roles you would want to take on?

**Linda:** I produced. I guess I have a credit producing a few. You know, people ask me a lot if I want to direct. And I have a skillset. I have big imagination. I have a skillset. I’m a storyteller. I’m a world-builder. And just because I can do that doesn’t necessarily mean I can do something else.

**John:** Yeah.

**Linda:** And maybe I don’t have a director’s eye. Maybe I don’t know where to put the camera. And that’s OK. You know, I create the world, I put the people in it, and when I write I write really specifically, very specifically on the thing. I overwrite, which annoys directors. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m going to be a good director. So I have never taken that on. Because I think I know myself. I also know, I mean, here’s what the really horrible truth is: I get bored.

**John:** Yeah.

**Linda:** Right?

**John:** Totally. And to be stuck on something for three years on the same thing is so tough. At least as a writer you can dip in and dip out. A director, you’re there every day.

**Linda:** Yeah. I can dip in. I like to dip out. [laughs] And do something else, you know. So, if I were to go back and do it again I’d probably just write novels like you have.

**John:** Yeah, writing novels is – that sense of control you have writing a novel is great. So, after your YA novels you haven’t gone back to do prose?

**Linda:** I never have.

**John:** It’s so many words. Man, just so many words.

**Linda:** It’s a lot of words.

**John:** It’s a lot of words.

**Linda:** You have to fill up the white on the page. Right?

**John:** Yeah, you can’t just sort of sketch it in there.

**Linda:** No.

**John:** That is a tough thing. But I’ve enjoyed it. But it’s much more work than I sort of anticipated going into it.

**Linda:** Really. Yeah. I might still try my hand at it.

**John:** You should. It’s fun. I had two listener questions that I thought would be great for you. So I’m going to start with Ben in LA who writes, “I was just wondering if there is such a thing as a bad character want. A character should always want something, but is there an example of something a character shouldn’t want?”

And I’ll sort of put parenthesis around this to say that we talk about want a lot on the show in terms of that driving force behind that character, and really I think animated musicals are a great example of character wants because so often that second song in a Disney movie is the I Want song. It’s basically them singing their wants.

As you’re working on one of these movies how early in the process are you articulating what that character wants? Is it from the very first pitch you’re describing that want?

**Linda:** The I Want issue holds true in musicals, but again I think that if you lean on one thing too heavily it becomes formulaic. And I live in fear of that happening. You know, so my protagonist wants something. And to make them proactive as opposed to reactive they have to proceed through the world with a desire. And however that’s not how everybody lives. So every single protagonist isn’t going to be like the person with I Want who has like I’m never going to stop until I get this thing. That’s not every character in the world.

You know, some characters – isn’t it interesting to have like a normal person who has something remarkable happen to them and then their want becomes to get it back to the way it was.

**John:** Absolutely. Return to normalcy. Yeah.

**Linda:** Return to normalcy, or to find happiness in another way. So, I fear the I Want and it’s also kind of like so getable and kind of easy. Land this I Want on this person and then like whatever obstacle comes at them. They still have this I Want. And then to me it seems like then all the characters become the same. It’s like this relentless pursuit of their desire. And the world is a big place filled with remarkable people who have different experiences and not all of them are the I Want. That’s my rant about the I Want.

**John:** I like that rant. I would say that sometimes I notice that if things aren’t working it’s that the character wants something that I don’t really want for the character. Or the character wants something that I feel like I don’t think the story is set up to give them that want. You know, an example of like it’s a medieval dragon story but the character really wants to sing, or really wants a moment in the spotlight. And it’s like, yeah, but it’s not really a good match for that. It doesn’t seem like you created your universe and your character to fit quite right together. What you’re saying in terms of like there’s characters who like they’re so want driven that it’s the only thing you can see, I get that. And it can be–

**Linda:** It makes it really one-dimensional, or two-dimensional, but it just becomes that. So, then story becomes really simplistic in my view. You just have this drive to get what you want no matter what and then the interesting sub characters come in and out. And then the villain stands in your way. And then you get rid of them to get what you want.

**John:** Yep. You know, some of the fascinating movies, it’s not that the protagonist is opaque, but they’re self-defeating in interesting ways. Like, you may be able to see sort of what they’re going after, but they’re making choices that interfere with their ability to get that. And that draws you in closer because you recognize that weakness in yourself.

**Linda:** Right.

**John:** I think also part of the reason why we’re so attracted to longer form great dramatic television is because it doesn’t have that pattern of like this is the one-time story that you’re going to see this character go on this one-time journey that’s going to epically change everything. It just doesn’t happen that way.

**Linda:** No.

**John:** So they have a bundle of conflicting wants and you see them juggling those different things. And movies tend to be focused for better and for worse on that one road. You started here, you got there, and that is the path of this movie.

**Linda:** Yes.

**John:** Second question comes from Tommy in Toronto. He writes, “At what point during the process do you break down story days? Is this something you tackle in outlining? I’m nearing the completion of a new draft and it’s occurred to me that certain story days seem extremely packed in terms of events while other story days are quite light.”

So, what Tommy is describing is like let’s say you’re watching a movie that takes place, it seems to take place over the course of a week. And if you really look at sort of like day by day by day you could figure out like this would be the Wednesday of the week. I personally don’t find myself thinking about that too much. Do you find yourself thinking about like what day of story this is in your projects?

**Linda:** No. I don’t. I can only think of that where it happened if the time clock was part of the plot, then you would think, OK, well like in 24, whatever it was, this is hour 23. We better get it together. I’m just really old school. I think in the three act structure. And I just do. Beginning, middle, and end. You know, Billy Wilder’s quote, “Get your guy up a three, throw rocks at your guy, get your guy out of the tree.” I think it’s pretty good.

I’ve also never read a screenwriting book, so I don’t know anything.

**John:** Then you’re Craig’s hero, because Craig hates screenwriting books. He rants about them endlessly.

**Linda:** Screenwriting books?

**John:** Yeah. Just like, again, it’s that frustration of formula in the sense that everything has to fit this one model for how things work.

**Linda:** I guess because you’re always looking, you know, if you want to start something you’re always looking for like, because there is no path. There’s no path to being a screenwriter. There’s nothing like if you do this, and you do this, then you’re going to be a screenwriter.

So you grab onto what you can that’s going to guide you through that process. And sometimes screenwriting books are a help, I think, to a lot of people. I steer clear because I don’t want to be on a formula. I don’t want to put – I don’t want to shove my stories or my ideas into this formulaic how to do it.

**John:** Yeah. Getting back to Tommy’s question, I feel like sometimes it is good, like after you finish a draft to just take a step back and look at like realistically could all these things happen over the course of this amount of time. And does it feel like this is happening over the course of a week or a year? And sort of where you’d fall.

A thing that happened in the first Arlo Finch as I got notes back from I guess it was the proofreader or the first production editor was pointing out like the week logic, the week’s logic didn’t really make sense. Like if this was September and this was January, we skipped over Christmas, and so we should at least acknowledge that we skipped over Christmas. There were some interesting things where she was pointing out like, “OK, time does still happen in a normal fashion.” So, trying to figure out sort of when roughly some things could have happened was really good.

And the same thing will happen in movies. At a certain point, you know, they’ll break down and go into boards, but I think even before that process you need to look at did characters wake up twice in a row. I mean, there can be situations where like, OK, that’s actually not possible. Where it went day to night to day again but it’s still sort of the same day. So you got to be looking at that.

**Linda:** I do look at that. It’s like are we at night now? And, again, the time of day, the weather, all plays into it.

**John:** Totally.

**Linda:** Plays into whatever is going on anyway. So, I do step back at a certain point. I don’t realize I do, but I do I guess.

**John:** At a certain point in every project I have kind of a color scheme in mind for the movie or for the book in the case of Arlo Finch, and I sort of see myself moving from like, OK, I’m in here, and then into this new color, and then into this new color. And it’s a helpful way of me thinking about what’s changed along the way. I’m in the green section now. And so if I’m in this section it literally looks more green to me. It’s just the basis of how it is. But some of those logic things aren’t going to be such a thing because I’ve moved forward to a place where I’m in this section now and I know I’m in new days. I know I’m in new places. And even if I’m not like mentally changing the clothes on characters I know that they’ve woken up and gone to sleep again a few times. Things have changed in their life.

