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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Drew Marquardt

Scriptnotes, Ep 222: Live from Austin 2015 — Transcript

November 6, 2015 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. So today’s episode of Scriptnotes was recorded live at the Austin Film Festival. There are enough bad words, you probably don’t want to listen to it in the car with your kids or at work if you work at some place that doesn’t like to have occasional swearing.

Our thanks to the Austin Film Festival for having us there. It was tremendously fun. And we look forward to seeing you next year.

Craig Mazin: Hello and welcome. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. This is a real church crowd. Yeah. All right.

John: My name is John August.

Craig: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and —

Audience: Things that are interesting to screenwriters.

John: Really well done. So a few of you may have listened to the podcast before. Can I see a show of hands of who’s actually heard of the Scriptnotes podcast? Oh, that’s a lot of you.

Craig: That’s a softball to use. You’re just —

John: Yeah.

Craig: Looking for praise now.

John: Yeah, we are. Basically, we’re looking for t-shirts out there in the crowd. Some of you might not know what the podcast is like. So Craig, what do we do on a weekly basis?

Craig: John carefully prepares a bunch of topics. He talks to his staff about how to produce the show. He lets me know what time the show will happen. I am five minutes late. I don’t know what we’re doing.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And I talk too much.

John: Oh, no. You talk just the right amount, Craig. So what are we doing today? I’m going to put you on the spot.

Craig: Today, I know what we’re doing.

John: All right. Tell us what we’re going to do today.

Craig: Because it’s special.

John: All right.

Craig: Well, we have two great guests today. We have Nicole Perlman who wrote Guardians of the Galaxy. Little movie. And we also have Steve Zissis, star of HBO’s Togetherness and writer and creator thereof. And those of you who are looking in the book, the guest list has changed a bit because of flights and whatever. I think, frankly, it has improved.

John: Tornadoes, yeah.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Floods.

Craig: We’re also going to be —

John: Acts of God in a church.

Craig: Acts of — we should be safe here.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Well, not me.

John: Listeners at home — and I realize that we’re actually in a historic sanctuary at St. David’s Episcopal Church. And so we are looking over a crowd that’s like maybe, I don’t know, 2,000 people.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And they’re all in pews.

Craig: It’s a mega church.

John: We have this little, you know, satellite room, too.

Craig: Yeah, it’s a mega church.

John: Thank you for being here in this church with us.

Craig: Yeah. And we’re also, today, going to be doing this little feature that we started kind of recently where we take three different stories from the news — current stories from the news and ask, and we’ll have our guests who are in, how would we make a movie out of this. So we’ll be doing that with you guys today.

John: Hooray.

Craig: Hooray.

John: So this will be really fun. So this is probably my seventh Austin Film Festival. You’ve been here a bunch of times, Craig.

Craig: I think this is my fourth or fifth.

John: Yeah. So we love the Austin Film Festival. And yesterday as I arrived, I had maybe not the best start. So I wanted to talk through sort of what happened going from the plane — actually, going from the escalator to the baggage claim. I managed to make a series of faux pas that I feel if I would share them it will make me seem human and relatable.

Craig: Let me just point out, he’s not human.

John: No.

Craig: But he will seem human and relatable.

John: Yeah. So I want you to sympathize with my plight here. So I get down off the escalator and there’s a guy there waiting — maybe you’re out here in the crowd right now — with a big blank sheet of paper and said, “Mr. August, would you draw us a sketch from like, from one of your movies?” I’m like, “I didn’t illustrate any of these movies.” And so like, you know, “Sketch us something from like Frankenweenie or something from Corpse Bride.”

I’m eager to please people. I’m a teacher pleaser. And so I was like, “You know what, I’ll try something. I’ll give it a shot. Like, I’ve never drawn anything from these movies, but sure.” Tim Burton won’t mind if I draw one of his creations.

Craig: And did that guy’s face just go, “Uhh?”

John: No, no. He was really pushing me. And so I was trying to decide whether I was being punked or like to see like how badly I could draw Sparky from Frankenweenie. So I ended up drawing the female dog from Frankenweenie. And like the ball being pushed underneath the fence, and it was like a charming little scene, but completely the wrong thing to draw.

So I’m drawing this thing and I signed it, whatever, and I signed another autograph. And then people started to think like, “Oh, that must be a famous person.” So random people started to like try take photos with me as if I was a famous person. And they have no idea who I am in their photos.

That’s by far the better part of what happened.

Craig: This is what he thought would make him sound human and relatable.

John: No. No, no, no. No, wait. Because the whole thing is about to flip.

Craig: Okay.

John: So as I’m waiting for my bag in baggage claim, there’s a guy who I recognized who was on the flight. I was like, “Is that an actor? I can’t picture him.” But he seems familiar, and he’s wearing sunglasses. And there was a limousine driver who was meeting him there. And so I was like, “He’s somebody famous. Who is that person?”

And then I could see the driver’s little card that he would hold up. And it was flipped over and it said “Raimi.” I’m like, “That’s Sam Raimi.” And so I’m like, “Oh, I should say something to Sam Raimi because we have mutual friends. I mean, like Laura Ziskin and other folks.

And so I finally, like, sort of screw up my courage and say, like, “Hey, Sam. Sam, it’s John. It’s John August.” And he just completely stone faces me. Like does not acknowledge me whatsoever, like I’m just a crazy stalker person. So I became that stalkery person who sort of wanted to, like, get his attention.

