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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Drew Marquardt

Scriptnotes, Episode 478: The One Hour Drama, Transcript

December 11, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August and this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig is gone this week but luckily I have two guests who more than make up for that absence. Dailyn Rodriguez is a television writer-producer whose credits include Ugly Betty, The Night Shift, and USA’s Queen of the South for which she serves as executive producer. Next up she’s moving to the DC universe where she’s writing the pilot for a new Wonder Girl series. Dailyn, welcome to the show.

Dailyn Rodriguez: Thank you so much. I’m so happy to be here.

John: So you are actually in the writing process now. You’re starting on this new pilot. What is it like to start on a new show after having run a show?

Dailyn: You know, it’s really exciting. I’ve been in the Queen of the South world and in that headspace for four years, so it’s exciting to branch out, try something new. Also I’ve never worked in the superhero genre, so I’m learning a lot and it’s really exciting. It’s something very different for me, although I make jokes that Queen of the South is kind of a superhero show except she doesn’t have super powers. She’s really smart. But it’s her against the bad guys kind of storyline. So, it’s also a different studio and a different network, so it’s relearning the notes process with different people and their rhythms are different and their likes and dislikes are different and etc., etc.

John: Yeah, I want to get into all that with you, both running an ongoing show but changing up to develop new stuff. So, I want to get into that. But first I want to welcome our second guest, Chad Gomez Creasey, whose TV credits include Pushing Daisies, Castle, NCIS: New Orleans where he serves as executive producer. But way back before Scriptnotes he had roughly Megana’s job as my assistant. Chad, welcome to the show.

Chad Gomez Creasey: Thank you so much for having me on. It’s a pleasure to be here today.

John: Now, seven seasons into NCIS: New Orleans and I’ve been meaning to ask you why is there so much crime in the Navy. What’s happening here? Is it a Murder She Wrote situation? Why is there so much crime in the Navy?

Chad: You know, the best thing too about New Orleans is that in reality there isn’t an actual naval base there. There’s like a naval reserve, an air-naval reserve base that is shared by the Navy and Marines and the Coast Guard. So, yeah, it’s definitely you wonder why a small city of half a million has so much crime, but you know, it’s New Orleans. What happens there stays there.

John: Cool. Now, generally on the show we talk about limited series like The Queen’s Gambit or Chernobyl, but today because I have you guys here I want to get back to the meat and potatoes of one-hour dramas on broadcast and basic cable, because even in this age of streaming it’s still the bulk of TV writing jobs out there. So I want to talk about the format, about writer’s rooms, about the role of the writer-producer. And because it’s 2020 I also need to talk about the pandemic and how you guys are handling that for your shows.

Also, in our bonus segment for Premium members I want to look at ambient TV. So what does it mean to watch television that you don’t even have to watch? So stick around in the Premium segment for that.

But let’s get into some basic terms here. What do we mean by normal television or traditional television? Dailyn, what does traditional television mean to you compared to limited series or streaming? What do you think of with the kind of show that you’re writing for Wonder Girl or for Queen of the South? What does that look like?

Dailyn: Well, there’s a different way that you sort of look at the storyline vis-à-vis breaking structurally, because you really have to work towards the act breaks because of commercial breaks. So it’s a much more strict way of looking at structure. And working dramatically towards that dun-dun-dun commercial. So that makes it sort of a different beast to write.

John: In features we talk about act breaks, you know, first act, second act, third act, but those act breaks are not real strict things. Whereas in a broadcast show that has commercial breaks those are real things. So for a show like Queen of the South how many act breaks are there?

Dailyn: We have a teaser and five acts. But the teaser really is just a long act. So technically it’s six acts.

John: Great. So that teaser is from the minute the program starts up to some reveal and then after the teaser is some title sequence, a commercial, and then we’re getting back into the real meat of the show.

Dailyn: That’s correct. And there’s sort of like a rule, at least for Queen of the South, that no act can be really shorter than five pages. So, that’s why acts have just gotten shorter because of that, but it can’t be shorter than five pages.

John: Now, Chad, on a NCIS: New Orleans show how many acts are there and how regimented are the act breaks for something like your show?

Chad: Yeah, I mean, look, we’re a traditional network show on CBS, so we have a teaser plus four acts, so it’s really five acts. And we are very regimented. We aim to be about 42 minutes and 30 second for the entire episode. We can be under by a certain amount. I think it’s up to 2.5 minutes. But we can’t ever be over that amount, because we still have to have the correct amount of time in the commercial breaks. And sort of similar with Queen of the South, I think at a minimum each act break we try to aim for minimum of six pages. But I think on air CBS has pretty strict rules that we have to be around three to 3.5 minutes is the shortest that any act can be.

John: Now, it’s not just what the scripts look like on the page and how you’re writing towards those act breaks, but there’s also an expectation with these kind of shows of some return to a kind of stasis, especially on a crime procedural like NCIS: New Orleans. But you’ll also see this in superhero shows that Dailyn is writing right now is that there’s a thing that happens over the course of the episode, but by the end of the episode the world is pretty much the same. Is that something that is challenging for you after four years and now seven years of writing your shows?

Chad: Yeah, I mean, I think in terms of NCIS: New Orleans in a good way we have a formula. And, I mean, now that we are seven seasons in and I think going upwards of 150 episodes we’re constantly in our writer’s room pitching stories where it’s like, wait, did we do something like that beforehand? And we then have to look back and be, oh yeah, we did something like that season one, but how much of the episode was it, was that really the crime, can we do it slightly differently? Because there only are so many crimes that you can be doing or versions of that crime. So for us it’s always looking at the procedural story and how can we close out something every episode. But the stuff that is definitely more enjoyable is with our characters and how can we sort of be playing with them, advancing their individual stories.

But, yeah, it’s definitely a challenge and we are constantly looking back. We kind of have a rule that if we did something at least three seasons ago we can kind of repeat it again in some way, shape, or form. But definitely not within the past couple of seasons.

John: And Dailyn for your show how do you balance that needing to feel like there’s some progress overall over the course of a season versus how much happens over the course of an episode? What is that discussion like for you guys?

Dailyn: Well, our show is more serialized, because it has more of a soap opera element to it. So for us it’s very much sitting down at the beginning of the season and figuring out where we want to end the main character, Teresa Mendoza. And we work towards that. But even though it’s more serialized than like NCIS: New Orleans we still have a little bit of a formula. Almost always act four there’s an action sequence or it culminates into some shootout or something like that. There are tropes that you sort of have to repeat, even though you don’t want to. It’s like somebody always gets kidnapped every season. [laughs] You know, there’s somebody that you thought was good turns bad. I mean, there’s only so many things you can do in a crime show. So there are – for us the challenge is how do you make that new and fresh every season knowing that we’re sort of treading in similar areas.

John: Now, I hear both of you saying we and us and other writers will talk about we and us and they’re being sort of generous because really they’re talking about the work that they’re doing, but you have writing staffs who are all working together to do this thing. So, that’s a huge difference between Craig writing Chernobyl or Scott Frank writing Queen’s Gambit. They were just doing it by themselves, whereas you guys have to coordinate a team to all be working on something together. So let’s get into that. Let’s talk about writing staffs and how you’re figuring out the course of a season.

So, Chad, something like NCIS: New Orleans what is the blue sky process at the start of a season figuring out these are the kinds of things we’re trying to do this season?

Chad: Yeah, I mean, usually we have to pick up from our previous season where we generally leave things on a cliffhanger, or sometimes we do sort of close out a storyline that we’ve been following for at least maybe half the season but we kind of tease up something at the end that we’re going to continue into the next season. And it’s a challenge because we’re 24 episodes. And I think we’re one of only maybe ten shows left on traditional network that do that many episodes in a season. And so we generally come in at the start of the season and the first week is generally blue sky and we’re just kind of looking at our main characters and just sort of deciding where we want them to go. We usually only look at it for half a season at a time, because we generally have a midseason break, usually around episode 10 to 12. So we’ll kind of tackle that first chunk.

And then we kind of let the season then evolve naturally. Things that we’re enjoying, storylines, how some of the characters are evolving. Then at that midseason point that’s when we kind of look at the rest of the season and sort of map out what we’re aiming toward. Because doing 24 episodes we really are slaves to the calendar. So there isn’t a ton of time to waste before we have to really get in there and start breaking individual episodes.

I wish we had the luxury of spending an entire month or more kind of really mapping out where we’re going, but we just don’t get the chance to do that.

John: Now, Dailyn, as a more serialized show do you spend more time figuring out the whole arc of what the season is at the start? And if so, if you were to look back at a season how closely does it match your plan for how a season was going to go?

Dailyn: Yeah, we are fortunate that we have more preproduction time. So we have more time in the writer’s room with our writers. And I co-showrun Queen of the South with Ben Lobato, so what we try and do – at least season four and season five we work just us two together and come up with the shape of what we want for the season and sort of have a middle point and an endpoint and some sort of storylines for our other characters, not just the protagonist, because we serialize all of our characters. They sort of have a character arc through the season.

And then we bring it to the writer’s room and we lay it out on the board. We sort of have the whole season out on a big board, like every episode, because we had 13 episodes season four and 10 episodes this last season, season five. And so we have a general idea of what we want to do. And then we throw it to the room and we go, “What do you guys think? Should we move this over here? Do you have a pitch for this?” And then the writers help us fill out the missing pieces.

So it’s really a great environment and it’s really creative. And having the same writers pretty much for two seasons really helps us because they know how we work, we know how they work, so it’s a well-oiled machine at this point.

John: How big is the staff on Queen of the South?

Dailyn: Oh my gosh. We had eight writers this season I believe.

John: And of those writers is everyone writing at least one episode, or are there teams, or how does that work?

Dailyn: Everybody wrote their own episode. And a couple of episodes were co-written. But everybody got their own episode.

John: And Chad how big is the writing staff on NCIS: New Orleans?

Chad: On any given season we’re roughly 10 to 11 writers.

John: Great. And so of those everyone is going to be writing one or two or three? How does that work out number wise?

Chad: Yeah, I would say on average the upper levels will write upwards of three episodes, and then some newer, younger writers might be doing one or they’ll maybe co-write another. But we always try really hard with our support staff to give them an opportunity. So generally one or two of the support staff as well, the writer’s assistant or one of the PAs will be co-writing an episode, or in some circumstances they’ll even get to write an individual episode on their own.

John: Now, we talk about writing an episode, writing a script, but there’s actually writing that happens before then. So Chad can you talk about on NCIS: New Orleans what are the written documents that precede a script?

Chad: Yeah, so on NCIS: New Orleans we first have to offer up something to the network, just to sort of say that, hey, this is the story arena that we’re doing, which is generally a single page document which kind of just goes over what the crime is going to be and how we’re going to advance the individual character storylines. From there, once we it’s off the board it goes to an outline, and then we have a pretty regimented process where the writer of record they get to take that first stab at the outline. We have an upper level producer who is overseeing that episode. So then they’ll give notes on it first and let that writer kind of tinker with it before it then goes to our two showrunners. And then they bless it or sometimes they’ll take a little pass through their individual typewriter.

But then from there once that gets submitted to the network we get network notes. And then the writer goes off and they take a whack at the script. And usually it’ll go back and forth, again that supervising producer who is sort of overseeing it will be giving notes to the individual writer. We try, just again on a 24 episode show, our two co-showrunners are busy putting out all sorts of other fires all the time. So before any scripts really get to their hands we really try to get them as polished as possible, just because time is limited.

And so sometimes the producer who is overseeing things will kind of take a pass through it and then usually sometimes one of our two co-showrunners will kind of do the final little pass. You know, we’re lucky right now because in seven seasons we have kind of a top heavy staff and a bottom heavy staff. We don’t have a whole lot of middle ladder rung right now. So we’ve got a pretty good system where for the most part our two co-showrunners can be doing all of the other necessary work of putting out all the fires and keeping the train running.

John: Now talking about page count on these documents we’re talking about, so you said it’s a one-pager for the story area. How long is an outline for one of your episodes?

Chad: They used to be longer. They were upwards of 15 pages. We’ve kind of got them now pared down to about 10 to 11 pages, because the studio network kind of trusts that they know what we’re doing. And then our scripts generally come in, we shoot anywhere between 52 to 55 pages is kind of the maximum that we’ll be able to shoot in order to get the cut down.

John: Now, Dailyn, what is that process seem like on your side? So do you have a similar kind of story area document before it becomes an outline before it becomes a script? What is your process?

Dailyn: It’s pretty much the exact same thing. So we’ll have a story doc that’s about a page to a page and a half. And we’ll get notes on that. With us it’s a little harder since it’s not as easy – like here’s a crime. It’s so character-driven. So there’s a lot of like document-itis is what we call from like studio/network. It always ends up presenting more questions. You think it’s normally just simple, you just get the story document approved and move on, but it always raises a bunch of questions that you hopefully answer in outline. And our outlines are about 12 pages long. And then we get studio notes on that and network notes. And then we go out to script and our script page count is about the same as Chad, about 55. About that.

Our episodes are 42 minutes when they air. So, yeah, that’s about right.

John: Now, you talk about getting notes. What is the process of getting notes? Is it a notes documents or is that a phone call where you get the notes from the network and from the studio.

Dailyn: I mean, for us it’s always a phone call. Sometimes – as we’ve gone throughout the seasons and now we’re in season five, a lot of times if it’s not huge we’ll just an email from the network. The studio always likes to get on a call. I think it’s their way to be cheerleaders, or however they see it, you know. So they like getting on calls. I don’t think we’ve ever had actually just page notes from the studio. But the network will often just give us some thoughts in an email if they don’t have time to get on a phone.

John: Now both of you are on incredibly successful shows for your respective networks, but have you guys been in the process where things are not going well? And what is it like working on a show that is struggling? Do you have any insights on how it feels differently on those situations? Like Chad I know you’ve worked on some difficult shows. What is the challenge? What is the morale? What are the opportunities on a show that’s struggling?

Chad: I think it’s always a little bit different on every show. Thankfully my last two shows, NCIS: New Orleans and Castle, I came on board when those shows were well established. You know, came on board for season three of NCIS: New Orleans, but we also had a new showrunner who took over for that season. So, and he really wanted to put his stamp on it and kind of take the ship in a different direction, which for the most part we were lucky – we’re aligned where we are CBS studios for the CBS network. So often with notes, you know, they can just both jump on at the same time and they’re able to get on the same page before they give notes to us.

But I’ve also been on the challenging shows like Pushing Daisies I loved and adored and that was a – you know, I remember the first season of that show we were Warner Bros airing on ABC. And it was just such a unique vision from Bryan Fuller, the creator, that I think everybody was trying to kind of wrap their heads around what Bryan had his head wrapped around, which you know not everything was always aligned. And so they were definitely much longer individual phone calls with the studio and then with the network. And trying to sift through all those different notes so that we could try to please everyone as best that we could while at the same time kind of keeping what was just so special about that from Bryan’s mind.