**Linda:** I know that actors do that. They’ll color code their script as per what emotions or whatever it is that they’re going through at the time. But that’s interesting. You’re in the green.

**John:** I’m in the green section now. Some interview I was listening to years ago was talking about My So-Called Life. And Winnie Holzman was talking about one of the crucial things she and ultimately the directors had decided is that they wanted her, the lead character’s wardrobe, to repeat. Basically like for her not to have new outfits every time, but to see that she would wear the same things again, because realistically characters do wear the same things again. And they never do on TV, but in this case they wanted to make sure that she was actually a middle class girl who has a limited number of outfits, which I thought was a genius choice.

**Linda:** That was good. Yes it was.

**John:** I’m thinking back to some of your movies and in so many of them characters don’t get a lot of wardrobe changes because they are theoretically just on one quest the whole time through. Like Belle–

**Linda:** Belle gets her yellow dress.

**John:** She gets her yellow dress. That’s crucial and iconic.

**Linda:** She wears her blue dress and then she gets her yellow dress. And then she gets her yellow dress. Or she goes home, and then she comes back and she has her yellow dress.

**John:** I guess with few costume changes each costume change is really meaningful and it really does, you know, it lands bigger.

**Linda:** Yeah. I think you’re right actually. And the yellow dress became such a big thing it needs its own agent. The yellow dress. That’s interesting. Alice shrunk, so she had to get a little mini wardrobe. What else have I written? In Lion King nobody wears clothes.

**John:** Naked people running around the whole time. Rafiki has some like beady kind of stuff, but that’s about it.

**Linda:** And let’s see, Homeward Bound, same thing.

**John:** Not a big wardrobe movie.

**Linda:** Yeah, yeah.

**John:** You know that Linda Woolverton, lovely. Won’t dress her characters at all.

**Linda:** Yeah, sorry, no clothes. You don’t get the clothes.

**John:** All nudists. We do a little thing on Scriptnotes called One Cool Things. Did I warn you about this? Do you have a recommendation?

**Linda:** You did. I was trying to think of – well, I guess, it is a recommendation?

**John:** A recommendation or something you like. If people want to check it out.

**Linda:** OK. Go to Shanghai.

**John:** OK, Shanghai.

**Linda:** Go to Shanghai, China. Go to Disneyland. Disney Shanghai, or Shanghai Disney, and go to the Pirates of the Caribbean ride.

**John:** So why should they check out at that ride?

**Linda:** It’s so awesome.

**John:** Tell me.

**Linda:** If you know Disneyland and the Disney ride, they’ve completely re-envisioned it for like the new version of Pirates, the Johnny Depp version of Pirates, but the whole thing is three domes. And you’re in your little boat. And you go under the sea–

**John:** Of course.

**Linda:** In this little boat. And you’re still on the floaty boat. It’s real water. But these domes are sort of like above you and they’re moving the boat around in circles. And there’s like creatures and there’s a big fight between battleships, you know, the ships. It’s really so imaginative and so impressive. So get on that plane and go to Shanghai.

**John:** My One Cool Thing was almost a Disney Imagineering thing also. So, I’ll put a little bonus. I read a great article, I think it was called Adventure House, and so they were going to do sort of a sequel to the Haunted Mansion. So they have the Haunted Mansion ride or attraction at Disneyland. They were going to build a second one called Adventure House. And so they have all the Imagineering plans for it and what was going to be there and there was like a sleeping bear in a bed and it sounded kind of great. And so I sort of wish they had built that.

But my actual One Cool Thing is an article I read this last week about Climate Central. And I’ll put a link to the NBC News article and also the real website. But what this organization does is a non-profit and they provide information about climate change to local weather stations. So if you’re watching the local news they always have the weather man who is mostly talking about the seven-day forecast. What this group does is they provide charts and graphics and little video packages for local news stations to talk about how climate change is affecting local places.

And so like how pollen counts are going up. And the effect of climate change on pollen counts or on hops brewing and how it will change beer taste because of climate change. It was just a very smart way of getting local news stations to talk about climate change.

**Linda:** Wow.

**John:** In ways they might not.

**Linda:** Interesting.

**John:** This was a really bleak news week and so this was like one of the few little moments of like, “Wow, there’s some really smart people doing some very clever placement of good information.” So, Climate Central, you’re a One Cool Thing.

That is our show. So, as always, our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is also by Matthew. 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 shorter questions on Twitter I’m @johnaugust and Craig is @clmazin. Linda, are you on Twitter?

**Linda:** No.

**John:** Good. Safe. Stay away.

**Linda:** I know. Those knee-jerk reactions, not good. Yeah, no.

**John:** You can find us on Apple 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. We’ll also have transcripts up within the week.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. It is $2 a month. And you can get all the first 355 episodes of the show.

Linda, thank you so much for being here. It was so great to chat with you.

**Linda:** I know. So much fun. Thank you so much for having me. Bye.

Links:

* Thanks for joining us, [Linda Woolverton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Woolverton)!
* Adjusted for inflation, Beauty and the Beast ranks [#133 in domestic grosses](http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm), above Toy Story, Iron Man, and other huge films.
* In [Episode 317: First Day on the Job](http://johnaugust.com/2017/scriptnotes-ep-317-first-day-on-the-job-transcript), we talked about the history of why animation writers are not represented by the WGA.
* In [Episode 92: The Little Mermaid](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-ep-92-the-little-mermaid-transcript), we did a deep dive on the animated film that changed the game.
* [Shanghai Disney’s Pirates of the Caribbean](https://www.shanghaidisneyresort.com/en/attractions/pirates-of-caribbean/) ride is amazing. This [POV video of the ride](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vIchXwRw7U) is definitely a spoiler.
* [Climate Central](http://www.climatecentral.org) is an independent organization of leading scientists and journalists researching and reporting the facts about our changing climate and its impact on the public. It helps [localize reports](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/global-warming-now-brought-you-your-local-tv-weathercaster-n884831) of the effects of climate change.
* [The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!](http://johnaugust.com/guide)
* [The USB drives!](https://store.johnaugust.com/collections/frontpage/products/scriptnotes-300-episode-usb-flash-drive)
* [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/)
* [Outro](http://johnaugust.com/2013/scriptnotes-the-outros) by Matthew Chilelli ([send us yours!](http://johnaugust.com/2014/outros-needed))

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode [here](http://traffic.libsyn.com/scriptnotes/scriptnotes_ep_356.mp3).

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hola y bienvenido. Soy John August.

Craig Mazin: Soy Craig Mazin.

John: Y esto es Scriptnotes, un podcast sobre la escritura de guiones y cosas que son interesantes para los guionistas.

Today we have the grab-baggiest of episodes with topics ranging from screenwriting competitions to toxic fandom to the new Apple deal, plus we’ll be answering questions about capitalizing on heat after a sale, Bad Robot, and NDAs.

Craig: Ohh. But can I do the entire episode in my telenovela voice? Soy.

John: Oh please.

Craig: Craig Mazin.

John: You absolutely should. So, I should say that I’m doing the Spanish because I am here in Spain. I’m in Barcelona at the moment, and it is great. Craig, you’ve been to Barcelona, right?

Craig: I have not.

John: Oh, put it higher on your list of places to go.

Craig: It’s pretty high up there. Just in the midst of all the work travel we sort of put other travel vacations on hold just, because I’m starting to hate planes and time zones. But, yeah, it’s definitely high up there. My daughter is quite demanding about it.

John: It is fantastic. I recommend everything that everybody always recommends about Barcelona. I was here in high school and did not like it, because it was sort of the first big city I’d been to and it was overwhelming. But it’s a really good, approachable big city. I was a little bit nervous about the Catalan of it all, but everyone here speaks Spanish and English. And it’s fun to watch what language they default to you in.