So every show is just going to offer its own unique challenges and you never know until you join that staff.

John: Dailyn, what’s been your experience on a show that’s still finding its footing?

Dailyn: I’ve unfortunately been in a lot of situations where the dilemma in the show was actually within the ranks of the writer’s room and the showrunner. So I’ve been in a lot of shows that have had regime changes, new showrunners, meanwhile the show is doing well on the air but nobody would know the chaos behind the scenes. So I’ve unfortunately been in a few of those situations. And the reality is that Queen of the South was one of those situations. The first season was a mitigated disaster. It got put together very well in post. It was way over budget. Everybody thought it was going to be a failure and then it ended up being a huge hit for USA. So they searched for a new showrunner. After the first season I believe had two or three different showrunners. I can’t remember. Because the creators had not television experience and they paired them with a showrunner and it didn’t work out. And they tossed out a bunch of stuff that they shot. It was utter chaos.

When I say people were shooting scenes that were being emailed an hour before they were shooting, stuff like that. And I wasn’t on the show then. And then I came on second season when Natalie Chaidez took over and it was very much her trying to right that ship and actually do the work of finding a character arc for the season and what are we doing this season, what is the show thematically this season.

And so she worked on the show, I worked with her for season two and three, and then she decided to leave, so that’s another regime change. And that’s when I took over with Ben Lobato. And so what’s interesting in that situation is that there are just a lot of eyes on you. There’s a lot of pressure. People want to make sure they made the right decision picking first Natalie in those two seasons and then us. Are we people that are going to take the reins?

And I think we probably got a lot of scrutiny early on in our early episodes and a lot of probably maybe got over-noted just because there was for lack of a better word a paranoia or a worry or neurosis about new showrunners. And then we found our groove and we all figured it out and we started working together, the studio and the network and the writers and us, the showrunners, and we figured it out. But there were a lot of stressful moments where you’re thinking, oh shoot, am I messing this up? Is this a disaster waiting to happen? Because I’ve been on those shows that have just – I’ve been in a lot of midseason regime changes. It can be pretty stressful.

John: Yeah. I went through one of those midseason regime changes when I got fired off my show for the WB. And we talk about experience and you guys have experience, you’ve come up through the ranks, you know a writer’s room but you also know how to work on a set. And I came into the show that I created not having any of that experience. And Chad you were talking about how you guys are bottom heavy and top heavy, but there are not a lot of midlevel people. Is that a problem that we don’t have a lot of writers who have sort of some experience under their belt and some experience making TV shows? Because I do wonder about sort of this next generation of shows, whether we’re going to have people who know how to really run them. Dailyn are encountering any of this?

Dailyn: Yeah. I think that that’s a serious problem. I talk about this a lot, John, actually. Because more shows are remote and studios are not willing to pay for writers to travel, so that’s one problem. So you can’t send writers off to the set. Luckily on Queen of the South we did, so that was good, because then we got people having set experience. That’s a serious problem.

The shorter orders is also causing that as a problem. And so you finish your writer’s room, the writers are done, they’re done with their weeks, and now you’re shooting a show and you have no writers to go produce the episodes. So I fear that there’s going to be a problem in midlevel writers not having the right set experience. And then I fear that when they go up the ranks and become co-EPs and running their own shows that – I mean, some people just pick it up and get it and it’s amazing and they figure it out. But there is a lack of experience that’s going on and I think that those are – in my experience those are the two reasons that that’s happening.

John: Chad, are you seeing that on a more traditional procedural show?

Chad: Absolutely. I mean, I will echo what Dailyn is saying. I was fortunate enough that every single I’ve been on I was also able to be on set and get that experience. And that is wildly different than being in a writer’s room. And it takes a certain type of personality to work well in the writer’s room. But you also then have to have the correct on set personality, which is often something that you need to learn. In dealing with the problems that come up on set, you know, it just takes experience, which means just being on set for a certain number of hours.

And I know plenty of writers now who they have risen up that ladder, they’re co-executive producers and they have not once been on a single set for an episode that they’ve ever written. And I think we’re seeing this definitely in the streaming world, but it’s also starting to bleed over into the traditional network space where just with the speed of TV they decide, “Uh, it’s not worth it to have the writers down there.” And I really do find that writers are so crucial, you know, just the cohesiveness of the storytelling. And we’re lucky to work with so many great directors, but they’re focused on a million things. And there’s also dozens of tiny things over the course of shooting an episode that can really change the story that you’re trying to create within that. Having a writer there to kind of catch that and then to work with a director who oftentimes is very grateful I’ve found to be like, “Oh my gosh, I didn’t realize that’s what you guys were going for,” or that’s going to be a key point that’s going to affect an episode that’s shooting three episodes down the road. It’s just really necessary.

And so many writers, they just are not getting this experience and it’s going to be detrimental over the next few seasons for sure.

John: Now, making a television show in a normal world is difficult, but you guys are both in production right now on shows that are filming during a pandemic. So let’s talk a little bit about how that’s impacted you. We’ll start with the writer’s room. Dailyn, I assume that your writer’s room was virtual, or had you already written the season before stuff went south?

Dailyn: Yeah, so we luckily were very far ahead in scripts. We started shooting in March. End of February, I think, early March. So basically we were cross-boarding the first two episodes which is for people that don’t know you shoot them, sort of block shoot them. You’re shooting them at the same time with the same director. And we had a week left to finish those two episodes. And I was down in New Orleans, actually Chad and I we both – both of our shows shoot in New Orleans. And I had to shut down set. So all the shows were starting to shut down. And luckily we only had – we had already broken the rest of the season with the exception with the exception of the season finale which I was co-writing with the co-showrunner. So we were already broken, so that’s great.

So we just had a few Zoom conversations with the co-EP that was writing episode nine. So we actually were able to finish up all the episodes and have all production-ready scripts for when we started up again. And we just started up.

John: Now are you traveling down there as a writer on set? How are you guys handling production? And are you acknowledging that the pandemic is happening, or does it not happen in the world of your show?

Dailyn: A couple things. One thing is because we wrapped all of the writers we don’t have any writers to go produce the episodes. So it’s me and Ben. What we decided to do, because we’re both kind of concerned of travelling too much and adding another element to the Covid hell that’s going on, so we went down for the first episode. He went down first and then I went down, just to show our faces and for morale and show the crew and the cast that we’re there for them and we want to be part of the team.

And then we left because we have a director that used to be a producing director that’s directing episode three and four, so we felt like that was in good hands. And if there was an issue the lead actress of my show is an executive producer. So if there’s a massive issue she just calls us directly and says, “Hey, can we go through something?” So we felt like that was in good hands.

So Ben will probably go down in a couple weeks and then I’ll go down after Christmas. And then we’ll probably go down for the season finale. So that’s basically how we’re doing it. We feel like the actors like having us there, so they’re bummed that we’re not there the whole time. But this is sort of the compromise that we came up with to make us feel like we’re involved but not living in New Orleans for the unforeseeable future.

John: Now, Chad, I’m flipping past from watching NCIS: New Orleans and I see everyone on that show is wearing masks. It occurs to me like, wow, this must be a dream in post because you can just ADR them saying anything. You can just have Scott Bakula standing there saying whatever – he can just be going yada yada and you can put the words in in post.

Talk to me about sort of your writer’s room, because this all had to happen during the pandemic, and moving into production. So what has that been like on your show?

Chad: Yeah, I mean, it’s been a challenge like for any show that is trying to get back to work during a global pandemic. We had to shut down like one scene into shooting. It was episode 21 last season. We had broken the entire rest of the season already, but we ended up just kind of having to scrap it. We were lucky that episode 20 actually had one of our character’s storylines had kind of hit a high point, so it sort of served a little bit as pseudo finale for the season.

But you know we just jumped right back into the room in June. And the first question really was whether or not we were going to acknowledge the pandemic or not. And after talking about things for a few days, but really it was with talking with production down in New Orleans that we realized that by acknowledging the pandemic it would allow us to actually potentially start shooting sooner, because if we’re shooting people onscreen who are wearing masks and who look like they’re socially distanced they also will be in real life as we’re filming them.

And so that was a way for us to kind of safely get back into production right away. You know, we had all the delays. We were waiting for the whitepaper and, you know, our production team in New Orleans did an amazing job, basically spent all of summer gathering PPE and getting everything ready. But the first two episodes we did we decided to do flashback episodes. And we flashed back to the end of March when the pandemic was really starting to catch fire in New Orleans. And it really did. After New York, New Orleans was one of the really early hot spots because Covid started to circulate during Mardi Gras. So you can imagine how quickly it just started to spread.

And we really wanted to acknowledge that for the city because New Orleans really is one of the main characters in our show. And so we sort of devised this two-parter that allowed us to start shooting right away but to be able to, again, just safely shoot. And one of the things that we kind of adapted to in terms of safety protocols was we started designing our season by doing every two episodes was a two-parter. And we sort of saw them as mini movies in which we were also able to bring down the same director who was directing two episodes at a time. And so that then allowed us to have fewer people who were having to come down and quarantine. Even guest actors and guest cast, we were able to cast people who would carry over from one episode to the next.

So the whole goal was just how do we reduce our footprint. And so fewer actors, fewer people on set. And so we’ve been able to do that pretty successfully. You know, our testing protocols are rigid. Everyone gets tested pretty much four times a week down there. You know, if something does happen we’re able to isolate them quickly. But thankfully we have not had a shutdown yet.

As far as writers, you know, reducing our footprint does mean not sending our writers down. We did have one of our sort of two-parters which were episodes three and four which were also trying to tackle some of the more topical issues as well in terms of Black Lives Matter and defunding the police. And so it was a very sensitive two-parter that we did send one of our co-EPs down who is just a really fantastic writer and really sort of clued into everything. And she was able to be the one person on set to kind of help out when necessary.

But aside from that, you know, we’ve been lucky. Again, we’re season seven so we have a stable of directors we’ve worked with who know the show, and who also feel comfortable with the writers. And they’re able to call up anyone 24/7. We’ve even done sometimes like FaceTime of rehearsals on set, you know, if it’s kind of a key scene so that the writer back in LA can really make sure that, yeah, yeah, yeah, you’re getting all the moments that we need.

So, you know, we’ve adapted and so far – knock on wood – it’s working and we haven’t had to shut down yet.

John: Now you haven’t had to shut down the set, but you had sort of your own personal shutdown, because you got Covid recently.

Chad: I did.

John: Can you tell us about that? Your experience trying to work through this and what Covid was like for you?

Chad: Yeah. It was definitely a shock because you know me…

John: I should say that Chad is paranoid and Chad does all the protocols fully and still somehow got it.

Chad: Yes. I am mister OCD and was definitely stocking up back in January because I kind of felt like this thing could get worse. I never imagined it would get as bad as it has become. But, yeah, it was kind of a shock when I got it, but was very fortunate. We were doing a very small pod with my family and one other family because we both have daughters who are only children and we just wanted to give the kids somebody to be studying with every day.

But to try to keep things safe we were – each of the adults we were kind of on a rolling testing schedule where one adult would get tested once a week, just to try to catch anything. And we were able to do that. I was kind of shocked where I get tested on a Saturday and then Monday morning signed onto my email and saw that I was positive, which was definitely terrifying. But I immediately just went outside and my fiancé had to call the parents of the other child who was here studying with my daughter that day. And everybody kind of immediately isolated. And I basically spent two straight weeks just in my bedroom. Walked away from everybody.

But even on day 14 when I got tested again I was still positive, so we followed the protocols and did another two week quarantine. So basically for 30 days straight I was locked in my master bedroom, kind of away from the world. But it worked. And my fiancé and my daughter, neither of them fell sick, nor did my co-parent or the family that we were doing our little pod with. So we feel really lucky that I didn’t pass it along to anyone.

John: One thing I want to stress for listeners is that it’s not just that you tested positive. You got really sick. Can you tell us about what it felt like in relation to other illnesses you’ve had?

Chad: Yeah, it was definitely the strangest illness I’ve ever been through. I kind of had a tickle in my nose on Sunday evening. I thought, ah, it’s probably allergies. But then Monday when I got my positive test back, you know, by Monday evening it really did start to hit me. And I was fortunate and lucky in that I was only running a fever for about one day. I never had the shortness of breath. I had a pulse oximeter that I was constantly checking every few others and was staying at a stable level with that.

But it was just the exhaustion. Like nothing I’ve ever felt. I mean, imagine the worst flu double or triple. Unfortunately, you know, right now when you’re just sort of isolating at home you treat it like a flu and over the counter meds and just a lot of fluids. And I said that was the tricky Catch-22 is that you need to be drinking as many fluids as you can which means having to use the restroom very often. And that ten-foot trip from my bed to the bathroom was perilous and would take about five minutes each way just to make sure I wasn’t toppling over and cracking my head open on the corner of the sink.

So, yeah, those ten days were just very, very exhausting. You know, just sleeping as much as I could, which also was the challenge in that I was starting preproduction on episodes five and six which was a two-parter. And I wrote episode five, another writer had written episode six, but I was the executive producer who was overseeing the two of them. So it was just – everybody down in New Orleans on the production side they got very used to seeing my bedroom and seeing me propped up in bed as I was just trying to get through prep.

John: Oy. And you’re feeling better now?

Chad: I am, yes. I thankfully at the end, you know, even though it was not fun I caught very much a mild case of it and I’ve been able to bounce back pretty quickly and 100 percent now.

John: Knowing that you guys were going to be on the show I emailed out to our Premium subscribers asking if they had any specific questions about one-hour dramas and people sent in with some great questions. Let’s invite our producer Megana Rao on to talk us through some of these questions because there’s some good ones here. Megana, what do you have for us?

Megana Rao: Great. So, Pierre from France had a question about how US network television deals with politics in its series.

Pierre: Hello, thank you. My name is Pierre. I’m a French writer based in Berlin. I have a question about politics in network series because I’m often amazed how American series can deal with very current hot topics, social issues, ripped from the headline subjects for procedural episodes. I’m thinking of course about The Good Wife or The Good Fight. But even like Law & Order and every legal and cop drama I can think of are never afraid to go quite frontally into hot political topics. How do you deal with those? How do you choose those? Do you make sure it’s balanced or on the contrary are you doing it to show your opinion? Do you think it’s a mission for us writers to deal with these topics and put it on TV in primetime? How do you deal with a network with potential self-censorship? Because here in Europe I feel a lot of networks are still shy and risk adverse with these kind of topics in primetime entertainment shows. So I’m really curious how you deal with it and it’s probably more difficult than it sounds. Thank you.

John: So, Dailyn, maybe we’ll start with you. So Chad had mentioned that this season they were looking at Black Lives Matter, they were looking at police violence, obviously the pandemic. With your show how much do politics come into things? How sensitive do you have to be to those types of issues?

Dailyn: Season four we started grappling with issues about government corruption and sort of subtle story about race relations between Latinos and African Americans and sort of how people in power sort of benefit from minorities at each other’s throats. And so we sort of played that as part of a storyline in season four.

But our show – I don’t think USA – whenever I would throw in a political joke here and there they tend to ask us to remove it. So the stuff that we did was very what I think is pretty subtle and it was OK sort of in storyline playing it as conflict but if there was something that was very pointed, like I remember I wrote a joke for one of the characters, Pote, about saying he really didn’t trust Russians. And someone said why and he goes, “They stole the election.” We had to cut the line.

And so, you know, anything that was too blatantly political I think USA had us sort of move away from it. But our show is inherently kind of political in a way because it is about a Mexican woman in America that runs a cartel. And our biggest thing for us when we took over season four was that most of the show was dealing with border violence and Mexican on Mexican violence. And because of the election of the president we made a very conscious decision to shift the narrative of the show. That’s when we decided to move to New Orleans and make the show a little bit more of a slightly traditional organized crime show and lean more towards classic mob tropes and a mafia storyline to get away from the Narcos of it all. Because of the election and because of the atmosphere in the country. So that’s when we moved to New Orleans and decided to do this storyline about a corrupt judge and the corrupt system and who are the bigger crooks, the drug dealers or the corrupt government.

So that’s what we did and they let us do that. And inherently that’s political. I think whenever it was very, very specific lines and stuff like that is when they would feel slightly uncomfortable. And it was always about, you know, making sure that we didn’t alienate a certain audience.

John: I can see that. Chad, for something like NCIS: New Orleans I perceive CBS as being very conservative, not the people who necessarily work there but just the audience for CBS shows being fairly conservative. So if you’re talking about something like Black Lives Matter how do you discuss that in the room and how do you try to narrativize that in a crime procedural show?

Chad: It’s a challenge but we always start with our character city New Orleans. And New Orleans has a very large Black population. And there has been a history at different points. I mean, at one point we had talked a lot about the ideas of consent decrees in cities that are put under those. And so we try to look at well what’s actually happening in New Orleans and how can we kind of tell an honest story about that, while at the same time never talking about parties.

You know, we never mention anyone being a Republican or a Democrat or Independent. We just kind of stay away from that and just try to tell the real stories that happened. We had in one of our early seasons a big storyline about a very corrupt mayor of New Orleans. And part of that was a nod to New Orleans had gone through long histories of corruption within the political ranks, but more at sort of that local level.

But yeah when we are looking at real issues that are happening on a nationwide scale in terms of systemic inequality it’s, OK, we know this is happening but how do we boil it down to what is happening in New Orleans and how is it affecting the population here? And that always allows then to tackle a political story, but when that sort of feels small and local. But since we do have an audience that serves the masses across the entire nation and really the world, where we are popular in many different nations, you know, for us it feels like, OK, where can we as a writer’s room sort of slip in what we would like to see happening in the world and what we would hope. But even in the writer’s room we’re very aware to sort of go, OK, what are the two sides to this and where is that middle ground that everybody can usually say, hey, that’s not right. You know, a corrupt cop, nobody, no matter what side of the political aisle you’re on nobody wants a corrupt cop running around town. You know, so then how can we wrap a story around stopping that one bad apple.

And that’s a way that we feel like we can sort of please everyone but also showcase a story that everybody would, yes, hope that the world would want, you know, bad cops to be rooted out.

Megana: Great. So Alison asked is there anything fundamentally different between a pilot for a one-hour drama and the first episode of a limited series?

John: Dailyn, how about you tackle that? Do you think there’s something different between a one-hour pilot and the first episode of a limited series?

Dailyn: I mean, I’ve never written a limited series, but I would have to think that not really, because you really are setting up the world, setting up the character conflict at the beginning of the story. So I don’t know how different it could possibly be. I don’t know. Chad, have you ever worked on a limited series?

Chad: I haven’t. Not on a limited series myself either. But, I mean, I just feel like everything is storytelling in terms of you’re aiming toward some sort of climax. And whether that’s closing out something like in Mazin’s Chernobyl, you know, he knew what he was aiming toward. But even on I think shows like ours you kind of have an idea at the end of the season like, oh, what are the seeds that we need to plant in the pilot that are going to kind of point us in the direction of this is where we’re headed. And depending on how many episodes you have to tell that story you’re going to be planting more or fewer of those seeds.

John: So Dailyn let’s say you’re trying to staff your show and you’re reading scripts. Maybe you’re reading scripts for Wonder Girl. If you’re reading a one-hour script would you rather read something that has act breaks in it or something that has no act breaks and is more like a streaming one-hour.

Dailyn: I honestly don’t have a preference. For me it’s all about is this well-written? Is it an interesting character? Is the dialogue popping off the page? Does the story work? Because ultimately even if it doesn’t have act breaks you can read a script and realize that the structure naturally has breaks to it. Do you know what I mean? So, I don’t have a preference seeing act breaks or not act breaks when I’m reading.

John: Chad, if you’re writing something, because I’ve seen over the years you’ve written other pilots for things, you’ve written other stuff as samples, do you write stuff now with act breaks or without act breaks?

Chad: It very much depends on who I’m writing a pilot for. I wrote a pilot for HBO Max which was a delight to not have to have act breaks in there. And I was able to go straight through to page 55. But there of course was those natural ebbs and flows of the story and those highpoints which would have been traditional act breaks. And even on something like over at HBO Max they did sort of tell me that think about where those act breaks might be because very often no matter what you’re writing for whatever streaming service it could end up when you go into the foreign market on a different service that does have commercial breaks in a way.

So, you know, I just think for me whether I’m putting the act break in or not it’s where is the natural point in the story where I need to be bringing the audience to some new high point in the story. So I think they’re always naturally there for me.

Megana: OK, Cool, and I think Vito asks a great follow up question. He says, “I’ve received the note that my pilot didn’t have enough to support multiple seasons, but I feel like I pack in so many nods to potential storylines. I don’t know what I’m missing. When reading a pilot how do you judge the engine of a show? What do you look for to give an idea of the story potential and longevity?”

And I guess I also have the question when you guys are staffing is this something that you look for in the samples that you’re reading? And also in your work in projects that you’re developing how do you think about the engines for your shows? Because especially Chad you have to come up with so many episodes of them.

John: Yeah. What makes reading a one-hour script make you feel like, OK, this could go for seven seasons versus this is just a ten and done? What’s the difference there?

Chad: That is I think a really, really great question. And I think the key words that I look for are story engine. And for me it’s like every time I even look at trying to pitch something of my own, or coming up with an idea, I’m often asking myself, OK, what is episode 100? And that’s a tough question because you’re looking then at four to five seasons. And if I don’t know what episode 100 might be that’s when I really have to question like, OK, is this an idea that is sustainable for network? Or is this something that maybe only goes for three seasons? And is that then a story that works better in the streaming sphere?

So I think that is – it’s like when I’m reading samples, especially for something like NCIS: New Orleans, I’m trying to get that sense of is there a story engine there. Do they know kind of where they’re going – even in reading that pilot is there enough of those little Easter eggs there where I can sort of go, oh OK, I can sort of see what the climax for the season is going to be. Because I do, I unfortunately read a lot of pilots which are really, really great stories but I’m sort of sitting there going like this isn’t a series. This is a movie. Or this is Queen’s Gambit. This is a wonderful six-episode limited series, but this isn’t something that’s going to sustain for the traditional – you know, I think at a minimum now we’re kind of looking at ten-episode seasons. So, yeah, it’s just all about what is that story engine that you’re holding onto that you can keep coming back to episode by episode.

John: Now, Dailyn, you’re having a different engine for your Wonder Girl series. Is that something you’re thinking about right now as you’re writing this pilot, setting up the kind of stuff that can go on for 100 episodes?

Dailyn: Yeah, I mean, 100 percent. I think to add to what Chad was saying, it’s not just story engine. Honestly sometimes it’s just premise. I mean, I’ve lucked out on the fact that this is a premise people know. This is Wonder Girl, you know. She eventually will be the new Wonder Woman in the DC universe, right? So you already have sort of a built in premise to the character and the world and it is her fighting to save the world. And there’s a built in premise because you know every week it’s going to be like she’s going to fight someone, she’s going to save somebody. So there’s a built in premise and story engine sort of to the show.

But that being said, you know, I still have to figure out who is the big bad this season. And is this the bad guy she’s going to fight for two seasons, or is it one season and he’s gone and you bring in a new bad guy or bad girl for season two? And what are those fights? And what are the fights for her as Wonder Girl versus what are her struggles and fights as Yara Flor, the human superhero? So you sort of have to figure out what are those challenges going forward from the pilot. And setting up, OK, this is going to be her human struggle for the season. This is her superhero struggle for the season.

So this has been a very interesting process for me because there’s a duality of character. And then at what point do those two things meet and become sort of one in the same? And these two identities meet at some point. It’s very interesting. Superhero stuff is really interesting character work.

John: And so the pilot that you’re writing has to show this is going to be the engine that can drive the superhero story for a hundred episodes, but also make it clear that this is the character story, the human story and sort of this is the character who grows and changes over the course of that time.

Dailyn: Right.

John: And you look at the Super Girl pilot, and the Super Girl pilot did a very good job of both of those threads. And so when you say that there’s a premise that’s sustainable, I know what a Wonder Girl show can be. And so the specificity you bring to your version of it is what’s going to make it unique and special. But there’s underlying potential there that’s really clear.

Dailyn: That’s right.

John: Cool. Megana, thank you for these questions. Thank you to everybody who wrote in with questions. It’s always nice when we have things that are tailored to our guests, so we’re going to try to do this more in the future. Thanks Megana.

Megana: Of course, thank you.

John: All right, it’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing this week is this new translation of Beowulf by Maria Dahvana Headley. It’s really just fantastic. And I’ve tried to read Beowulf so many times and I tried to read that Seamus one that had the chain mail head on it. And Beowulf is a really cool story but it’s just really hard to get into. And what I love about this translation is it’s just very much common vernacular speech.

And so you can just actually follow what’s happening in it. It still feels like verse. It still feels like a person who is telling you a story. It’s just really great. So I’m about halfway through it and just greatly enjoying it.

If you’ve avoided reading Beowulf because it just seems like torture really check this out and check out the first two pages and see if it sparks for you. But I’ve really enjoyed it. So, it’s Beowulf: A New Translation by Maria Dahvana Headley.

Chad, do you have a One Cool Thing to share?

Chad: I do have a One Cool Thing. And it may not be particularly cool to your larger audience, but for the newer WGA members who for the first time ever have qualified for WGA healthcare, it is now open enrollment season through the end of the year on December 31. And I have always kind of been a little bit of a WGA health insurance evangelist to younger and newer members to the guild because not a lot of people know, and it’s something I always talk to the younger and newer writers on the various staffs I’ve been on who are for the first time qualified for this really amazing healthcare we have.

But they often don’t know that the WGA healthcare it kind of works both as a PPO and also as an HMO option. And one of the things that I always tell them that not a lot of people know is that we have this $400 deductible that you have to meet every year before the insurance kicks in. And, look, if you’re an assistant who was maybe thrown a script for the first time ever and you finally have this healthcare, or somebody who is starting out, that’s a lot of money. And there’s also a way that you can really maximize your benefits and save yourself a lot of money which is by using the HMO portion of our healthcare which is called The Industry Health Network, TIHN. And we actually have these individual centers, I believe there’s four of them across the LA area. I use the Bob Hope Medical Center on La Brea all the time. There’s also the Toluca Lake Medical Center, which is great.

And the amazing thing if you go through this HMO part, The Industry Health Network, is that you show up, you find a great primary care doctor there, and there’s plenty of them, and it’s only $10 a pop to go see a doctor. And that doesn’t ever get counted against your deductible. And then if they have to give you a referral to a specialist as long as you start your journey through the initial Industry Health Network and you get your referral from one of those doctors every time you go see that specialist it’s only $10.

And so a lot of people have doctors who they love and they just want to use the PPO version of it, which is great. That always does cover 85% of the cost. But that other 15% can really, really add up.

John: Yeah. You should listen to Chad because Chad has always been the person in my life who has like researched all the options and found the one that makes the most cost-benefit analysis work out. So, trust Chad and definitely check it out. And we’ll put a link in the show notes to what Chad is talking about in terms of the FAQs for like which plan you should choose if you’re newly going into the WGA health insurance.

Dailyn, what is your One Cool Thing?

Dailyn: Mine is not writer related. My One Cool Thing is that my husband is a visual artist and a graphic designer, so I’ve always super been into art, museums, all that kind of stuff. And during the apex of the Black Lives Matter movement during the pandemic and all the protests and everything I really used my social media to try and expose and sort of promote African American visual artists. And I found this amazing artist. Her name is Calida Garcia Rawles. And she does these phenomenal paintings of African American men and women in water. And they’re hyper realistic. They’re really, really beautiful. And she is – you can see a couple of her works at the Wallis Annenberg Center for Performing Arts in Beverly Hills, unfortunately only until the 29th November.

But if you would like to look her up and check out her art, I think she’s really special. And I just think it’s really important to support new voices in art. So, that’s my One Cool Thing.

John: Yeah, I’m Googling this as you’re talking and her images are absolutely stunning. And so you look at them and it feels like you’re – almost like you’re looking at islands in a beautiful ocean.

Dailyn: They’re phenomenal.

John: Yeah. So, great. And just tranquil and terrific. So we’ll put a link in the show notes to that as well. It looks like Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of his books maybe uses her imagery as well.

Dailyn: Yes. Yes.

John: That’s great. And that’s our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alex Winder. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@dev.johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions like the ones we answered today, but for short questions on Twitter Craig is @clmazin, I am @johnaugust.

Chad, you’re on Twitter, correct?

Chad: I am. I am @chadgcreasey with an SEY at the end.

John: And Dailyn are you on Twitter?

Dailyn: I am. I’m @dailynrod on Twitter.

John: Excellent. We have t-shirts. They’re great. They’re at Cotton Bureau. You can still get them in time for Christmas if you order now.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has a lot of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we’re about to record on ambient TV. Chad, Dailyn, thank you so much for being on the show. I actually learned a ton this week so thank you very much.

Dailyn: You’re welcome and thank you for having me.

Chad: Yeah, thanks so much. This was a blast.

[Bonus segment]

John: All right, we’re back and here in this bonus segment this is something that Megana actually found, so I’m going to invite her back on to set us up for this article about ambient TV.