So, if they kind of recognize that you probably are a native, then they’ll speak Catalan. Otherwise they’ll speak Spanish. Unless you’re Asian, and then they’ll speak English.

Craig: Well, what’s going to happen with Melissa is they’re probably going to speak English to her because she looks so not Spanish. And then she will speak Spanish back to them. And then they’ll be surprised, which is one of the most fun things to watch for me.

John: Yes.

Craig: Watching native Spanish speakers listening to Melissa speak Spanish for the first time, they all make the same face. And the first face they make is what’s going on here? What is this? Is this one of those hidden camera shows? What is this?

And they start getting very curious because they want to know where she’s from. Because they’re quite sure she’s not American. Because her accent is too good. But it’s not their accent, so they start thinking are you like one of those German people that ended up in Chile? Or what are you? And thus–

John: She could have escaped–

Craig: The Nazis.

John: Who hid off in Argentina, yes.

Craig: Yeah, no, she looks like the great-granddaughter of some sort of Nazi escapee. Yeah.

John: But she’s a lovely woman and a great wife I take it.

Craig: Yeah. She’s none of those things.

John: She’s none of those things. Let’s get into this because there’s so much stuff on the agenda for today. So, we’ll start with what was going to be our feature marquee topic. We thought it was going to be a whole special episode and it is not a whole special episode. But to sort of give a little recap, this started on Twitter. Someone tweeted at you and me saying like, “Hey guys. You should be aware that there’s a giant scam going on. It’s about Coverfly.” I didn’t know what Coverfly was.

Craig: Me neither.

John: There’s a long blog post. You and I read the blog post. And it looked like, wow, there’s actually a lot here. And then it has all sort of dissipated.

Craig, can you talk us through what you’ve discovered so far, at least what this was?

Craig: I mean, vaguely. I mean, this is the same – so somebody was complaining about this group Coverfly. Coverfly apparently is a service that provides coverage for payment, I guess. And then also offers as part of its conglomeration with 12 other business names offers paid consulting – you know, the sort of thing that you and I don’t like very much.

However, Coverfly also provides a service to other screenwriting contests. They have their own contest, I guess. And then there are other screenwriting contests that become overwhelmed with submissions and need readers to evaluate these scripts. And so they essentially – I guess they outsource that to Coverfly.

Coverfly in turn has its own sort of like script hosting service I guess you’d call it. Right? It’s sort of like a Dropbox for screenplays. And I guess what happened was they started signing people up or migrating accounts to their service without people knowing and then people thought that essentially, “Look, I’ve entered the Austin Screenwriting Festival Competition for instance and suddenly I’m getting an email from these Coverfly people telling me that I can create an account for free if I want, which I didn’t want. And who are they? And why are they sending me ads?” And all the rest of that.

And so it seemed a little stinky and smelly. And interestingly enough it was the same guy that we had our last and final Scriptnotes Investigates episode on which was that former service where the whole thing went kablooey and people lost some scripts.

Anyway, it turns out it’s sort of not really any of that. It’s just kind of actually very mundane, boring, reality of the way businesses work. And it didn’t seem like there was anything particularly unethical going on any more than there usually is in this area of the world.

So, I don’t know, what did you think?

John: I felt we ended up in a place where there were sort of counter-balancing unethical things that were happening. So the initial blog post that we were tipped off to was taken down afterwards, but the Coverfly people had responded to it. I actually tweeted at the Coverfly guys saying like I know you’re going to do a blog post response to this, so I’ll just wait until you do the blog post response to this.

It was not clear who this anonymous person was who was putting up this thing. Whether it was a rival? Whether it was a former client? So the person we were talking to before was John Rhodes. This was back in Episode 191. And the service was called Scripped.com. They’d bought it out, some people lost their material that was on that. It was a special Saturday episode that we put out. Like I think it’s the only time we’ve put out a Saturday episode.

And so we talked with him about that way back when. This seemed like a situation where both sides were doing a lot of Googling of each other to figure out who the other person was and all these Coverfly businesses were related. But also the same guy had taken screenshots from a certain thing. It all got very forensic and kind of dull and boring.

Where I came out of this, and a question I asked on Twitter as it all sort of blew up, was I asked to Twitter at large, “Hey, can anyone tell me whether winning a screenwriting competition actually had a meaningful impact on your career. Like did it actually start your career?” And I said specifically I’m curious who out there has produced credits that they believe only came to be because they won a screenwriting competition.

And if so, which competition? And I think not surprisingly at all Nicholls Fellowship is meaningful. If you win the Nicholls Fellowship, great. That’s fantastic. It’s run by the Academy. Everyone knows what that is.

Some success out of Austin Film Festival. Very little success out of anything else.

Craig: Of course.

John: And that’s what we’ve always kind of said.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, it’s not surprising at all. And one thing that did come out of this which was a bit surprising to me is, look, the guy that made all these charges seemed like an Internet crank honestly to me. One of those people that just goes way, way deep in a Zapruder film-like examination of something. But they did make one point that I thought was kind of remarkable that this company – so the parent company that owns Coverfly and a bunch of other things is called Red Ampersand. And Red Ampersand owns ScreenCraft. ScreenCraft operates at least 15 different screenplay contests. OK?

So, the Coverfly Company is involved with 15 different screenplay contests that are run by itself, meaning its parent company. Also, they are supplying coverage for other people’s competitions. Meaning you’re kind of ultimately paying twice to submit to the same people. Now, what they say is, “Oh, we have different juries and judges for those different kinds of things. And so it doesn’t work like that.”

But here’s the truth. None of this is worth a damn thing and nobody should be using it. Apologies to everybody involved, because some of these people are nice people, but it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. I don’t know how else we can say it and how many times we can say it. It doesn’t work.

There are so many people out there charging you money to enter contests, charging you money for notes, charging you money for consulting. It doesn’t work. And more to the point, not doing it has worked. In fact, not doing it has worked for literally everyone you and I know who works as a professional screenwriters. So at some point I think we’re asking people to take a leap of faith here and stop doing this. We know that the Nicholls Fellowship matters. It doesn’t always work, but it can work. We know that Austin to a lesser extent can work. Beyond that, stop.

John: Yeah. I do feel like screenwriting competitions are the astrology of our business.

Craig: It’s the homeopathy, right?

John: It is. It is. Just maybe entering one more competition is really what’s going to do it for you. It’s not.

Craig: It’s not. It’s not. And people are losing money and I have to also just point out that there is something at some point when you do look at the fact that the parent company owns 15 different companies, they each run – there’s 15 different screenplay competitions. It’s all promotional so that you’ll end up spending money. They are businesses to make a profit. And it starts to get byzantine and more to the point literally they’re charging you money for a lottery ticket and the thing that you can win is not money or prize but rather a brief moment of pride.

And perhaps even a brief moment of not feeling bad. Maybe that’s the best it can be, right? That’s all they’re selling you is false comfort. That is what that industry is. And I don’t begrudge people a right to make money doing a legal thing, but it is our, I think, obligation to tell all of you at home the truth, which is that they don’t matter and they don’t work.

John: So, when I talked with writers who did succeed off of Nicholls or Austin, like Stephen Falk of You’re the Worst was a person who wrote in saying like, yes, winning at Austin was incredibly helpful. And I asked him why and he said, “It helped me get my managers,” and that was important to him. Basically it provided some legitimacy so as he went in to talk with managers he could get over that next little step. That I could totally see and that’s why the prestige of Austin and the prestige of Nicholls Fellowship helps people start careers.

But these things you’ve never heard of, well, Craig and I have never heard of them. Managers have never heard of them. Winning it is not going to do anything for you and that’s what it comes down to.

Craig: Everybody at some point is going to say I was a semifinalist/finalist/winner of some blank fill-in competition named here. Nobody cares. No one cares. No one knows what those competitions are. You know what else they don’t care about in Hollywood? They don’t care about your college degree. They don’t care about your work experience. They don’t care about how many languages you speak. They don’t care about your skills, your volunteerism. You know what they care about? The document they just got handed. That’s it. Period. The end.