Megana: Great. So this article is called Emily in Paris and the Rise of Ambient TV by Kyle Chayka in The New Yorker. And it came out about two weeks ago. And in the article he basically says that Netflix is pioneering a new genre of television, ambient TV, meant to be played in the background with low dramatic stakes that you can kind of just keep on as you are on your phone and scrolling through Instagram or Twitter or cleaning around the house. And he also brings up the new slate of reality makeover shows that Netflix has, you know, shows about organizing your closet, wardrobe makeover sort of things. And he also talks about soap operas and sort of the history of what he calls ambient television through different media.

John: Yeah. So one of the things I liked about his description of it is that some of these shows are sort of like Instagram but on TV, where it’s like Instagram is very kind of low engagement. You’re looking at it but there’s no stakes to Instagram. It’s just something that is sort of there in the background. And I think about you guys and your shows. You have storylines that you sort of have to follow. You are asking the audience to actually pay attention to them, whereas some of these other shows don’t seem to require attention.

Dailyn, as you look at this, what’s your take on ambient TV? Do you think it’s a meaningful thing to be thinking about?

Dailyn: Well, I have to be honest, I love ambient TV. [laughs] And I love that there’s a term that now I can use to refer to it. I watch a lot of HGTV. And I watch all those Chef’s Tables and all that kind of stuff. I like ambient TV in that world.

When it starts going into the Emily in Paris, which I tried to watch, that loses me. Because that really should have a narrative that’s interesting. When it’s more like a makeover show or a reality show like that that’s just sort of – like I watched a lot of Grand Designs where you go to see these houses and I can kind of be checking emails while I’m watching it. I find it very soothing. But I have this weird thing with television, because when I grew up watching TV when I was a little kid my mom and dad didn’t speak English and so they would just plop me in front of the TV and it was like my babysitter. But I used it as an emotional blanket, like whenever I would have a tantrum or get upset I’d turn on the TV and I’ve have my blanket and I would suck my thumb and I’d watch TV.

So TV is already this kind of soothing ambient thing. So those shows really appeal to this deep psychological part of my brain when I was a kid and could just soothe myself. So I think those shows are great. I’m just a little bit concerned with sort of the more Emily in Paris, like that didn’t appeal to me as much because I wanted more story. I liked the production value of it, but it felt a little too light and airy for me if I was really going to sit and commit to a series like that that has an arc. You know what I mean?

But the other stuff, the HGTV stuff and that kind of stuff I can just eat that up all day long.

John: Now, Chad, so we’re talking about HGTV which clearly has a formula, like you’re going to look at three houses and you’re going to fix this up and the home owner is going to be just delighted at the end and the episode is over. There’s really no stakes to it.

But I look at a CBS crime procedural which one could argue is similar in a way. There is a clear resolution. The evil will be punished. It’ll get to an end. Do you see any of these crime procedurals, like the one you’re working on, as functioning like ambient TV?

Chad: I don’t think that we would ever design or anyone would design a scripted show to be ambient TV. I mean, when you first sort of mentioned this and when I was reading through the article, I mean, I know Craig is not here but I was having umbrage wanting to defend writers who spend hours and lots of brain space coming up with the twists and turns of a story.

That being said, I do recognize and it’s something that we talk a lot about on our show. Which is that there’s never a desire to be ambient TV, but we know that people’s lives are busy. And I often bring up my own brother who watches our show but he’s a single father with four kids. And so at any moment he’s going to be helping one with homework and nuking dinner for another and getting another ready for bed, and so he’s only maybe able to catch every other minute of the episode. But by the end of it he still wants to feel satisfied. He wants to feel like he was maybe able to guess who the killer was. Or know where, oh yeah, I can see where that’s where they were going with those two characters.

And so, you know, it’s often that we sort of bake that into our formula that at the top of every act we kind of have a reset scene, you know, where we’re back in the squad room and we’re catching our characters up but we’re really catching our audience up on, OK, this is what we know about the crime right now. This is where the case is. And we kind of restate for them this is what we know and this is where we’re going so that if you happened to have missed a couple of minutes out of that previous act you don’t necessarily feel like the entire story has been ruined for you.

John: And that also matches up to an HGTV home makeover show. We’ll constantly recap what has just happened. And it feels necessary for that form.

Now, Chad, you had some umbrage but Megana you actually had a stronger reaction to this piece as well. So tell me about what you felt reading this.

Megana: Yeah. So I think like my biggest issue was that I felt like it was unfair to group Emily in Paris with these other unscripted shows. And to say that the things that Emily is dealing with drift into the background and the dramatic points don’t matter, I think, you know, a part of the reason why this show resonated with so many people was because it has that element of escapism and fantasy and sort of like wish fulfillment. And so I understand like the criticism around that, but I think to say that the story of a young woman moving to a foreign country and sort of navigating coming of age there, to say that that journey doesn’t matter, to me that’s like the hero’s journey and I think there’s a long history of cultural critics dismissing stories centered around women as unimportant or having low stakes.

And to me that just feels like unexamined misogyny a little bit.

John: Yeah. I think it’s good that you bring that up. You can imagine the period version of this story would seem to be more important, or the period version of the story with a man involved would seem to be more important and be like it’s about a young person’s self-discovery over the course of moving to Paris. If it’s Hemingway then it’s like, oh, then it matters. But if it’s this young woman moving to Paris it doesn’t matter as much. It seems low stakes because you personally don’t care, but that doesn’t mean that you are necessarily the only audience for something.

Megana: Exactly.

John: Now, this idea of ambient TV comes from Brian Enos’ description of ambient music, which is music that you don’t even have to listen to. You don’t have to actively listen. And definitely I noticed with me and Mike watching TV there are certain shows where I’m fully focused on what’s happening. So I watch The Crown and I’m fully watching The Crown, or Game of Thrones, because you actually have to engage. But there’s other shows that honestly I’ve got my iPad out and I’m playing some Hearthstone while it’s happening and that’s fine. I don’t have to direct all my attention to it.

And I think there’s a place for both things. I’m not a person who watches repeats. I don’t watch repeats of The Golden Girls. But some shows fill that same kind of space. You know, one of the shows I’ve loved over this pandemic has been Selena + Chef which is Selena Gomez learning how to cook. I mean, the stakes could not be lower except for her terrible knife skills. And yet it’s really comforting, the ability to wind down and not have to worry about something, or feel like I’m going to miss something. It’s like, nope, she’s going to make this dish. It’s going to turn out pretty well and Papa will enjoy it.

So there’s something nice to be said about that. And the fact that we have so much quality TV that’s better than ever before and so cinematic doesn’t mean that everything has to be up to that level. Dailyn what are your go-tos for ambient TV? What do you go to when you need some comforting?

Dailyn: Yeah, I mean, like I said I really can turn on that HGTV, and I also watch a lot of Bravo. I’m from New York and New Jersey, so I’m going to watch The Real Housewives of New York and The Real Housewives of New Jersey. I just am. And I can answer emails and do my taxes while that’s on in the background. So that’s a bit of my go-to.

I definitely have found myself, my husband and I right now during the pandemic we find ourselves going towards comfort shows also. I realized this morning my husband woke up and turned on the TV and I think it’s on Hulu, he just literally started watching Ted Lasso again from the beginning. I think because that’s an example of something, it’s not ambient TV, you really have to pay attention, but it’s very soothing and it’s a palate cleanser after everything we’ve just been through for the last few months.

But for sure I’m definitely somebody that likes watching these home renovation shows and some of these reality shows when they’re not too crazy.

John: And, Chad, do you have any go-tos for ambient TV?

Chad: Yeah. Again, you know me very well and I tend to be a completist. So if I start something and I’m hooked for a little bit I will – I watch television with purpose. So, again, I don’t want to dismiss any of the writers who have been, I know, putting in so many hours to create things. So I don’t l know if it’s so much ambient, but similar list to Dailyn, Ted Lasso when I had Covid I think made Covid feel not nearly as horrible, because it was just this bright shining little star of television for me. As well as my fiancé and I we had never watched Schitt’s Creek. And so that was just the comfort we needed during the pandemic.

You, John, turned us onto The Good Place and we’re almost all caught up with that. And being child of the ‘80s and ‘90s I think Cobra Kai I just think is this little piece of brilliance in terms of how they’ve taken something old and just completely turned it on its head.

You know, if there’s anything I would say ambient that I watch it’s because I have a daughter who is now being home-schooled all the time, Disney+ has been our saving grace. And she has discovered all sorts of shows, you know, sort of like how your daughter had her–

John: Jessie?

Chad: Jessie. And Bunked. And there are things that we can watch together that I can definitely be on my phone and signing emails and she’s watching again and again. But every now and then I kind of get sucked into it as well and it’s just sort of delightful to have during these crazy times.

John: Megana, I’ll leave this with you since you proposed the topic. Do you think ambient TV is a meaningful concept and if so what recommendations would you have for ambient TV?

Megana: I do think it’s a meaningful concept because I do think that there is a place for shows that you have on in the background to kind of keep you company. So I guess my go-to for this sort of thing, I don’t like the negative connotation of ambient TV because I think even reality television producers are amazing at their jobs, but there are times where I just want to watch something that doesn’t have high stakes because we already live in a world with so much going on.

So, sometimes I’ll put Say Yes to the Dress on because I want the worst outcome of what I’m watching is that that person doesn’t find their perfect wedding dress on that day. And I feel like that’s all that I can handle in terms of conflict. And then in terms of comforting television have watched Ted Lasso like three times. And I’m so grateful for Schitt’s Creek and being able to work my way through that.

John: Excellent. Thank you all very much for this and hopefully this was some good ambient podcasting for you to get you through your day. Thanks all.

 

Links:

  • Beowulf: A New Translation by Maria Dahvana Headley
  • WGA Health Plans
  • Calida Garcia Rawles
  • “Emily in Paris” and the Rise of Ambient TV for the New Yorker by Kyle Chayka
  • Dailyn Rodriguez on Twitter
  • Chad Gomez Creasey on Twitter
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Alex Winder (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Episode 11: How Movie Money Works, Rebroadcast

December 8, 2020 News

John and Craig discuss the trend of studios releasing movies straight to streaming by revisiting an old discussion on movie accounting.

We cover above the line and below the line costs, how distribution fees work, and why all this is important to screenwriters.

Finally, in our newly recorded bonus segment we discuss the 2020 Macs and the future of computing.

Links:

  • Find the original post here along with a helpful cheatsheet!
  • Support Staff please fill out the Pay Up Hollywood Survey!
  • The Paramount Decree–this is the court case John had trouble naming during the discussion
  • Warner Bros. to Debut Entire 2021 Film Slate, Including ‘Dune’ and ‘Matrix 4,’ Both on HBO Max and In Theaters
  • Why is Apples M1 Chip so Fast by Erik Engheim
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Intro: Mister T cartoon intro and
  • Outro: Fatback Band – (Are You Ready) Do The Bus Stop, (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

 

One Hour Dramas

Episode - 478

Go to Archive

December 1, 2020 News, Scriptnotes, Transcribed

John welcomes writer-producers Dailyn Rodriguez (Queen of the South, Ugly Betty) and Chad Gomez Creasey (NCIS: New Orleans, Castle) to talk about writing network dramas and production during a pandemic.

We answer listener questions on act breaks, politics on tv, and sustainable story engines.

Finally, in our bonus segment for premium members we discuss ‘ambient television’ and our favorite comfort-shows.

Links:

  • Beowulf: A New Translation by Maria Dahvana Headley
  • WGA Health Plans
  • Calida Garcia Rawles
  • “Emily in Paris” and the Rise of Ambient TV for the New Yorker by Kyle Chayka
  • Dailyn Rodriguez on Twitter
  • Chad Gomez Creasey on Twitter
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Alex Winder (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

 

UPDATE 12-9-20 The transcript for this episode can now be found here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 477: Counting Clowns, Transcript

November 25, 2020 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 477 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show it’s another round of the Three Page Challenge where we take a look at the first three pages of listeners’ scripts and offer our honest feedback. Now, Craig, last week we had Scott Frank on the show and we looked at the first two pages of his script and I think we helped him.

Craig: Well, they were garbage. And he has huge problems. The “we see” just right off the bat.

John: Yeah. So hopefully we won’t see any “we sees” in the three pages we’re going to look at, but maybe we’ll find some other things that we can help these writers with.

Craig: I just hope that, and I can’t imagine how, these writers won’t be vastly better.

John: It’s hard to be worse than Scott Frank.

Craig: Scott Mediocre Frank. [laughs]

John: We also have important updates on Uno, Wonder Woman, and whatever is happening with the agencies.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And in our bonus segment for Premium members Craig I want to springboard off the new autobiographies we’ve gotten from Barack Obama and Rachel Bloom to talk about autobiography as a form and what we take from it and what we would do with our own autobiographies were we to write them.

Craig: I imagine that Rachel Bloom has just listened to you say that and is doing a little dance. Because Barack Obama and Rachel Bloom.

John: I mean, I think it’s awesome that Rachel’s book is out, but also if you’re going to pick a week to release your book maybe not with the incredibly popular former President of the United States. I don’t know.

Craig: You know what? I feel like there’s a solid overlap and yet also the people that like Barack Obama and like Rachel Bloom also have the capacity to absorb two autobiographies. I mean, she’s going to be fine.

John: I bought both.

Craig: There you go. Et voila.

John: Et voila.

Craig: Et voila.

John: All right, there was some other important news happening this week. Wonder Woman 1984 is going to be released on Christmas Day, both in theaters and for free on HBO Max. So basically it’s not a premium upgrade on HBO Max. I think this was the right choice. It was kind of inevitable. I’m sad not to see Wonder Woman in theaters because I saw the first Wonder Woman when I was living in France. I saw it twice in cinemas. It’s the only movie I saw twice in cinemas while I was there.

Craig: Le cinema.

John: But I love it. But I’m also really looking forward to seeing it on Christmas Day.

Craig: This is I think going to be looked at in the history of movies as a thing. It’s actually a thing. Like the first PG-13 movie I think was Red Dawn. I think it was Red Dawn.

John: Sure.

Craig: Widely released one. And so, anyway, this feels like a thing because I don’t know how we get back from this. I don’t know, given the way that this is all proceeding. It’s not that somehow theaters are going to be endlessly drenched in Covid. Hopefully we all get that vaccine and we return back to life. It’s just that once you let this toothpaste out of the tube it’s hard to put back in.

John: Yeah. So my counter example to that would be Aladdin. So, Aladdin made $1 billion worldwide in theaters before it had its huge life on video. And so I do think that there are going to be some movies where – and Disney which is putting some stuff on streaming. It’s definitely not putting the Marvel movies on streaming because they know how much money they can make in theaters. I do think there’s going to be some movies that it’ll still be worthwhile for studios to say, “You know what, even to support our streaming service, even to do the pay-per-view at home, we’re going to make more money getting it in those theaters.”

But for some movies, I don’t know.

Craig: Well, the economics is kind of fascinating. So a movie like Aladdin that makes $1 billion all across the world still has this massive marketing budget that has to be deducted against that. And they just don’t have that budget or need it when they’re putting it on their service. It’s just much easier to sort of self-advertise.

And, of course, they’re not splitting a dime when they’re on streaming with exhibitors, whereas they – I mean, how much of that $1 billion was earned in China, for instance?

John: Yeah. A big chunk of it.

Craig: Well, of that big chunk Disney probably got about 20%.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So that’s the real interesting thing. How do you make more money with Aladdin? By the old method or do you put it on Disney+ but say, OK, this is Disney++. If you want Aladdin you just have to give us $3.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I think they might make more weirdly that way.

John: And yet though big theatrical releases and the marketing you do for those big theatrical releases also feed toys and feed a lot of other stuff that’s sort of knock-on value added stuff. So if Aladdin had just debuted on streaming the way Mulan did I don’t think you would have sold the toys that I think Aladdin probably did. I don’t know how many toys Aladdin sold, but it doesn’t have the chance to sort of become the big thing.

You know, Frozen, if Frozen had just debuted on Disney+ back in those days would we have all the Anna and Elsa merchandise that we have now? I kind of don’t think we would have.

Craig: I disagree.

John: Maybe.

Craig: Yeah. I think we would. It’s just different. That’s the thing. It’s just different. It’s weird. The movie business has always been this strange marriage between two people who think the other one needs them more. And I think – look, this was the thing we talked about 100 times because everybody would always predict it every year based on nonsense. But then this rather world-changing event occurred and it occurred exactly when every studio was building their own Netflix killer. And so this interesting concordance is in front of us now historically. I don’t know. I mean, I don’t know how – I think that certainly if the theatrical business comes back it’s going to look a whole lot different. That much I think everybody pretty much agrees on.

John: Yeah. So obviously there’s a couple other big movies that we’re curious what’s going to happen to them next. So, 007 No Time to Die was supposed to come out right as the pandemic launched. Apparently there have been discussions with Apple or other places to sort of takeover that and put it out there in the world. It’s interesting because with Wonder Woman 1984 that’s Warners. There’s HBO Max. It’s a really natural fit there and will help drive HBO Max. There’s a good synergy there. With something like No Time to Die there’s no partner studio that is the right place to send it to streaming. So it’s all complicated.

Dune apparently is pushed back a whole year. It’s tough. But I think more things are going to probably go on streaming just because even in the best case scenario where a vaccines get distributed widely I don’t even think our normal summer season is realistic.

Craig: Yeah. It just doesn’t seem possible, because there’s going to be a bit of a trust gap. No one reasonable wants to be the first person back in the place that might kill them. So, there will be a little bit of a – I think you might see Christmas. I could see that being – Thanksgiving and Christmas of 2021 could be a thing.

John: Could be.

Craig: Yeah.

John: All right. Let’s get to some follow up. We talked previously about the PayUpHollywood survey that they were surveying people who work in assistant kind of jobs in our industry. That survey is now up and it is now live, so there will be a link in the show notes for that. So a reminder that if you are working in one of those positions it would be great if you could take the survey so we know how you’re working, what you’re being paid, what your conditions are because even in this crazy time there’s going to be progress that needs to get made. And so we can see what has happened and where people are at right now. So please click that link in the show notes if you are a person who works in those assistant kind of jobs in the industry.

One of the places you might be working in that assistant-y kind of job is at an agency. And there was some agency news this past week. I don’t even know where to begin. I guess we should start with a recap of where we were at the last time through this.

Craig: Yes.

John: So where we were at last time, Craig, help me out. We were down to two final agencies who had not signed the WGA deal.

Craig: Yeah. UTA and ICM were the two agencies of the big four agencies that had been holding out and suing and all the rest of it. And also they were two of the four remaining agencies that packaged, I think, yeah, both of them. And UTA and ICM, the only real significant difference between those two and CAA and WME is that UTA and ICM didn’t really have functional or significant production entities that they controlled as well.

John: Yeah. UTA’s was small.

Craig: Tiny.

John: Below the 20% cap.

Craig: Exactly. Of ownership that they were allowed to have in it. So UTA and ICM signed the agreement with the Writers Guild and the basic run of it was that they’re going to stop packaging over the course of what is it a year and a half or something or two years?

John: Yup.

Craig: Yup. And so in a year and a half or two years they will be completely out of the packaging business and as a result of saying we’re going to do that. Plus also some things like we’ll share some information with the guild, all that other stuff. And so the guild said, “Great. Welcome back. If you want to be represented by UTA or ICM as a WGA member you may.”

And then, you know, the expectation was that CAA and William Morris Endeavor would kind of do the same quickly thereafter. It seems like they want to.

John: Well actually an important step was that CAA said like, oh, we did sign. And so they signed a copy. They basically the ICM agreement and then sent it through but they actually changed stuff on it so it became this weird back and forth. It was clear that they were basically taking all of the existing deal but that the question of how they spin down their production entity was really at issue.

Craig: Yeah. And this is the part that is just frustrating for me, looking at this from the outside. Because what it seems like – and this is where I have a question for you – because we’re dealing with – again, there are hundreds and hundreds of WGA members who had agents at CAA and WME who would like to go back and have their agents back. And CAA and WME as far as I can tell are both saying, “We agree to everything. We agree that we won’t package anymore. And we will divest down from these companies so we’re under the 20% cap.”

And what I think the Writers Guild is saying back to them is, “Great. But you have to actually get under the 20% now before we let you do this again.” And they’re grousing about how that’s complicated and so on and so forth. And this is why this rambles on. And I guess my question is–

John: I don’t think that’s accurate.

Craig: Tell me what is going on.

John: So, what happened this past week was that CAA announced that they have put all their production entities into a blind trust and therefore they believe that met the requirements of what needed to happen. And “you have to let us sign this deal.” And then put in a new lawsuit saying WGA is not allowing us to sign this thing and it’s unfair competition. They complained about Range Media and UTA also in that complaint.

The last statement that the WGA put out about this whole thing in terms of getting below the 20% cap is saying we have to understand what your corporate structure is so we can see what’s actually realistic about sort of the process of getting you down to that 20%. So, I don’t there, as I recall, I don’t think a line has been stated that you have to have sold it already in order to sign the deal. I don’t think that has been said.

Craig: So I guess my question is if we are allowing UTA and ICM and by extension CAA and WME to have up to a year and a half or two years to extract themselves from the packaging business, at which point one presumes we review and see if they have or haven’t, why can’t we do the same thing about this other stuff?

John: I think what you’re seeing communication from the WGA is that we need to know that we can actually audit that thing. And so I think the questions really come down to, and the things that you and I both were hoping that lawyers were figuring out in rooms, is basically how do we do this audit. What does it look like? How do we actually know?

Craig: May I ask a question? How is it possible, this is why I get a little grumpy sometimes, how is it possible that this effort that we began two years ago or something hinges on a point that apparently we have yet to figure out how we want to do? That is very confusing to me.

John: Oh, aren’t all negotiations down to sort of those final details? Well how are you actually going to assess this?

Craig: No. No. I mean, in the sense that if you know that one of the things that we require the agencies to do is convince us through some sort of auditing or observation process that they have indeed divested from a company, how are we only – I mean, wouldn’t we have already been sort of putting together a method of what would be acceptable to us? I just don’t understand how we – once they agreed to it how then on our side we were like, “Well OK but how will we know?” Shouldn’t we have already known that? Because I know that we hired a lawyer to kind of figure it out now.

John: So, I want to answer the question but I also want to take a step back because I feel like it also relates to kind of the election situation that we find ourselves in right now. I think what you and I are both frustrated by in some of this is a lack of clarity and transparency in term so what actually is happening here. Because especially with this new lawsuit that happened this last week there was a lot of sort of he said/she said about what actually happened in this negotiation.

When I was living in France I got to be there for the presidential election. I went with my friends and watched them vote. And it was really different and really cool how they do it. So you walk in, you sign in to show that you are a person who lives there, and then there are two stacks of little ballots and each is printed with one candidate’s name. You take one from each stack and an envelope and then you go into a little curtained area and then you put the name of the candidate you want in the envelope and seal the envelope. And then you crumple up the other one and stick it in your pocket or whatever. And then you put this sealed ballot into this clear plastic box and everyone can see the clear plastic box.

When the election is over, when the voting concludes, they unlock the box and everybody watches as the two things are neatly stacked up. You can see who has more ballots. You actually count them. You can visually see what happened. I loved how transparent that was. And my frustration is that this process – I guess I saw some of that ballot counting happening in the live streams that are happening.

Craig: Sure.

John: My frustration is that I see some of these Zooms and I kind of wish that everyone could just see these incredibly boring Zooms where they’re talking through this minutia because it would be so edifying to see sort of what is actually being discussed. Because it is this really – this stuff that is important but it’s trivial and it’s also just you want them to get over it. I think you often express how you just wish you could lock people in a room and get them to resolve the thing.

Craig: Yes.

John: I kind of lock people in Zoom and just get this resolved.

Craig: I’m with you on that. And I have no doubt that it’s always the case that actually creating binding agreements between large entities is difficult and challenging. What I guess I remain confused by and grumpy about is the fact that something – generally if you go into a negotiation and you’re looking to win something you ought to understand how that victory should look and feel. Meaning you ought to be able to go in – if we go in and negotiate with the AMPTP and we say, “We want a new system whereby we share copyright. We are employees but also then we share copyright and there’s royalties. A very complicated thing we’re asking.” And oh my god, the companies say, “Fine, OK.” At that point we’re really not entitled to say, “Well, OK, but we need time to figure out how.”

Like you have to know how if you’re asking for something. And this is something that is just confusing to me. That once the companies said, “OK, we’ll divest from these production entities,” we should have said, “Great, here’s our 40-page instruction manual on what we demand.” Now, we can negotiate about that 40 pages.

John: I do think more of that has happened – and again I think with big public transparency you might have been able to see a little bit more of that, but I think that 40-page document kind of does exist.

Craig: Well it exists now. But didn’t you hire a guy – you, I mean the guild – didn’t we hire a guy really recently to help us figure this out?

John: I think one of the things that’s complicated is who is CAA and who is WME. Who owns them? And what does the ownership actually look like? Which was the thing we were asking for. And so even in putting CAA’s production entity into a blind trust, well, OK, but what’s to stop the same people who own CAA from just buying that thing out of the blind trust? It’s complicated. And so those are the things that do need to be figured out.

Craig: I agree. But those were facts when we began. I guess that’s really what I’m coming down to is this. It is confusing to me that we’re just now getting around to telling them how our victory should look. Because in all seriousness while it’s going to be a victory eventually it’s just making this drag out longer. That’s what my annoyance is. That when David Young or David Goodman or whoever it was went on and said, “Well this is incredibly complicated. We are hiring an attorney now to help us figure out how we can make sure you guys are comporting with what we want,” I’m like, now? We’re hiring them now? OK.

John: To be fair, you could say that the guild is dragging this out, but when CAA or WME doesn’t get back to you with the actual things you’re asking for that help you figure out what needs to be in this contract that’s slowing things down too.

Craig: Well, yeah, but I’m not a member of CAA’s governing board. I’m a member of the Writers Guild. So my whole thing is like, OK, I can only “control” what my side does because I have a vote on my side. I don’t have a vote at CAA. I can’t. I mean, you know, I can yell at them. I can say what the F, guys. Look, the fact that all of them, UTA and ICM basically just held their breath and then eventually stopped holding their breath and CAA and WME are still holding their breath. Although I will say at least in their defense they want to stop holding their breath and they keep trying to stop and then we keep saying, “Well not quite yet because we’re not sure how you can stop holding your breath.”

And so really I’m a voting member of the Writers Guild. So this is me talking to I guess the leadership as a member saying like, “Hey, the next time we do this we should probably know ahead of time what the actual terms of surrender are when the other generals come into the room and say we surrender.” That is my minor criticism.

John: The Deadline headline for this will of course be, “Craig insists on another action against the agencies.”

Craig: Oh, it is? [laughs] I mean, that would be kind of fun. You can’t stop Deadline. That much we have learned. Hopefully they, as always, print everything we just said. They’ll leave this part out.

John: That’s the goal.

Craig: They’re always, oh, speaking of Deadline by the way, huge news. Huge. There is going to be a Uno Game Show.

John: I’m so excited about it.

Craig: We’ve done it again.

John: So we will link to the Deadline article about this. So thank you to everyone who sent this immediately because obviously we talked previously about how we need a new placeholder–

Craig: They’re killing us.

John: For the generic movie that is based on IP.

Craig: They’re chasing us now, right? Like we said Slinky, they were like, fine, we’ll do it. And then we’re like, OK, they took Slinky. Uno. No, we’ll take that too. What’s next?

John: Yeah. To be fair, the Uno is actually a game show rather than a movie, so it takes out of movie contention. It makes much more sense as a game show because it is a game.

Craig: It’s a game.

John: Yeah, it’s a game.

Craig: They’re not doing like you enter the domain of a multi-colored world where blah – no, it’s a game show. But at this point now I’m tempted to say the flushed toilet is the new thing. That when they finally come around and say we’re making the Flushed Toilet, we’re actually delving into the cinematic universe of the Flushed Toilet IP.

John: How about Mr. Clean? Mr. Clean feels like a character who could be exploited. I mean, he’s bald. He seems kind of like a genie but kind of like a plumber. I don’t know what his deal is.

Craig: He’s got an earring, right?

John: He’s got an earring, so he’s lived a life of adventure.

Craig: Yeah, something is going on. Sure, he loves bleach. We know that. Like Mr. Clean certainly could be a serial killer.

John: Yeah. I mean, he clearly has a goal. He has an objective. He wants to clean things. But what is it about his backstory that is leading him to this need to clean?

Craig: And is it cleaning or scouring? I mean, he really – it’s like a chemical burning away of sins. And also suspiciously in great shape for an older man.

John: 100%. I really agree. Because there’s a Yul Brynner. He’s like a jacked Yul Brynner.

Craig: Yeah. Like is he juicing? Is he even a human? What is he and why is he here and why is he dumping freaking poison all over everything?

John: I feel like the Scrubbing Bubbles could be a cute – I mean, the merch on the Scrubbing Bubbles is great.

Craig: Scrubbing Bubbles are like the things that we think are the heroes because they’re adorable and then you realize that, oh my god, Mr. Clean was the hero all along. He’s the only thing between us and the bubbles.