They read the script. They don’t care about anything else. So, stop.

John: Yep. Another group of people we’d like to stop are some fans of the Star Wars franchise who seem intent on destroying it, in a way. So, this has been sort of bubbling up for a while, but this is the most recent example was the stuff that happened to Kelly Marie Tran, who played Rose in Rian Johnson’s film, The Last Jedi. She left Instagram. We’re recording this about a week before the episode comes out, so who knows what will happen in the meantime.

But I wanted to just take a moment to talk about fandom and sort of this most recent wave of destructive fandom that you see out there. And see if we have any recommendations for creators dealing with it, or an industry dealing with it, because it just sucks. And it’s just so dispiriting to see every day.

Craig: I cannot explain this beyond the obvious explanation. It’s so bizarre to me. You and I – I look at a lot of these people out there that are complaining about Star Wars because they don’t like, I don’t know, the cast or something, or what happened to a character. These people certainly must be younger than you and I.

You and I grew up in the age of Star Wars. We were each about six or seven when the first movie came out, right? And then the second movie came out nine/ten. So, we are prime Star Wars generation. We are the Star Wars Generation. And nobody ever, ever, ever when we were young talked about these movies this way ever. Ever. Never. In any way, shape, or form. And part of the reason was we felt no ownership of it whatsoever. None. It was a gift that we went to go see.

We all saw them. And, yeah, you know what? I remember thinking the Ewoks were stupid. I didn’t care. Whatever. You know what? So then the Ewoks were stupid. What am I going to get angry? That’s not how it works.

I have no ownership over these movies. They’re movies. My ticket back then cost the same price to go see Max Dugan Returns. A pretty good movie, by the way. It didn’t matter what the movie is. You paid your ticket, you went down, you saw it. And now what has happened is, and I can’t put all of the blame on the fans. I put part of the blame on the companies. The companies have managed to monetize and exploit this fandom, this experience. I mean, you can’t say convention without con. It’s all a con to take your money. They are religiousifying their products in such a way that people begin to feel religious about it. What a shock.

And then they are surprised when it sort of bites them in the butt. I blame the butt-biters for it. However, I do think that the fact that we have kind of built these mythological and engaging worlds around these movies has engendered a certain problem with what I’ll call a problematic segment of our society, specifically young men, young white men, I’ll say between the ages of 15 and 30.

It’s interesting from an anthropological point of view, or a sociological point of view, they didn’t seem to have a problem with a black man in Star Wars. Well, they did, but they didn’t lose their minds. But when you start putting women in Star Wars then they start getting crazy. And my god, you put an Asian woman in Star Wars and they lose their S.

John: Yeah. There wasn’t backlash against older Leia because Leia was already established. She was cannon. People love Leia. She’s seen as a princess. Everyone sort of got that. It was the other women being added to the franchise that hurt it.

I think you’re picking at two very interesting aspects of this, which is that you have the religious fervor quality and whenever people become true believers in things that belief in things can be transformative and it can become dangerous. It can become sort of fanaticism. It can become this kind of zeal that is destructive. You see that happening again.

And also this sort of that 15 to 30-year-old white male culture, which is really the heart of the sort of troll culture. It’s the people who have grown up in the system of like always snapping back against the things they don’t like and feeling that they need to exert control over things because they feel out of control over things.

Craig: Yeah.

John: A related thing which I listened to this last week was a great piece on the shippers of Sherlock. So basically the people who watch the BBC Sherlock and believe that they are absolutely, 100% a couple and that the creators of the show are lying to them when they claim that they are not a couple. I’ll put a link in the show notes to a really great podcast that sort of explores, called Decoder, that explores how that fandom sort of came to be and how it became a giant schism within the community of the fan fiction writers for Sherlock and their fervent beliefs in the nature of that relationship and the degree to which the creators of the show are lying when they say that they are not a couple.

Craig: Yeah. Including the gay co-creator, Mark Gatiss. It just, ugh, I don’t get it. First of all, I have trouble with just anyone talking about shipping or ship instead of relationship, because it makes me itch. Just like I have a huge problem with people using the word stan for fandom, because it feels so blech.

John: And some of it is generational. Sometimes it’s us old men shaking our canes at things.

Craig: Some of it. Some it also is just like I think you guys are just making up words to make yourselves feel like you’re part of a secret group of people with inside knowledge or coolness. It’s not cool. It’s inherently not cool to explain to creators of a show why they’re lying to you about what their two characters should be doing. That’s it. That’s what they showed you is it. That’s it.

John: So do we have any theories about why some properties seem to be a little bit better protected from that sort of toxic backlash than others? Because when you look at the Marvel universe, it seems to have done actually pretty well at sort of keeping the main through line of the movies moving ahead fine. And all the shipping can happen over at the margins, but it’s not affecting the main product and you don’t see a backlash against the main product from the fans.

Same with Harry Potter I’d say. Like there’s always been a lot of shipping happening in Harry Potter. There’s always people who believe that Harry and Hermione belong together, but it never seems to come back to J.K. Rowling that she has done something wrong.

And I wonder what it is. I wonder what is the difference between those kinds of properties. Is it that Star Wars is perceived as being more adult and therefore adults are sort of more engaged with it? There’s something different happening there. If you could figure what that is it would be so useful for us as people creating these giant properties that go out into the world.

Craig: I have a theory. It’s going to be disheartening, but that’s what I do. I think that had Harry Potter begun to come out say two years ago it would be a nightmare for J.K. Rowling. Every single new book would be a nightmare of how could you do this, why would you do this, what happened to so-and-so, why aren’t they together, how could you lie. When she finally reveals seven years from now that actually Hermione and Ron get together, people go bananas. It’s just going to be – and every single who is or is not white, black, Asian, why are there no transgender characters? Why are there no openly gay characters? It would just be an endless thing. And it would be a very different experience. And the reason I would say it would be horrible for her is because every decision she would make would be terribly questioned.

As opposed to what used to happen where a creator would do something and that person’s creations would be considered “cannon.” In other words you would receive them. You wouldn’t question them or feel entitled to have a conversation with them. You would receive them the way we received Lord of the Rings or the way we received George R. R. Martin’s books, or the way we received the original Star Wars.

Now as things on go, it is no longer considered a receiving. It is considered a conversation. So when something new comes along, like the new Star Wars, it’s considered a conversation. Marvel movies are all based on old characters that have thousands of comics behind them. They don’t give us new ones. They just keep giving us old ones. And so they stay within the cannon that exists. These new movies are tellings of stories that have been around for a long time. Infinity War, that whole storyline has been around for a while.

So they’re weirdly not breaking new ground. The only times that they get in trouble is when they try and cast away from what the comics were, which created a huge problem with Doctor Strange.

In the case of what we’re seeing I think with Sherlock, again, they sort of remade a thing. They made it new. So it’s modern day London Sherlock and therefore people were entitled to have a conversation with it. And I think more than anything it is about the time you start something. And unfortunately if you start something now, that’s the world you live in.

John: Probably so. On the sixth or seventh episode of Launch, I guess it’s the seventh episode, we had Tomi Adeyemi on. And her new book, Children of Blood and Bone, is a bestseller. And so it’s the first of a three-book series. And I am fascinated to follow up with her to see now that the book has done so well and the second book comes out what the nature of her fan relationship becomes. Because right now people love the books. They love her. She’s fantastic. She’s exactly the right vessel for this book, but what’s going to happen when she makes tough choices in book two and things don’t go the way that people had expected. What happens in book three? What is the pressure as a movie comes out? It’s going to be fascinating to see what it’s like because your proposition that essentially any piece of popular culture you make right now that has a fan base behind it is going to face these pressures, she’s ground zero for that.

Craig: Yeah. And it’s terrifying because you cannot actually function as an artist if you are responding to the conversation. It’s just not possible. Well, you can, but you won’t do a very good job. The people out there will destroy that which they love. If you ignore the conversation entirely you just have to be ready to know that you’re going to get beaten around the head and face for a bit from now time to time.