John: Well, I mean, the question is like the Scrubbing Bubbles they seem kind of like minions in the sense that they’re cute but they could do evil.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But there’s also a Gremlins quality. Like, you know, they’re helpful until they are incredibly dangerous.

Craig: Until the bubbles start happening. You know? And then those little eyes. Scrubbing Bubbles. Oh my god. What a brilliant thought.

John: Yeah. I’m excited. So, I’m going to pitch maybe the Mr. Clean movie is really where we’re at next because that’s even less, you know, it’s a character. I don’t know.

Craig: I don’t know owns the company that owns Mr. Clean but I’m just go out on a limb and say Unilever.

John: Unilever or SC Johnson Wax or those kind of things.

Craig: There you go. So like they should create what I think these corporations now call a content division. And it’s just Mr. Clean. Yeah, well we had a president who wanted us to all inject Mr. Clean. So what do you know? It could work.

John: It could work.

Craig: It could work.

John: Let’s get to our Three Page Challenges. We have three new entries in the Three Page Challenge. So if you are just joining us for the first time and you’ve never gone through a Three Page Challenge what we do is we ask our listeners if they want to send in the first three pages of their script, could be a TV script, could be a feature, to us and we will take a look at them and give some honest feedback on what we’re seeing here.

So Megana’s inbox gets overflowing with these. You don’t send them to ask@dev.johnaugust.com. Instead what you do is you go to johnaugust.com/threepage and there’s an entry form there. And you fill out your information and you send it through. So, Megana and sometimes other folks help cull through these and find interesting ones. Not always like the best things that we read but the things that are most interesting and most applicable to our listenership. So this time we have three new entries here.

Thank you to everyone who wrote in, but especially these three people for letting us talk about their things on the air. Again, everyone is doing this voluntarily. This is for fun. This is not for profit or for–

Craig: Well, I’m not profiting, but I’m pretty sure you are.

John: Somehow. Somehow we’re all profiting.

Craig: Except for me. I just want to, again, be clear. I get nothing.

John: Let’s start with RPG, a role-playing game. So, Craig, do you want to read us a description of this if people don’t have it in front of them?

Craig: Of course. So we’ve got three pages here entitled RPG written by Michael Seminerio. We cut between scenes of a funeral and a dungeon as a boy’s voice over describes being trapped in darkness, finding a light, and then having the light turn on you to become your enemy. Funeral scenes take place in the Everglades and follow Miccosukee tribe members as they lower a coffin and send a float into the water. We pay particular attention to David, 12 years old, who does not sing along during the ceremony. The dungeon scenes follow a hooded figure who tries to light a torch before the fire from the torch chases him out of the cave.

Finally we arrive at a mobile home where David sits under a makeshift cave of bed sheets with a few other boys we saw during the funeral scene.

John, you and I not only enjoy playing an RPG but we were playing one last night.

John: We were.

Craig: So this seems super apt.

John: Yeah. I’m a little bit sleepy just because of that, because we went late.

Craig: You’re sleepy?

John: Ha, yeah. I saw you tweeting at like 2:45am.

Craig: Because Chris Morgan and I just stayed up yacking for a while. So, yeah, I’m like guhhh.

John: All right. So we call it a Three Page Challenge but sometimes people have a dedication page before those three pages and this a script that has a dedication page. Right after the title page is a note to the reader saying that this story takes place in 1989. It’s three paragraphs. It’s way too long.

So, let’s talk about dedication pages or introductory pages like this. They can be really helpful for setting important information about the script. Sometimes there’s a quote there. Sometimes there’s something that just gives a sense of what the movie is going to feel like. Here this felt kind of like an apology in a weird way. It was too long and too defensive. My pitch would be to Michael, “This story takes place in 1989. It was a different time.” Just get out of there. Because too much of what’s happening here is trying to explain away things.

Craig: Or, just tell him to delete all of it. Because I agree, it seems like an apology. What it seems like – so the basic thrust of this note to the reader is, hey, in 1989 kids ran around more independently than they do now. And, in fact, they do so even if there had been riots nearby or stuff like that. And my answer is was somebody complaining about this? Did someone say, dude, you’ve got to say something because people will not understand. I’m like, no, people will absolutely understand. First of all, most of the readers that you’re going to be giving this to are not, you know, whatever, 18. And they’ve all seen movies before. And they’ve seen older movies before. My guess is they’ve seen ET. They’re familiar with – and I don’t think at any point – there’s an entire series on Netflix called Stranger Things. It’s like, come on.

John: I was going back to Stranger Things. Like, we kind of know what that vibe is.

Craig: Yeah. And I don’t know if you remember, John, do you remember the long speech in the beginning in the first episode of Stranger Things? Where they sort of like, hold on. No, they don’t do that.

John: It was a bold choice to have the showrunners come forward, under a top light, to sort of explain what we were about to see.

Craig: I’ll tell you, look, and honestly Michael the bigger issue with this is not that it’s extraneous, because it is extraneous. The bigger issue is that it’s not well written. I’m just going to come right at you with this, Michael. First of all there’s a typo in it. And you’re going to hear me say there’s a typo in it three different times during the Three Page Challenge section today. But, also, it’s just clunky. It’s clunky. It’s not particularly well punctuated. It’s over-written. And it just sets the wrong mood.

John: Yeah.

Craig: The way you write in screenplay format is better than the way you write in prose. I’m just being honest.

John: It’s true.

Craig: This is not doing you any favors. I would delete.

John: Yeah. So let’s get to the actual pages. So pretend that page didn’t exist. We’re to the actual pages. And we’re cutting back and forth between two different ideas. One is that this sort of adventure game, or following this person in this dark space, and we hear this boy’s voice over talking about what we’re seeing, and this funeral. So let’s talk about the adventure stuff first because that’s honestly why I picked these out of the final contenders because like, oh, it’s an adventure game stuff.

The boy’s description as he’s reading aloud, it felt like Zork language to me. And Zork being the text-based computer adventure game. The writing felt like that and I really responded to it in that it felt like that. Ultimately when it’s revealed that it’s more of a D&D kind of situation where there’s boys together playing a game. I didn’t buy the dialogue anymore. I didn’t buy that description as well because having played a bunch of D&D you don’t talk like that. There’s not these moments of sort of like prose descriptions of stuff.

So I’m torn because I both like the boy’s voice and I didn’t believe it when it was ultimately revealed what the context for that voice over was supposed to be. Craig, how did you feel about it?

Craig: Yeah. It’s an interesting idea. I do like the contrast of a juvenile fantasy narration with something that’s very adult and very not fantasy which is a burial. What’s a little concerning for me is that there is a sound issue. Because when you are using one thing to essentially overlap on top of another, so D&D narration overlapping on top of a funeral, you have to let one audio reality dominate. And in this case because the boy is delivering voice over it is his reality.

So, that means his voice over is the sound that we’re hearing. If we want to hear some distant-y footstep-y echoes from the dungeon hero, that’s fine. If we want to hear some very light background sounds from when we’re in the actual Everglades that’s fine. But what you have here is a kid doing that voice over and you have music. You have a song. A pop song. And I can’t quite tell from the way you’ve written it, because you haven’t made it clear, if this is soundtrack, or if it’s actually from the actual funeral itself, like maybe a radio or something, so diegetic or non-diegetic as we say.

It’s impossible to say. Either way it’s not tenable. And on top of that there is, I think, additional singing. I think the funeral, when they’re doing the funeral stuff – oh no, that’s the song. That is. So you’ve got two things that are kind of, ah, no, there is also this song for the dead, song by the Miccosukee members in attendance in the Miccosukee language.

So you have a boy, you have Native Americans singing a song. And then you have a pop song, all clashing in my head. I have no idea what reality I’m in, at all.

John: Yeah. And so contrast between different things is great. And so cutting back and forth between different things is terrific. So we’re not arguing against that kind of contrast. It’s just that there’s no coherence between it. Like those things being bounced off each other it’s not doing anything interesting, or it’s not telling us what interesting thing you’re trying to do. So to hear that pop song when we’re back in the dungeon-y space, that could be cool. The sense that we’re all together. But you’ve got to tell us if we’re doing that, because otherwise we’re just making guesses or we don’t feel confident about what we’re doing.

So talk about the real world stuff here. I felt like I really needed to be reminded that this is 1989 in that first slug line, or very early on, because if I don’t know what time period I’m in I’m just sort of guessing. And so I see the word Miccosukee and I’m guessing that’s a Native American tribe but I didn’t really know, so I’m just sort of stumbling for a bit there. And I don’t know, when I see that word, I don’t know if like, wait, that paragraph there, that whole section, I didn’t know if I was in the 1800s or present day or when. So, you’ve got to give me a clearer time period there.

And even better than a time period, if you can find something specific that tells us as an audience so you don’t have to print the year there like he’s got a certain kind of Walkman. He’s got something that tells me when we are, because it’s so crucial. The specificity was missing there.

Craig: And I can’t think of a better argument to get rid of that opening note to the reader than what you just said. Because there’s paragraphs about how this thing takes place in 1989 and like you it’s immediately forgotten. Just gone.

You’re right that the narration from the kid is not a very RPG accurate narration. But let’s say we forgive a little bit of that and what we’re thinking about is the sort of artistic juxtaposition of this – somebody taking flight from something terrible and evil out of the darkness. And the loss of somebody that you love. There is a kind of a natural pairing there.

But where it lands is deeply confusing to me. So maybe you got it. I don’t. The boy, who has been narrating this, suddenly yells, “Mom.” And then instead of cutting to reality where the kid is with his friends and his mom has just walked in or something, she’s not there. There is no mom.

John: I got confused, too. I don’t know what’s happening.

Craig: Why is he yelling mom?

John: Also confused.

Craig: And then, Gary, his friend, is complaining in a very D&D nerdy way that the specific dimensions of the chasm aren’t relevant. But no one suggested that they were. It’s just suddenly he’s arguing with somebody that hasn’t argued something. I’m so confused.

John: Something got lost there. Something got cut out. It just didn’t quite track.

So, one of the things, a general lesson I think people can take from looking at especially page two of this script is how we introduce characters who they’re going to be in a group scene but they’re not important yet. And this is a thing I saw both on page one and page two of this. “One Miccosukee boy, DAVID OSCEOLA (12), does not sing. GEORGE OSCEOLA (70s), with long silver-white hair, stands behind David with one hand on his shoulder.” So you’re calling out that George Osceola is a man in his 70s, probably his grandfather, and I think that’s a situation where I think it’s fine to say like his grandfather this because we’re going to learn this information soon enough. To not say it makes me wonder like what is the relationship between these people. Just give us a grandfather there.

The bigger issue for me is when we get on page two and we just get shot-gunned with a bunch of different character names. And it’s really hard to keep them straight. So we meet Gary, Octavio, his father, Sheila his mother, a woman, Robert, Guy, Wesley. There’s a bunch of people and I don’t know who is important and what’s important and it’s distracting me from what you’re trying to do on the page which is see David’s reaction to what’s happening at this funeral.

So if you’re just giving us a group of people and we’re going to separate them out later just give us the group and don’t call out their names. And you can tell us when we do introduce them separately like we saw them briefly at the funeral. But throwing too many names at us early on, especially page two, just scares us and keeps us on focusing on what’s really important.

Craig: Agreed.

John: One other moment here I want to call out is “The Woman carries a well-worn ‘Traveling Wilburys, Miami 1989 Tour’ t-shirt. The Woman ceremoniously sets it on the float.” We’re not going to see that. We’re not going to see that it’s a Traveling Wilburys shirt unless she were to hold it up and show it to the crowd and then gets reaction, and then it actually has meaning. So if there is something like that that’s important you’ve got to show it to the people in the scene so it’s clear why she’s doing it, or this is a question of why she’s doing it.

So just having a thing and putting something somewhere isn’t meaningful unless we know what it means to the characters.

Craig: There are so many characters in this scene.

John: It’s a lot.

Craig: Which is fine. Sometimes you can say we’ll meet some of these people later.

John: Exactly. I’ve done that.

Craig: Just burying people with names just makes everybody a mush. I can see things. I mean, I will say it’s very visual and so I can see things and all that. It’s just there isn’t enough clarity here and there’s just mistakes. Mistakes.

John: So a simple writing thing which applies to screenwriting but other stuff as well is try never to repeat a word in a sentence. And so on page one here we have “WE SEE hands fumbling with flint in the brief flashes from the spark of each strike of the flint against an iron shackle.” There’s ways to rewrite that sentence where you don’t have to say flint twice. And that’s what you should do.

Craig: Exactly.

John: Cool. All right. Let’s move to onto Rodeo by Dwight Myfelt.

Craig: OK.

John: So here’s a quick description. Again, you can look in the show notes for the actual PDFs if you want to follow along. But if you’re driving in the car here is the description of what we see. It’s 6:36am in a quiet Chicago suburb when a manhole cover moves and a clown emerges onto the street. A small boy watches from his living room window as the clown pulls out sacks of bills and two other clowns from the manhole. The clown sees the boy and gestures “sshhh” with a finger to his lips.

The second clown sees the boy and gestures a gunshot. The third clown doesn’t see the boy. The three clowns load the sacks into a nearby van. The first clown asks where Jason is and the third clown says that Jason is not coming. The van drives away.

We cut to the sewer beneath the manhole where we see a fourth clown, presumably Jason, lying face down and covered in blood. A couple hours later we’re back on the street while a car is being towed out of the open manhole cover where it apparently got stuck. A cop asks a sanitation worker to investigate the sewer tunnel based on the boy’s claim that he saw clowns coming out of it. The sanitation worker says he doesn’t see anything as we reach the bottom of page three.

Craig, what was your reaction to Rodeo?

Craig: Well, always a tricky thing to write an opening scene of a movie involving clowns and a heist where one of the clowns seems to die and the clowns appear to be lying to each other because I’ve seen that before in the one of the most famous openings of a movie ever which is Batman Dark Knight. So right off the bat I’m like it feels a little derivative there. It’s definitely of that vibe. But that doesn’t mean it’s not possible to do. There were aspects of this that I enjoyed.

Here’s on aspect I did not enjoy – the first page. Because it is a solid brick with paragraph – returns, I appreciate – of text, action description, and I read the first three paragraphs about a hundred times. There was something about the first three paragraphs that were just quicksand.

I’m going to read the first paragraph because this is what Scott Frank has often called Purple Dialogue. That’s not his coinage, but he does like saying that. And I think this is an example. “EXT. CHICAGO SUBURBS – EARLY MORNING Ground level, looking down the center of a quiet, tree-lined residential street. Oak trees arch over the street like the ceiling of a cathedral. Sunlight streams down through their leaves much as it would have in the Garden of Eden.”

John: I see two sentences there you can cut. So, after the word street the rest of the paragraph goes away because just get to the next thing we’re seeing. Because honestly we get it. And all that other description, great in a novel, we don’t need it in a screenplay. And it’s just the difference between the two forms.

Craig: I’m OK, if you want me to know that oak trees are arching over the street and it looks like the ceiling of a cathedral with sunlight streaming down like the Garden of Eden, whatever that might have been, I’m OK with that as long it matters. If you then cut to somebody lying on the street looking up, experiencing god because he’s high or has been hit in the head or dying, great. Otherwise, eh. So, that’s my new favorite thing by the way. I’m just doing my One Cool Thing right now because I don’t care, it’s so funny.

Have you seen this thing where Melania Trump talks about how people have attacked her husband for being anti-gay?

John: I have not seen this. No.

Craig: It’s the greatest. So somebody has mashed it up with this meme of this woman Trisha Paytas, I don’t know if you’re familiar with her. Your daughter probably is. Sort of YouTube-y lady. And so Melania pronounces anti-gay as “auntie gay.” So she goes, “Some people have accused my husband of auntie gay.” And they do a little subtle where it’s like auntie.

John: I love it.

Craig: And then we cut to this woman and she’s holding a sandwich, or a hamburger or something, and she’s talking to somebody off screen that we don’t see and she goes, “What?” And then it goes back to Melania and Melania goes, “My husband was the first president to enter the White House in support of gay marriage.” And then they cut back to this woman and she goes, “Huh?” And then they cut to a series of Donald Trump quotes saying in almost exactly the same way, like 15 different times, “No, I’m not in favor of gay marriage.” And then it cuts back to her and she goes, “Oh, eh. OK.”

And I have been going, “What? Huh? Oh, OK.” So that’s kind of my reaction to this first paragraph. What?

But what I do appreciate, this is what I appreciated – also there’s what I call forced action here. So these clowns have apparently ripped something off, I assume. Or we’re meant to believe that what they have in their big canvas sacks is money or something they’ve stolen. But here’s the forced action. Clown number one pushes the manhole cover open, climbs out. Walks down the street. 20 yards down the street. That’s a good 60 feet. Passes a brick house. There’s a little kid looking out through a window. I don’t quite know the kid’s age but I’d have to guess because he’s in pajamas and he’s drinking a sippy cup. And the clown waves at him.

And you’re like, oh, that’s interesting. This kid is seeing these creepy clowns but it’s kind of cool. Then clown number two arrives out of the manhole. Where the hell was clown number two? How far back was this clown?

John: Yeah. Doesn’t make sense.

Craig: Well, same thing as the next clown. These clowns apparently like to keep a good 60–

John: Social distance.

Craig: They social distanced their way through the sewer system, which is amusing to me. Also moving manholes is actually really hard to do. Regardless, that part felt super not true. It just felt forced.

But I did enjoy the idea at least of these clowns moving down the street and the first two interacting with this kid in differing ways but cool ways. And then the third one not giving a damn about the kid. So that’s an interesting way to learn about a character. So that I really appreciated. That instead of Dwight using a lot of dialogue to make us understand that clown number three is the boss or is the grumpy one or whatever, he used that. And I thought that was very clever.

John: So I want to speak up for Dwight here and say that I did actually read the whole first page and I didn’t skim. And I think the reason I did that is even though there were a couple phrases there that I didn’t actually need I was curious about it. And sentence by sentence it was bringing me down a very full page. So well done Dwight for not having me give up and pull the rip cord and skip to the next page.

Here’s a thing I want to point out though is it says clown number one, and then clown number two, and clown number three. The minute we see clown number one, well we know there’s a clown number two. So don’t say clown number one. Just say a clown. And then say a second clown. And then a third clown. And if you need to refer to them as clown number three later on, great, but don’t start with clown number one because it’s giving up the game.

Craig: Yeah. I completely agree.

John: Cool. I can also see all of this. And I felt like I could imagine what the shots looked like. It felt kind of like it was in a cool semi slow motion, which I appreciated. I like that the car has backed into it. I didn’t mind not seeing the car back into it. I liked coming to the car already stuck in it. Felt great.

I didn’t get what the point was of having the – and maybe there was a reason on page four why we needed to have the sanitation worker, but considering he doesn’t have a name I don’t get the point of the sanitation worker being there at that moment. Why you can’t just look down in there and show us that there’s not a body there now since we as the audience knew there should have been a body.

Craig: Yeah. I guess that’s the idea is that you want somebody to go all the way down to the bottom where you’re like, oh god, he’s going to find the body and then there isn’t a body. And he’s like meh. So, I guess I kind of understood that. My issue was more like I don’t need the sanitation worker – here’s what doesn’t make sense. Someone calls the police and says there’s a car. And a cop comes and then the city sends a sanitation guy. And then they stand there. They just stand there. And then one of them says, “So why am I here?” What were the two of you talking about before you asked that question?

I mean, you can get out of a truck and be like what’s going on, but you can’t just start with two people standing dead in the middle of a scene and then one goes, “Why am I here?” You literally cannot do that. That is the – my new thing is that anytime a character says, “Hey,” that’s a sign that something has gone terribly wrong. If you start a scene with somebody going, “Hey.”

OK. And then the cop goes, “Oh, we’ve been activated.” I’m a real person now? Let me explain to you that clowns came out of the hole. But until this point – it’s like they were waiting for the stage manager to go, “You’re on.” I don’t actually think you need any of this. I think what you need is a cop and then have the truck pull up. Have the guy get out and the sanitation worker is like what’s going on. What’s going on essentially? Why am I here? There’s a kid that says clowns came out of the hole. And the sanitation just starts laughing, because it’s funny. He’s like, oh ok, but seriously. And the cop is like someone took the cover off man. I’m not allowed to screw with this. You got to do it. And he’s like, OK, let me go climb down there. And now it’s a suspense thing because we think he’s going to find a body and then he doesn’t.

But it just doesn’t seem realistic at all in any way at all.

John: Another moment which is not realistic to me was at the bottom of page two. “CLOWN #4 (Jason) lies face down, eyes open, as blood streams from his temple.” Being face down with eyes open is challenging. Not impossible. But the visual is weird. Basically you can have your head turned to the side but if you’re really faced down then we’re not going to see your eyes being open.

Craig: You know, these are the things that people think don’t matter and they matter.

John: And also it’s a shot to his temple. How can he be face up? I don’t know.

Craig: Yeah. I don’t know.

John: I don’t know. Hey, do you want to do our third and final one?

Craig: Yeah, let’s finish this off, shall we? Oh, there was a typo by the way in Rodeo. My fault. So we get to our third one. The third one is The Interview written by Leilah Ruan. Leilah has also committed a typo. So all three writers today.

Can I just say, like if you’re sending it in, shouldn’t you proofread it really carefully? I’m just saying like doesn’t that seem kind of a basic sort of thing?

So, that said, here’s the summary of Leilah’s work here. Alex sits upright at a conference table as she anxiously bounces her knee. Next to her is Lexie who twists around bored in her chair. Lexie teases Alex about her nail polish. Alex tries to ignore Lexi.

Steve, 39, walks into the conference room wearing an expensive suit. A job interview begins. He’s interviewing Alex. Steve doesn’t acknowledge Lexi, who makes jokes, tries to get Alex’s attention. Steve asks Alex about her field work experience. Alex says she doesn’t talk about it because it’s embarrassing. We flash back to an 11-year-old Alex as she knocks on doors and asks people if they’re interested in learning about Jesus.

Back in the present Alex answers that she did this work for a few years. And, of course, if it wasn’t clear even from the specific description here, Lexie exists in Alex’s mind.

John: Yeah. And that’s where I probably want to start. Because it’s so clear right from the very beginning that this must be this kind of situation. And usually I think you would try to hold off on this, but in this case we’re going for it right from the very start. It’s clear that this is the situation. That this is a figment of her imagination or some sort of split personality case. Great.

OK, I think the contrast between the two characters was clear. I could sense Alex’s frustration and discomfort with having Lexie there, but also knew that this wasn’t a new thing. This felt like a thing that had been going on for quite a long time.

I’m torn because while I largely enjoyed that dynamic I didn’t really believe the interview situation of it. I didn’t believe the reality of the interview especially well. And I didn’t feel like I had great information going into what this interview even was, which was hindering my ability to enjoy it to some degree.

I want to call out though some small things that Leilah does on the page which are great. Our second sentence, “ALEX sits upright at a conference table. Prim. Poised. Perfectly made up. Still as a statue, aside from one bouncing anxious knee.” The alliteration of prim, poised, perfectly made up, it’s a small thing but it also just gives me as a reader a little bit of confidence. Oh, this person is trying. There’s a thought behind this and we’re using the fragments. We’re using the staccato rhythms to sort of get a sense of what’s going on here. So I really appreciate that.

An interesting style of not putting periods at the end of sentences where I expect there to be a period. So on page one you see this after amused, we see this after sit, as if it’s just spilling into the next line of dialogue. I guess you do it enough times it becomes a style rather than a mistake and so I’m going to call this a style.

Craig: I’m going to call it a mistake. Because there are too many places where she is putting the period down. And it just seems like there was a kind of a general sloppiness that was going on with a bunch of these because there’s no reason why some of them have periods and some of them don’t.

John: So if you’re going to do it just do it that way all the time.

Craig: Spellcheck please. Embarrassing is the worst possible word to misspell because it is its own definition. Yeah.

John: On page two Steve says, “Good to meet you. Sit please. Did you want a coffee, a water?” And Lexie says some basic grammar. OK to have a comeback but there wasn’t a grammar mistake there. That felt weird. And so I like the idea of a character who is constantly sort of undermining the scene, great, but that wasn’t the right – it’s just like the wrong joke for it. It just doesn’t actually track.

Craig: Yeah. You know, this is something we’ve seen before. So this is not – almost a genre unto itself. The “someone is in my mind.” And the movie I always kind of fling myself back to is All of Me because it was just so much fun to watch Steve Martin and Lily Tomlin occupying the same human being. This is clearly different. This is more of a manifestation of your own stronger self, which we’ve also seen too. This kind of like I’m sort of meek and controlled and trying to be a good person and then inside of me is this angry, ballsy, tough person that wants to break out. And basically turning somebody into the devil and angel on their own shoulder. And that’s perfectly cool. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t disqualify this at all.

But, I will say that my biggest issue here you’ve touched on twice. The first is the interview is not real. The interview, both Steve and the things he says, seem really crafted to clear out of the way of Lexie and Alex, which actually hurts what Lexie and Alex do. And there’s too much Lexie. Because when Lexie is talking sometimes it’s OK and sometimes it just doesn’t work.

For instance, it’s fine to say in an empty room looking around one of these stylish boardrooms “I think I feel the ghosts of sexual harassment lawsuits in here.” Sexual harassments is not quite as good, so you want to get that S off of there. But that’s fine because you’re guessing. Well, “You’re right, tax fraud too.” Great.

But when this guy shows up he doesn’t do anything wrong. And she keeps going after him and that part is a little questionable. Like you say she questions his grammar when I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with the grammar there. And she implies that he is covertly racist which doesn’t really come out. I mean, it’s not saying that he might not be racist, but it just doesn’t appear there. But here’s what specifically Leilah what I want you to look at, just technically, is Lexie starts talking. Steve asks a question. Did you want a coffee or a water? Lexie starts talking. And then it says, “Steve speaks inaudibly while Lexie tries to get Alex’s attention.”

So, that’s problematic. You can call out that Steve’s voice sort of disappears because Alex is kind of like tunnel visioning. And then you can have Lexie sort of leaning in saying he looks just like ash. But Lexie doesn’t have try and get Alex’s attention. She has it because Steve is gone. His voice is literally gone. But when Steve’s voice comes back this is what he says, “Alex?” Alex looks up, a deer in headlights. So if she’s looking down that’s a little strange, too. But Steve says, “I asked why are you interested in a career in sales?”

John: Don’t buy it.

Craig: No. This is how this actually goes in real life. John, you’re going to be Alex and I’m going to be Steve. Covertly racist Steve. So, John, why are you interested in a career in sales?

John: I’m sorry, what?

Craig: John?

John: What?

Craig: I asked you why are you interested in a career in sales. Now at that moment I’m insane. Because that’s not how that works. No one presumes that you literally just astral projected or lost the ability to hear. That’s not how it works. So that’s clunky writing. I don’t know how else to put it.

John: So here are some options that you could consider for this moment. This is a time where you could break out some dual dialogue and you stick Lexie in the right hand column and keep Steve in the left hand column and both things are happening at the same time. And we as the audience will understand that we can kind of ignore Steve and that we really are more focused on Lexie. And that Alex is trying to balance the two things. That can work. It can be annoying if you’re doing that all the time, but for certain cases that would be terrific.

And what Craig was saying in terms of calling out that you’re focusing in on Lexie and ignoring what Steve is saying that also works. I have a scene for something I’m working on right now, there’s some yada-yada that’s happening in the background and I just call that out as yada-yada. That’s fine and fair to do when you’re focusing on a foreground conversation and ignoring the background conversation. That works. But you can’t just say “speaks inaudibly” because how do you tell an actor, “OK, I want you to speak inaudibly here.”

Craig: Correct. Essentially we have to imply that there is something happening in Alex’s mind because her attention is being completely drawn by Lexie.

The other thing we have to do is make sure that if Lexie is going to be this sort of forceful, wry, commentariat that what she says has to be correct. So she makes a mistake about the grammar. So we’ve lost a little bit of confidence in Lexie. And then she does it again. Steve repeats, “I asked why are you interested in a career in sales,” and Lexie, the alter ego, says, “Because no other jobs will pay a 25-year-old with no degree, no special skills, and no experience in anything but minimum wage.” That is not true.

There are a lot of jobs that you can do if you’re 25 with no degree, no special skills, and no experience and in anything other than minimum wage. In fact the most cliché obvious answer is fast food. You just work making hamburgers. That’s sort of the classic cliché one. You don’t have to do the classic cliché one but what you can’t say is that sales is the only option. Because actually I think probably a lot of sales jobs they can be a little choosier. So it just doesn’t work.

I mean, if you want to be snappy and kind of snide you have to be accurately snappy and snide.

John: Well, and Craig, really this is all circling to a thing we sort of skipped over. We have no idea what this business is or what this company is.

Craig: Sales. [laughs]

John: Yeah. General sales. All we’ve been told about this is “Interior, an overly stylish boardroom.” Overly stylish? What does that mean? “Alex sits upright at a conference table.” That’s all we get. And so we have no – she’s just in a generic blank space. And because we just don’t know what this is, we don’t know if there’s phones ringing, are people moving in the background? Are there glass walls? What is this place? And without that specificity it feels fake.