A good example is Dan and Dave who do Game of Thrones got an enormous amount of grief in season, I guess we’ve just seen season seven, so season six I think – maybe season five – somewhere in there Sansa ends up getting married to, what was that guy’s name? He’s so bad.

John: Yeah.

Craig: We’re practically – it’s so terrible that I can’t remember his name. Anyway, that guy. She’s married to that awful, awful guy. And then they had a scene where it was just this very hard to watch, drawn out, difficult rape scene. And the show had already dallied in rape scenes a number of times. This one really sent people into a very bad place because it wasn’t in the books. This was something that they had invented. They didn’t take it from George R. R. Martin. And everyone felt it was just gratuitous and brutal to do to this character that they loved.

And then by extension Dan and Dave were misogynists. They were sick. They were A-holes. They didn’t understand – they were part of rape culture. Etc.

The next season they get the revenge and Sansa watches as Ramsay is ripped apart by his own dogs and everybody loved it, including I think all the people that had complained. And one of the reasons they loved it so much is because his brutal death had been earned by his brutal acts.

Sometimes we just have to be patient. Sometimes characters must suffer. Sometimes in really challenging art they suffer and do not survive. And people seem to not be accepting of this when they are engaged in conversation with the author.

John: Yeah. So to wrap this up, let’s go back and imagine The Empire Strikes Back, and let’s imagine that the Empire Strikes Back comes out now, so there already was a Star Wars. Now Empire Strikes Back comes out. It’s the same movie. Same incredibly great quality movie. But you end that movie with Han Solo frozen in carbonite. What is the fan reaction? How dare you take away my Han Solo? How dare you imprison him? Basically that sense of you don’t know what you’re doing. You’re getting rid of the best character of it all. You’ve made this fundamental change in the nature of Luke and Leia’s relationship. And you’re going to make us wait years to find out what happens next.

Craig: I think that people probably would have approached that the way that many people are approaching the end of the current Avengers movie which is to say, “Not really dead,” and in both instances I suspect, certainly in one different correct, and the other one almost certainly correct. But I think they would have had a huge problem with Luke being weak. They would have had a problem with Yoda. I’m sorry, a Jedi master is a stupid puppet, so now for kids we’re just doing dumb hand puppets. That would have been a meme within four seconds. They would have just absolutely trashed Yoda today.

John: Well, also he has Grover’s voice.

Craig: Exactly. So it’s Grover or it’s Miss Piggy. So, I’m sorry, the most powerful Jedi in the world is Miss Piggy? They would have made fun of that. They would have gone after that. And I think, let’s see what else, Lando, who is this guy? Social justice warriors obviously are demanding that the Colt 45 guy being in Empire Strikes – there just would have been racist stuff. It’s all the things that are just predictable. It’s the same thing every time.

And then for the third movie on the far left people would have been accusing it of being imperialist because it’s talking about white saviors and exploiting the native people of a jungle climate for themselves. You know. It would have been the thing. And we can all write that script. And it’s dispiriting because that’s how you know we can’t go on like this because it can all just be written ahead of time. Nothing will survive the crucible of these extremes on either side. Nothing. There is not art that can survive it except bland art.

John: We don’t want bland art.

Craig: No.

John: No, we want great, vital art.

Craig: Yeah. And you know what? I don’t mind mistakes. I also don’t mind bad movies. Just do them honestly. And so with the case of Rian’s Star Wars movie, I really like that movie a lot and it’s just so bizarre that it is a discussion involving politics. It’s Star Wars for god’s sakes. It takes place in a galaxy far, far away a long, long time ago. What the hell?

John: Frustrating. OK, last bit of new news. This past week the WGA announced a new deal with Apple. So Apple is moving into creating original programs. They have not announced the name of this service or sort of how the service is going to work, but they’ve started making shows and so they need to make a deal with the WGA to cover the writers on those shows. Some shows that Apple is doing are through a studio, like a Paramount, or a Disney, or some other place. Some of the shows they are doing are directly for Apple. And the so the WGA made a deal for those shows which Apple is doing directly. And the deal is better than it could have been.

There’s basically two ways these kind of deals work these days. There’s the deal we have with places like Netflix which are subscription based. And there’s places like Crackle, was the example, things that are free to people to watch those shows, and those deals tend to be terrible.

So, the good news is that the deal with Apple if Apple ends up making a free service, free to consumer service, it will be better than that deal which is a good sign because there will be things like minimums for writers to be paid, residuals, other good stuff along the way.

Craig: Credit protections I presume?

John: Credit protections, yes. So it’s a decent WGA deal by most measures.

Craig: And I think that in time these will become the deals. It seems all inevitable. I don’t know what the specific numbers are on these deals. But I don’t know if any of us have any clue what our contracts or our compensation would be on our initial self-negotiated compensation will be in, I don’t know, ten years. I don’t think we have any clue whatsoever. I mean, ten years ago it was 2008 and the iPhone came out in–

John: 2006 I believe. We’re past the tenth anniversary.

Craig: We’re just past it, right? So that’s how much has changed in ten years. So ten years from now, good lord, right? I mean, it’s going to be unrecognizable.

So, yeah, first generation iPhone was 2007. So, we have to keep doing what we’re doing here I think which is just sort of piecemeal-ing these things and going along. But there will be a reckoning.

John: For sure.

Craig: The reckoning will come. And here’s what’s interesting: when that reckoning does come, it will not come against our usual foes. You know, to strike a company that does nothing but exploit the work that we do is an interesting probability. It’s self-destructive but also other-destructive. To strike Apple, uh, OK.

John: Nope.

Craig: Good luck.

John: It is a challenging thing. So, I mean, the programming that Apple makes will be a very small percentage of the income for Apple overall, or maybe actually it will make no income for Apple, but they’ll be used – if it’s a free service – perhaps they will use the programming they make to sell Apple TVs, or iPads, and other things. So, you know, if we say, no, we’re not going to write your stuff, it’s like, well, it doesn’t sort of matter so much for them.

Craig: Yeah. I don’t think they’re actually running any of these shows in a sense to get people excited about a show. I honestly think they’re doing this just to hurt each other at this point. I don’t even know if Apple knows why they’re doing this beyond, “Well, why let Netflix be the only people that does a thing. That just sounds dangerous to us. And we literally have $80 billion sitting around. So let’s spend a little bit of it just to make it competitive. We’re not even sure why.”

Well, that’s a tough employer to negotiate with.

John: Yeah, but right now if they’re going to spend that money on us, as writers, that’s fantastic.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And what we should stipulate is that it’s not like people who are writing these shows these people weren’t getting paid or individually they might be able to get some good things in their contracts. The challenge is that that showrunner might get a really good contract, but it’s very hard to get a good contract for that staff writer on that show because there are no minimums. And so a union has to negotiate the minimums that any writer is going to get paid. And without that it’s just all the way to the bottom. And that’s what happened with Crackle.

Craig: Is there pension and health involved?

John: I believe there’s pension and health. I have not seen the final deal. I just know that there was a push to get good coverage on the whole shebang.

Craig: I mean, that’s really important.

John: Oh my god, pension and health is so crucial.

Craig: That’s kind of the reason we’re here.

John: If you talk to folks who work in animation, who write for animation, pension and health can be a huge deal, because there’s coverage sometimes through the animation guild, but if you’re working on some WGA projects, some non-WGA projects, it will be hard to keep your health together. So, it’s tough.

Craig: Yep.

John: All right, let’s get to some questions.

Craig: All right.

John: We’ll start with Evan in Philadelphia who writes, “I’m a former comic book author and in comics we call the space between the panels the gutters. The gutters are almost as important as what you see in the panels because your brain is actively filling in all those blanks as you move from panel to panel. Scott McCloud has a book called Understanding Comics for an excellent explanation. Do you ever think about the time that passes in between scenes of a script and what your characters are learning, changing, what’s happening to them, etc., in these interstitial spaces and cuts?” Craig?

Craig: Evan, that’s a fantastic question and a great observation. It’s a really interesting analogy. Absolutely. It’s not just something that I – do I ever think about it – I always think about it. The design of scenes from one scene to another, we talk about a lot of times when we’re reading scripts we want to feel compelled through. We want it to seem seamless. And so much of that is about designing the end of a scene and the beginning of another to acknowledge something is happening. And that’s how you can figure out what you don’t need to show.

A lot of times you’ll hear very broad-based advice like “Start your scene later than you thought you needed to, and end it sooner than you thought you needed to.” Well, that’s really referring to this interstitial phenomenon where we can fill things in. But you have to know what those things are. That’s the most important thing. And therefore you have to be thinking about what they are. And then rather than sort of saying, oh you know, hmm, I wonder what could go in this space, figure out what should be there first before you start thinking about what comes after. So I’m constantly thinking about all this. And for actors, one of the classic bits of acting instruction is the moment before. A scene begins, but what were you doing before it? Otherwise it just seems like you’re one of the hosts in Westworld that gets switched on, you know?

John: Yeah. Exactly. So that common advice, like starting a scene as late as possible, ending a scene, I always think about it as a scene ends and it needs to have a little bit of forward momentum. That’s why it’s sort of slanting into the next scene. You’re tipping that energy across the cut into the next scene.

But you’re also always mindful of what had to happen beforehand. And it’s really not you as the author who is filling in those details. It is the audience. So you have to think about expectation. What is the audience expecting to happen next? Or when they see that first shot of the new scene, what are they doing to expect happened that go them there? And if you can do that math in your head you can very often skip over a lot of things that people will just see what it is that they’re doing next.

When it comes time for direction, really literally like moving left to right across the frame versus right to left across the frame, our brains do stuff to fill in the things that we missed based on the way the camera is moving, the way the characters are moving through the scene. You do that work to figure out sort of what must have happened right before this moment and what’s going to happen next.

So, yes. And I think gutters is actually a really interesting way of thinking about those missing scenes, those missing connection pieces that we use all the time in screenwriting.

Craig: Yeah. That’s a great question. I love that. And we talked about this sort of from a different angle when we discussed transitions. We talk about it a lot when we do our Three Page Challenges because sometimes those things feel like they’re not there.

You know, it occurs to me that when people ask what do you need to become a professional screenwriter and work steadily we always say, look, talent, hard work. But talent in what? Vocabulary? Sentence structure? We’ll talk a lot about dialogue, so an ear for dialogue. Things like that. But I suspect that one of the most important talents that we don’t really talk about is what psychologists call mind reading. There’s this aspect of social communication that’s essentially mind reading where we’re trying to figure out what the other person is thinking. And then we shape our comments or thoughts to achieve a change in their thinking state.

The game of charades is just mind reading in that sense writ large, because you’re trying to figure out what someone is thinking. And when we’re writing we’re always trying to think about what our characters are thinking, how they can change what the other person is thinking. How much they’ve picked up on what the other person is thinking. And then in a meta sense, we are in a relationship with the audience where we’re trying to figure out what the audience will be thinking. So that’s predictive mind reading.

These things if you were bad at are going to limit you as a screenwriter. And possibly disqualify you as a screenwriter. It’s a talent that I don’t think anybody really talks about in film school, but it’s a huge part of this.

John: Yeah. And so when you’re getting feedback from somebody and they say like I was confused by this moment, I didn’t understand what this character was trying to do, really you’re discussing a breakdown in that mind-reading. You had not read their mind properly and they couldn’t figure out what was happening next, or where you were trying to lead them. When they talk about like “I kind of lost faith in it, I lost faith in where the story was going,” that’s again a breakdown of this mind-reading about what you’re trying to do and what those characters are trying to do next.

We can’t see inside their heads. We just don’t know what we’re watching.

Craig: Yeah. And none of us are 100% at it. Of course. We all make mistakes. But generally speaking you want to be more right than wrong with that sort of thing.

All right, well we’ve got another question for Miranda in LA. And she asks, “I have a question that NDAs, that’s non-disclosure agreements, and parting ways with an employer with whom you are working on an idea.” And I really like that you said with whom. “Here’s my scenario. For a while I worked as a writer’s assistant to an established screenwriter.” John, I’m already telling you my butt is clenching. OK. My butt is clenching.

“I had developed a concept for a show that needed a plot. Through the course of my work my employer said something that gave me an idea for the story and I ended up with a cool pitch for a show. I wrote up an outline, we talked about it once, and then I was let go a couple of weeks later.

“I’d like to pursue the project, but not with my former employer. I signed an NDA that grants ownership to everything I came up with to my former employer.” That’s not what an NDA does. “Does that mean I can’t work on this project without them or their permission? Or can I use my original concept and take out anything that relates to my former employer’s idea”

Oh. Good. Lord.

John: Oh. Good. Lord. So, first off, we will say that an NDA does not strictly mean that there’s ownership of ideas, but you could have signed something that including NDA language and included that all things discussed as part of work belong to your employer. Without seeing your contract I don’t know. So we cannot give you great legal advice here. And we’re not lawyers anyway, so we wouldn’t be able to give you great legal advice.

What I will say is as a person who has had a number of assistants who have gone on to have great careers, I’ve always had those kind of discussions about the things they were writing and I’ve offered them advice and they’ve gone off and they’ve done stuff. That kind of discussion should be encouraged and is part of the process. So, I hope your boss is not listening to this podcast saying like, “Oh, I know exactly who Miranda is and I’m going to get that idea back because that is a terrible person.” That is not what a screenwriter should be doing.

Craig: Yeah. We would destroy that person.

John: We would absolutely destroy this person. So that sense of like I have this story world, I’m working on this plot, I had those same conversations with assistants over games of pool and, you know, watching Martha Stewart, and all sorts of other discussions I have now with Megan all the time. And so this is not a thing that is unusual.

I would say it’s a little bit unusual that you signed this contract going in. I don’t know many writers who are having their assistants do that. But my instinct is you should feel free to pursue your idea that is your idea. But I would say just look through that thing you singed to make sure it doesn’t say that anything you ever brought up in the office is theirs.

Craig: Yeah. Certainly have somebody review that and have the discussion with them and just say, look, I’d love to do this and is it OK if I just go off and do that please?

Just a little tip. If you do review your agreement and it is – so non-disclosure agreement basically says you can’t talk about any of the stuff that we do here with other people. Right? So it’s pretty normal. If John and I are working on a screenplay that’s something that’s confidential in almost every case. So, we don’t want our assistant tweeting about it, right? Standard NDA sort of thing.

But then there’s this other agreement where you’re essentially saying anything that you think or say belongs to me. It’s my property. It’s considered a work-for-hire. Therefore the copyright is mine. If anyone asks you to sign something like that it has to be basically a company. And I don’t mean like just some random company. I mean like a studio-type company.

So, if say I wanted to talk to some scientist for Chernobyl, just interview him and get some information, he said, “You know what, I’ll write down some things for you and send them,” and I go, oh, if you’re going to write anything down and send it to me you need to sign this thing that basically says HBO now owns what you just said in this piece of paper because we’re not saying, “Oh, we’re looking for people to write a scene or anything. That’s not what we do. We’re just looking for some research or advice.” And as long as then they’re OK with that that’s the document they would sign with a company like HBO or a studio like Paramount, or Warner Bros., or anything. That’s pretty normal.

But if some person asks you to sign that, that’s an alarm bell. It’s a massive alarm bell. So, I think Miranda what you need to do is find yourself an attorney. Talk to them. And then assuming that that person gives you the thumbs up, reach out to your former employer and say I’d like to do this. Would that be OK with you?

John: Yeah. And hopefully it should be OK. And if the guy says no–

Craig: We’ll destroy him.

John: That was a bad guy. Yes, tell us what his name was and we’ll go after him.

The last thing I want to say is I think there’s understandable concern about NDAs overall and NDAs that are used to protect people from being called out on bad behavior.

Craig: Crime.