Craig: Right. It feels fake. There was a thing I remember when – I don’t know if you loved reading the comics in the paper the way I did when I was a kid.

John: Oh yeah, when I was a kid. For sure.

Craig: So you remember some of the old comics that were already corny and fusty–

John: Hi and Lois.

Craig: Hi and Lois. Or like Dagwood. There was always some sort of hectored man or woman working for a boss. And the boss was always demanding that they get the contracts done. And I never knew what the hell – what is this business? Did you get the contract? What? For what? They never said. It didn’t matter. So this was like this place. What they do here is sales of something.

Steve, who by the way, all he’s done is, to review, walked into a room, sat down, greeted her politely, offered her something to drink, overlooked the fact that she seems to be astral projecting. Patiently repeats his question. And then when she says, “I worked door to door for a while,” he gets excited. He’s actually quite lovely.

John: He seems to want to hire her, yeah.

Craig: He’s the most bland, pleasant–

John: No, no, no. He’s “disgustingly attractive” it says on page one.

Craig: Oh, he’s disgustingly attractive. And he works at Contract Co. But at last, at long last, we get something here at the end that shows the promise. Which is that Alex has a fascinating little backstory that as an 11-year-old she was going door-to-door seeing if people would be interested in learning about our lord and savior Jesus Christ. And finding people slamming their door in her face. And using that as a little cinematic technique to show her as an 11-year-old, as a 15-year-old, as a 21-year-old. She has spent essentially her whole life going door-to-door trying to get people to believe in Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. And every single person slams the door in her face.

So we understand something interesting about her now.

John: Yeah. And obviously you’re tipping us off to that’s related to this split personality thing.

Craig: Of course.

John: And so even though I’m a little bit frustrated after these three pages I’m still curious to see how this is going to develop, which is good. So well done. You’ve baited the hook enough that I’m curious to read the next couple of pages to see what’s going to happen here.

Craig: I agree. I think that there’s a fun concept here and there’s an interesting backstory that makes this more intriguing to me than the usual thing. Because I think the usual version of this is I’m just tired of the world kicking me around. I’m going to get tough. But this is somebody who has actually gone through a different kind of specific getting kicked around. So, cool. And maybe, who knows, maybe Lexie is literally the devil. I don’t know. We’ll see where it goes eventually.

But I would say that Leilah you have to be more careful as you write through these things, not just about things like all three writers again were having some spelling and punctuation typo issues, but you also have to be careful about what people would do. This is what we talked about last week with Scott. What do humans actually do? And in this instance, in this scene, it’s just not comporting with what we know about humans.

John: I agree. One last thing, page two, last line of scene description, “Alex trammels down rage.” I got hung up on that thinking like have I been using that word wrong? I don’t think I’ve ever really used the word trammel but does it not mean what I think? So I stopped and I Googled it and looked up. So, that’s not a thing. You can trammel, but trammel down is not actually a thing. And so let’s talk for a moment about just using a word like trammel which is not common in scene description. It’s the kind of thing in a weird way you can get away with it more easily in a book. But in a script where you’re just reading fast and you don’t want people to ever stop or slow down on something I think trammel is just not a good word for you.

Craig: There’s another thing about that. Trample I guess or stepped on, or whatever. But here’s what – just like quietly I sort of giggled. Not anything that Leilah or you would ever think of. But there was a baseball player named Alan Trammell. When I was a kid he played for the Tigers. And so when I saw “Alex trammels down rage” I was like, ooh, Alan Trammell. That’s the stupidest thing. That has nothing to do with you, Leilah. I apologize. That’s just completely irrelevant. But Alan Trammell.

John: Alan Trammel. I want to thank our brave writers for sending in their pages. So the three who we talked through today, but all the other ones who sent stuff through. So again if you want to read these PDFs they’re attached to the show notes here. Just go to johnaugust.com and find them. If you want to submit your own pages go to johnaugust.com/threepage and you’ll see the little form for doing that. So, again, thank you to everyone who sends these in because I think it’s really helpful for us to be able to talk about the literal words on the page.

Craig: What? Huh? Oh. OK.

John: I didn’t want to do it as part of the last segment because it was just going too far off field, but how should I feel about Dilbert? I say this because Dilbert is the only comic – I don’t really read the comics anymore, but I think Dilbert is still consistently kind of funny to me, and yet Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is clearly such a weird right wing crank. I can’t – I don’t know how to feel about Dilbert.

Craig: Well, Dilbert always was the kind of – he represented the quiet frustration of the white man in the tie, didn’t he? I mean, it’s not actually that farfetched. Sort of the silent fuming – it would have always been a shock if Dilbert had turned to Dogbert and said, “It is odd how we’re all white in this company.” Or whatever. I don’t know if they are all white in the Dilbert company. I don’t know. If you like Dilbert keep reading Dilbert. I mean, look, my whole thing has always been like Ezra Pound for instance.

Ezra Pound, notorious, just notorious racist anti-Semite. Fascist. He collaborated with the fascists, like legitimately. He went to prison. He was arrested in 1945 by our soldiers in Italy because he was essentially collaborating with Mussolini. But his poems are really good. So, I can enjoy his poems and I also think that he the person Ezra Pound was just a dick. I can separate those things. I’m not going to – if I can avoid giving them money I will.

John: That’s fair.

Craig: I’m not going to buy Dilbert books. I mean, honestly, I don’t actually enjoy Dilbert as much as I do Ezra Pound.

John: All right. Thank you for your permission to occasionally chuckle at Dilbert. I just don’t know.

Craig: Yeah, I mean, you’re free.

John: I’m free. Time for One Cool Things. So obviously one of my One Cool Things has to be Rachel Bloom’s new book.

Craig: Of course.

John: I Want to be Where the Normal People Are. So it came out this past week. I have my copy. I have not cracked it open yet but I’m so excited to read about the Rachel Bloom origin story. Because we got to know her when she came to a live Scriptnotes before Crazy Ex-Girlfriend debuted.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And she’s just been delightful every moment since then.

Craig: I think when we met her Crazy Ex was not happening.

John: It was a Showtime pilot that looked like it was not going to happen. So I don’t want to say that we’re entirely responsible for what’s happened to her career.

Craig: I’m OK with that. I’ll say it. I’ll say it.

John: But something that we have no involvement in whatsoever but I find just terrific is Harley Quinn, the animated show that is on HBO Max. It is so funny and so dirty and just really smartly done. And really great character work. Great voice work. It was a delight. And so people kept telling me, oh, you should watch it. And I’m like I’m not going to watch that. I don’t really care about that stuff. And I just think it is terrific.

And so what they do with the relationship between Harley and Poison Ivy is really smart. So just kudos to that. And if you’re looking for something to stream over these holidays and the new quarantines I recommend checking out Harley Quinn on HBO Max.

Craig: What? Huh? Oh, huh. You’ll use it constantly.

John: I will. I know.

Craig: It’s wonderful.

John: Mike will divorce me.

Craig: No, no, no. It will bring you closer together. It really will. Because if he says something like, “John, can you stop doing that” you turn to him and go, “What? Huh?”

John: You don’t know Mike at all really. That’s what it comes down.

Craig: OK. It’s the laugh in between Oh and OK that makes it so – by the way, this is an old meme. It’s not new. It’s just the Melania – I’ve got to send you the Auntie Gay thing. It’s the greatest thing in history.

John: And we will put it in the show notes, of course.

Craig: We sure will.

John: Great. Is that your One Cool Thing?

Craig: Hell yeah.

John: All right. Great. So that is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Indeed it is.

John: Our outro this week is by Mike Caruso. If you have an outro you can send us a link to ask@dev.johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you send longer questions. But for short questions on Twitter, Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

We have t-shirts. They’re great. They make a great gift. You can find them at Cotton Bureau.

You can find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s also where you find transcripts and the signup for our weekly-ish newsletter called Inneresting which has lots of links to things about writing.

You can sign up to become a Premium member at Scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments. And if you’re looking for a gift for someone who likes Scriptnotes you can actually give a gift membership to Scriptnotes, so that’s a thing you can consider for a person who is obsessive about our show.

So stick with us after this break because we are going to talk about autobiographies. Craig, thanks for a fun show.

Craig: What? [laughs]

[Bonus segment]

John: So, Craig, autobiographies. I’ve been thinking about them and sort of what place they hold both on my bookshelves and in sort of my mental space. There were some crucial ones along the way. Like autobiography of Malcolm X which was also written with Alex Haley. But Frederick Douglass’s book. They give you a very clear sense of what it was like to be a person in that place and in that time in ways that other histories sort of can’t. So I appreciate that.

But also I think to like Tina Fey’s Bossy Pants. Or Mindy Kaling’s books. They give you an insight into what it’s like to have the kind of job I wanted to have. And so they’ve been a very important source for me. How about for you, autobiographies?

Craig: I generally will go towards biography because for most figures of import or interest it’s the external perspective that I find fascinating. I don’t want to hear somebody explain to me why their life was fascinating. But there are situations where you really want the autobiography because the person’s life is not just fascinating, but it is emotionally fascinating. And that’s something that you can’t really get from the biography the way you can from the individual.

Maybe the most famous autobiography ever is Anne Frank’s diary. It’s not really an autobiography. It was just a diary, so it’s different, but it’s a fascinating insight into somebody in a position that is so specific and so connected to the experience of it that I have absolutely no interest in reading a biography of Anne Frank. Zero.

Similarly I’m sure there are some good biographies of Richard Wright. Why would I want that when what I really want to read is Black Boy because that gets under the hood? It’s like this is the stuff that matters emotionally. So, that’s the sort of thing that I look for. It’s like why must I read this as an autobiography as opposed to not an autobiography, just a regular one.

And so like you, I mean, there are the famous ones we read like the autobiography of Malcolm X. And I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, because also like if you have somebody like Maya Angelou who is just a remarkable writer. And Richard Wright, it’s the same with him as well. You just want that.

Whereas – and no offense to Barack Obama – he’s a perfectly fine writer. I don’t know if he wrote Dreams from My Father with anybody, like a lot of times they’ll pair you up with somebody because you’re busy and running for president and crap or whatever. But I actually want biographies. I would rather read a biography of Barack Obama. It’s just more interesting to me that way.

John: To me the distinction is sort of like you have Annie Leibovitz who is an amazing photographer. And so she can find something in somebody’s face that is remarkable. And then you also have people who use Instagram which is basically taking photos of yourself. And they’re really different things. They’re both photography, but they are so different in the sense of an outside eye looking at you versus Instagram which is a self-curated look at sort of who you are and what it is. And they’re both valuable. They’re just really different things.

You talk about the autobiography of Malcolm X which has an outside writer. Or I think of I, Tina, which was the Kurt Loder book on Tina Turner. It’s an autobiography that another person has stepped in to help write. And probably was really helpful in terms of shaping purpose to this. You have insight because you have direct access to the inner workings of Tina Turner’s brain and what it felt like to be in those places. And you have somebody who has skill in putting that on the page. And I think the reason I respond so well to writer’s autobiographies is because they just have that skill of being able to say this is what I felt like and let me create that same experience in your brain.

Craig: 100%. Like I really don’t think I’ll ever read a biography of Ernest Hemingway. But I’ve read A Moveable Feast because he’s a great writer. Why wouldn’t I want to? You know?

And so that’s what I’m kind of looking for. And I’ll put Rachel Bloom right up there with Ernest Hemingway. I don’t care. Why not?

John: We absolutely should. Cool. So, Craig, talk to me about your autobiography, because I know you’ve been working on it for years. So, what has been the most rewarding thing for you to get into your autobiography?

Craig: My autobiography is mostly just a daily description of what worries me. And I have some fairy involved charts that lay out the frequency and quantity and quality of my bowel movements. That’s what it is.

The thought of writing an autobiography to me as me is so absurd. Like what? I don’t think I would get past the first line.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: I definitely have a list of grievances and people who were mean to me over the course of my life.

Craig: Oh my god, that’s so bitter.

John: I’m going to go through that. I don’t think I’m going to be ever writing an autobiography. I will say the Arlo Finch books, so much of my childhood is sort of in those, and so you can sort of squint and you can see it. You and I have been approached about writing a Scriptnotes book at a certain point, and the amount of work that it would take to do that and to have something that I’m proud of feels just daunting. And not a great use of either one of our times. So that’s probably not happening any time soon.

Craig: No. Also I don’t think anyone would care. I really do. I just don’t. I’m still amazed that anyone listens to this. I really am. You know what I say when people come up to me and they’re like, “Oh my god, I listen to your podcast every week,” do you know what I say?”

John: What do you say?

Craig: What? Huh? Oh. Okay. [laughs]

John: And we’ll cut there.

 

Links:

  • Wonder Woman 1984 coming this Christmas!
  • Assistants and support staffers, please fill out the #PayUpHollywood survey today!
  • Uno Game Show
  • Read along with our Three Page Challenge selections:RPG by Michael Seminario, Rodeo by Dwight Myfelt, and The Interview by Leilah Ruan
  • I Want to be Where the Normal People Are by Rachel Bloom
  • Melania’s ‘Auntie Gay’ Speech
  • Harley Quinn Cartoon Show
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • John August on Twitter
  • Craig Mazin on Twitter
  • John on Instagram
  • Outro by Mike Caruso (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Megana Rao and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

  • Aladdin (1)
  • Arlo Finch (27)
  • Big Fish (88)
  • Birdigo (2)
  • Charlie (39)
  • Charlie's Angels (16)
  • Chosen (2)
  • Corpse Bride (9)
  • Dead Projects (18)
  • Frankenweenie (10)
  • Go (29)
  • Karateka (4)
  • Monsterpocalypse (3)
  • One Hit Kill (6)
  • Ops (6)
  • Preacher (2)
  • Prince of Persia (13)
  • Shazam (6)
  • Snake People (6)
  • Tarzan (5)
  • The Nines (118)
  • The Remnants (12)
  • The Variant (22)

Apps

  • Bronson (14)
  • FDX Reader (11)
  • Fountain (32)
  • Highland (75)
  • Less IMDb (4)
  • Weekend Read (64)

Recommended Reading

  • First Person (87)
  • Geek Alert (151)
  • WGA (162)
  • Workspace (19)

Screenwriting Q&A

  • Adaptation (65)
  • Directors (90)
  • Education (49)
  • Film Industry (489)
  • Formatting (128)
  • Genres (89)
  • Glossary (6)
  • Pitches (29)
  • Producers (59)
  • Psych 101 (118)
  • Rights and Copyright (96)
  • So-Called Experts (47)
  • Story and Plot (170)
  • Television (165)
  • Treatments (21)
  • Words on the page (238)
  • Writing Process (177)

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.