John: Crime. And creepiness. And so NDAs cannot and should not be used to protect people from doing terrible – certainly criminal things but also just bad things. And so I want us to always shine a spotlight on NDA abuse.

Craig: I agree. And so eventually there will be some sort of legislation with a different congress that will attempt to address this. And I think it could also be a state-by-state thing.

John: Yeah. California could totally do this.

Craig: California could do this. There is a weird thing that also happens where NDAs start to protect what I would call reluctant whistle-blowers. So people will say I have a whistle I could blow but I can’t because of my NDA. Well, I think you can. I think you can. I think you don’t want to. So, it’s a weird – it’s a whole weird thing. Anyway.

John: It’s a whole weird thing. All right, Dan has a question. He asks, “How do big production companies like Bad Robot work? They get a deal from a studio and that funds the company and the development of shows and movies? What’s the corporate structure like? When JJ is paid does it go to the production company and he just takes a salary? Speaking as a company owner, why would JJ want to deal with the business-running stuff? Wouldn’t he just work as a freelancer? What happens to the company if he’s off directing for six months? It would seem that the revenue that people like JJ would make as a company is insanely profitable. So, anyway, I don’t mean to pick on JJ, but I was just thinking of him as an example.”

So, Bad Robot is a company that makes Mission: Impossible movies, they make Westworld, they make other JJ Abrams movies. Like they make Star Trek. And so I’ve gone into meeting with them. I’ve never written anything for them. But they have really nice offices out in Santa Monica. They have a lot of people who work there and they’re really smart, great people. So they are busy doing stuff. Their deal is with Paramount, but they’re always doing other things. They just started a videogame company as well.

So, Craig, why do you not have a Bad Robot?

Craig: Well, no one has asked me to have a Bad Robot. I think that the prerequisite for these things is television. So, people think of JJ as a movie guy. He’s actually a TV guy. He came out of TV. And when you come out of TV and you’re making a few hit shows then there’s a massive revenue stream.

So earlier this week, Dan, there was a news story about Greg Berlanti who is an incredibly prolific television producer with Warner Bros. And they just made him I think it’s a 10-year deal for $400 million. That’s guaranteed $400 million. And then it goes up from there. And the reason why is he has 14 shows on the air apparently, which is insane. And so this is really a television empire business. And this has always been around.

There have always been these little mini studios that were mini studios making television. So, Chuck Lorre has a little mini studio. Back in the day Stephen J. Cannell who would make a lot of the action programs that John and I grew up watching, he had a little mini studio.

John: You had MTM.

Craig: MTM. And John Wells had a mini studio. So these have always been around. And now we have this crossover where they’re making television and also big movie franchises. So how does it work? Basically, yes, the studio will make a large deal with that business. They will guarantee them a certain amount of money. That money is used to cover overhead and employees. There’s almost always somebody other than the principal creative, which in this case is JJ, who is helping to run the business, like a principal business runner.

And then sub-business runners underneath. JJ and the company are paid as producers. JJ is then also paid individually as a writer. JJ is also paid individually as a director. So he has three different streams of income. And typically the production company is making a fee off of everything it produces and then that fee is either applied against, or in really great cases not applied against a backend percentage of profits or gross, depending on how good your deal is.

So the question is why would JJ want to deal with all the business-running stuff? Well, he’s not sitting there signing certificates for office insurance and handling human resources. There are people that do that for him. But he’s of the mindset of that. That’s what he likes to do. Same with Simon Kinberg. They like this kind of I make things but I also overlord things.

Our friend Chris Morgan has a – I mean, it’s smaller than JJ’s thing, but it is a similar kind of thing. I don’t have an interest in it. I like doing what I do. I mean, I suppose maybe one day, but I don’t want a building with a lot of people in it. I don’t want human resources. I don’t want development people. I don’t want it. I like my office. It’s me and then it’s Jacqueline Lesco who is my associate, who is sort of my editor, and it’s the two of us. And it’s wonderfully quiet. And I love it. So, I think maybe it’s a question of ambition. It’s basically is there a desire for you to do this and do you have the ambition to do it.

John: Yep. That’s really what it is. A talent, and a vision, and an ambition to do all those things. And I would hope that I have talent and that I have vision, but I do not have the ambition to have this massive company. And the overhead, the emotional overhead, of having all of those employees.

So I’ve got four. And four is plenty. Four is a lot for me. And so I’ve got Megan. I’ve got Nima. And I’ve got Dustin. And we make stuff. And that’s great, but really mostly my software company. Megan helps me out with my writing stuff — I am working as a freelance writer. I’m not working as some big production company entity.

I don’t want to have to go to some other office every day. I don’t want all that feeling. And so even though JJ Abrams would have really smart people to do all that stuff, and even though he gets to participate in lots of other projects because his company is making 30 things, that’s exciting. But he also has to participate in some of those projects. And I’m sure it is challenging when he goes off and directs a Star Wars movie in London for all the other stuff to get done. And that’s going to be the same challenge with Greg Berlanti running 14 shows, or Chris Morgan with Fast and the Furious, plus other franchises. But that’s a choice they’ve chosen to make and that’s great. But it’s just not a choice that I would want to make.

Craig: No. Not at all. And Spielberg has been doing this sort of thing forever. So he has his own at Amblin and then DreamWorks and then back to Amblin again. But then he does his own movies. And so, yeah, it’s really just a question of desire and scope.

Yeah, and by the way, even for Greg Berlanti. So he does most of the television shows, but then he does Love, Simon. Right?

John: Yeah.

Craig: I think that’s part of it also is that you like doing different things and you don’t mind never being at home. That must be a part of it. It seems like a very busy life.

Let’s get this last one in here. Alex in LA. Who knows, maybe we’ll get more than one more in. Alex in LA – I get all the LA people. He writes, “Recently,” or it could be she, writes, “Recently after years of struggle I finally made my first big spec sale.” Yay.

“While the sale is great, what I really want is to have a long and sustained career and not just be a one-hit-wonder. So my question is what can I expect to happen next and how can I maximize my opportunities when I’m in that rare moment where I actually have a nice Deadline write up and a little career heat? What are the traps to look out for?

“For context, I’ve had some minor successes before and I’ve even been on the bottle water tour when a previous script of mine got a lot of attention, but sadly no sale. So I’m not a complete newbie at this, but I’d like to know what happens when you move past the level of general meetings at random production companies and into higher levels of the industry.”

All right, John, we’ve got a new kid. What do you tell ‘em?

John: All right, so first Alex congratulations. I would say here are some priorities for you. Priority number one: let’s get that script made. So having sold a script is fantastic. Having a script actually produced and a movie is out is much, much better. So if there’s anything you can do to get this movie made, I say do those things to get that movie made.

So that is taking the notes, trying to make those notes actually work. Always asking about the next step. Always asking how are we going to get a director. What are the things that are happening next? Try to make that thing actually become a movie and not just one thing that you sold. So, great that you sold it, let’s make that a movie would be my first thing.

Second priority I would say let’s get you another job. Let’s get you writing something else. So, that could be a pitch that you’ve gone out with, that you’ve set up, that you’re going to be writing. It could be an assignment for something to write, a preexisting piece of material. It probably won’t be a rewrite if it’s so early in your career, but it could be a rewrite. But getting you as a person who gets hired and not just a person who has sold something is great.

Third I would say maybe you need to staff on a TV show. That’s not advice I would have given ten years ago, but I think most writers are working in television right now. And so if there’s a TV show that you could be staffed on I would look at staffing on that TV show, especially if your script is a perfect example of something out there. Maybe try to staff on a show, even like a short-run show for Apple. An eight-episode Apple show would be great experience for you and get you more scripts under your belt.

Craig: All fantastic. I’m not sure what I could possibly add to that other than you should continue to be concerned that this will end tomorrow, because that’s kind of the way it works. The trend is to get rid of you. You are a new infection in the body of Hollywood. It will try and get rid of you. The good news is eventually it will stop trying to get rid of you and then you will start to try and get rid of it and you won’t be able to. But that’s a long way to go.

So, get the next job. Get. The. Next. Job. Go out there swinging at as many things as you can to get that next job, to keep working. Nothing is sexier than a writer who is unavailable. And it’s a shame, because it has nothing to do with our abilities, but being unavailable is the thing that makes people excited about you because that means somebody else likes you, which means you’re likeable. That’s the mess of it all.

So, yeah, stay ambitious man.

John: Alex, you’re going to be very busy because you’re going to be rewriting your script that you sold. You’re going to be going out and pitching on a bunch of things which means you’re really going to be doing the internal writing of all these different projects. You’re going to be figuring out how you’re going to tackle these projects.

Plus, you’re going to be writing new stuff for yourself because where I do see writers who have sold that one thing who never sell another thing it’s because they never really wrote another thing. They just went out and tried to get that first movie made or try to get a deal and they never wrote something else new.

So, you’ve got to do all three things, which seems crazy because you worked so hard to get to this point, but you’re now going to be probably working a lot harder.

Craig: Yeah. And you’re going to have to assume that there are going to be some swings and misses along the way.

John: Oh yeah.

Craig: You may also work on something that doesn’t work out and you get fired off of it and then, you know, OK, well you’re going to have to deal with that fallout or whatever. But it won’t be your problem because you’ve already got the next thing lined up. So actually now is when you have to work harder than you’ve ever worked before. And you should enjoy and be proud of the moment, but I think honestly Alex your questions are implying the right mindset.

John: 100% agree. All right, let’s save that last question for next week and instead go to our One Cool Things. So, my One Cool Thing is an article by Avi Selk for the Washington Post called The Worst Sex in the World is Anglerfish Sex, and Now There’s Finally Video.

So, anglerfish are those things you’ve seen in cartoons. They’re these monstrous sort of Precambrian Jurassic fish that have the little lantern dangling over their heads. They live deep, deep in the water. They’ve never seen sunlight. But there’s video now of this anglerfish and it’s a female anglerfish you find out because female anglerfish are the giant ones and male anglerfish are tiny, tiny little fish. And when males mate they bite into the female fish. Their teeth hold on basically forever and they basically become subsumed into the bigger fish.

The video is fantastic and disturbing. It looks alien. So I just encourage you to see it. I’ll actually put two different video links in there. One which simulates what it would look like if humans did this, which is so disturbing.

Craig: It’s the best. I’ve seen this, too. It’s awesome.

John: Yeah. So I love that we live in a world that has such incredibly freaky creatures out there. And while it seems like, “Oh, that poor male fish is dying to procreate,” it’s also very kind of smart mechanism. Because literally all of his DNA gets in there because he becomes part of the other fish. So he’s both a parasite and he’s eaten by it. It’s all interesting and it feels alien in a wonderful way.

Craig: Yeah. I got to say once you get past the mammal situation and you get into insects and reptiles and fish, women – I think they generally win the whole battle of the sexes. They seem to be winning. And violently in all sorts of fun ways, like biting the heads off their mate. You know, I always love those things. But, you know, I’m a praying mantis fan.

John: Well, if you think about it there’s a reason why women should win because essentially if the goal of reproduction is to pass along your genes, ultimately the women are going to be the ones who are going to give birth and raise the children in many cases. So there’s a reason why you’d want them to be stronger and survive.

Craig: Yeah. It really comes down to math from what I understand. It’s a question of how many eggs, you know, so mammals are basically we’re pregnant with one offspring at a time. And then when you’re in reptiles, fish, and insects they’re pregnant with a million offspring at times. So, like the math has a huge impact on whose head gets chopped off basically. It’s a real mess out there. Biology is brutal and doesn’t care about our feelings. Isn’t that terrible?

Well, I got all geeked out yesterday and watched two of the E3 press conferences. The one was the X-Box press conference and then the other one was the Bethesda press conference. And really I was just watching the Bethesda press conference to see if they would finally just say, OK, yes, there will be an Elder Scrolls 6. And they did. There’s going to be an Elder Scrolls 6. But not for like four years probably.

And one of the reasons why is because it’s going to be the game they work on after the next game they’re working on. And the next game that they’re working on is their first original franchise in 20 years or something. Because Fallout was actually based on something they had purchased from another company. And then they made it what it is.

But in any case Bethesda, my favorite game studio, has a new game that they are going to be putting out I think probably for the next generation platform, so my guess is 2020. And it’s called Starfield. And what we know about it is it’s in space. That’s it.

But I have a feeling if it is remotely like what we have all come to love from Bethesda games then even if it’s just Fallout in space, I’ll be thrilled.

John: That will be great.

Craig: So, anyway, Starfield is hopefully heading towards us in 2020. And then I’m thinking Elder Scrolls 6 in 2022? Then at that point if I get hit by the bus I’m OK.

John: Yeah. Hopefully there will still be a planet in 2022.

Craig: Well–

John: No guarantees in this world.

Craig: There’ll be something.

John: There’ll be something. Will there be humans? Yeah. There will still be a planet.

Craig: I’m optimistic.

John: All right, good. I like the optimism.

Craig: I don’t why. Because I’m stupid.

John: You’re not stupid, Craig. You’re smart and you’re wise and you have umbrage for only the right things.

Craig: Thank you.

John: That’s our show for this week. Our show is produced by Megan McDonnell. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Jeff Mooney. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send longer questions like the ones we answered today. But Craig and I are always delighted to answer your questions on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

You can find us on Apple Podcasts. Just search for Scriptnotes. While you’re there, leave us a comment. That helps people find the show.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes, plus links and such at johnaugust.com. You’ll also find transcripts. They go up the week after the episode goes out.

You can find all the back episodes at Scriptnotes.net. Last episode I proposed that we may end up doing a digital version of the USB drives down the road. We’re thinking through that. We still have a few of the existing USB drives if you’d like one of those. But they may be the last of their kind. So, we may end up going to a fully digital version. And let people download them in chunks or maybe batches of 100 so they can live on with–

Craig: I think that’s smart.

John: Yeah. It’s really the international users are really facing – sometimes the import fees on the USB drive which is hard to value.

Craig: Yeah, you know what, and then they have to pay those taxes that end up coming back to us as foreign levy fees.

John: Yep. Crazy.

Craig: That part’s nice. I finally get–

John: Actually that’s true. Craig is referring to writers get paid these foreign levy fees that are not residuals. They’re kind of like residuals but they’re not residuals. The WGA handles it which is controversial. But it’s nice extra free found money because of Europe and other countries.

Craig: Thank you Europe and other countries.

John: It’s nice. Craig, thank you for this discussion which happened in Europe for me, Los Angeles for you. Lord knows where you’ll be next time we try to talk, but–

Craig: I know where I’ll be next time. In Europe. When you’ll be in the United States.

John: That’s what it is. We’re always – someone is always safe and out of the country when we’re doing this.

Craig: Yep.

John: Cool. Craig, thanks so much. Bye.

Craig: Thanks John. See you next time.

Links:

• Coverfly’s response to accusations in a now-deleted blog post. Here’s a conversation on the Screenwriting Reddit page about it.
• In 2015’s Episode 191 The Deal with Scripped.com, we invited John Rhodes from ScreenCraft and Guy Goldstein from WriterDuet to investigate a data management crisis with Scripped.com.
• Toxic Fandom Is Killing ‘Star Wars’ by Marc Bernardin for the Hollywood Reporter
• Slate’s Decoder Ring podcast covers the Johnlock Conspiracy.
• Apple has made a deal with the WGA
• Evan in Philadephia recommends Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art for a great explanation of “gutters.”
• JJ Abrams’ Bad Robot is an example of a big production company led by a creative.
• The worst sex in the world is anglerfish sex, and now there’s finally video by Avi Selk for the Washington Post. This video’s upsetting animation shows what the process would look like for humans.
• Bethesda’s Starfield has been announced
• The Scriptnotes Listeners’ Guide!
• The USB drives!
• John August on Twitter
• Craig Mazin on Twitter
• John on Instagram
• Find past episodes
• Outro by Jeff Mooney (send us yours!)

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.