So this other nice guy who might be in the audience here today said, “That’s not Sam Raimi.” It wasn’t Sam Raimi. It was Sam Raimi’s brother apparently. And so —

Craig: You met Ted Raimi?

John: Ted Raimi is here.

Craig: Ted Raimi I would have thought would have been like, “No. But let’s talk.”

John: No.

Craig: You know —

John: Ted Raimi shut down.

Craig: Wow.

John: And so this is no slam on Ted Raimi. This is no slam on Sam Raimi who wasn’t even here to defend himself. It’s just this is a situation at trying to get my bag, I managed to humiliate myself kind of twice. So the tornadoes in Austin have been, like, really a highlight after that point.

Craig: I’m really sorry that that happened.

John: Oh, thank you, Craig.

Craig: I care about you.

John: Thanks. That’s nice to hear.

We’re going to try something very new and very different that we’ve never done before. So back on our 100th episode of the show, we did this thing where underneath the people’s seats, there was a golden ticket hidden. And if you have that golden —

Craig: Don’t go looking.

John: Or, maybe go looking but you won’t find anything.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Underneath one seat, there was a golden ticket and that person won a very special prize. So today, we’re going to try doing a raffle of a very special prize. So as you guys came in, each of you should have gotten a little raffle ticket, hopefully most of you. And —

Craig: Did you throw your raffle ticket out? You ate it? What did you do?

John: You ate it? Yeah. It wasn’t edible, no. I guess it technically is edible, just not really good.

Craig: Not tasty.

John: Not tasty.

So this is Annie Hayes, everyone. Annie Hayes is our Austin Stuart. Say hi to Annie Hayes. So Annie Hayes is helping us out.

Craig Mazin, will you pick one ticket from there?

Craig: Yes. Oh, so many. Okay, I got it.

John: All right.

Craig: I have it.

John: So let’s read the number and see if it matches up to anybody here.

Craig: Six. Good. So far so good. Two. One. I think everybody started with 621. Zero. One. Zero.

Amanda Murad: Oh, that’s me.

Craig: Yay.

John: Come on up.

Craig: Let’s see. I’m going to hold on, I’m going to figure out what your name is. It’s Amanda.

Amanda: Amanda.

Craig: Amanda Murad.

Amanda: Murad.

Craig: Murad.

Amanda: Close.

Craig: I thought it was Norad for a second.

John: That would be cool.

Craig: Yup.

John: But Murad’s great too.

Amanda: Okay.

Craig: No, no. It’s not that cool.

John: So are you a screenwriter?

Amanda: I am a screenwriter.

John: And do you live in the Austin area or are you just here for this conference?

Amanda: Just here for the conference. I live in LA.

John: Oh, holy cow.

Craig: Great.

Amanda: Yeah.

John: Is this your first time in the Austin Film Festival?

Amanda: It is.

John: And how is it so far?

Amanda: It is really fun.

Craig: It just got awesome.

Amanda: It just got way more awesome.

John: What are you writing right now?

Amanda: I am working on my second pilot.

Craig: Great.

John: And have you only done TV stuff so far? Have you written a feature? What else have you written?

Amanda: I’ve written one feature. But I have two pilots and a play.

John: Cool. That’s awesome. In these envelopes, they’re marked A, B, and C, there are three different items. And I want you to pick which envelope you would like to open.

Amanda: Whose fate am I deciding in this decision?

John: Your own fate.

Craig: I like her sense of nervousness and caution though, I have to say.

John: Yes. She’s not just blindly rushing in.

Craig: Yeah. She’s not like, “Okay.” No. She’s like, “Okay.” So A, B, or C?

Amanda: Okay. The letter A is usually pretty good to me.

John: All right. Great.

Amanda: A.

John: A. So take this envelope but don’t open it yet.

Amanda: Okay.

John: And we are going to open up one other envelope. So I want a vote from the crowd. Which of these other two envelopes should I open up?

Audience: B.

John: Everybody who wants me to open up envelope C, raise your hand.

Craig: C.

John: Yeah. All right. We’re going to open up envelope C. Open up envelope C, Craig.

Craig: Okay. All right.

John: Let’s see what’s inside.

Craig: See, he gives me stuff to do and everything, keeps me involved. Okay. Oh, this was the good one.

John: Yeah, this was the good one.

Craig: This was the best one.

John: All right. Yeah, it’s a really good one.

Craig: Just let her have it. [laughs]

John: Maybe we should.

Craig: No, because she’s so normal. I mean we had like a chance of getting a total freak. Not that — I mean, there’s at least one of you in here who’s —

John: Yeah. So there’s a thing which I was going to do with all this but apparently, you chose so well or the audience chose for you. Maybe it’s the audience who chose for you.

Craig: You know what? The audience chose this for you.

John: That’s really the audience choice.

Amanda: Thank you, guys, so much.

John: So what this card says is, “John and Craig will read your script.” If you would like to.

Amanda: Yes.

John: Great.

Amanda: Yes.

Craig: And we’ll talk about it on the show. And you can come on the show.

Amanda: Yes. Yes.

Craig: Great. Or you can have a t-shirt.

John: Yeah.

Amanda: I’m going to pick C.

John: All right. Well done.

Craig: C.

Amanda: The letter A has failed me.

John: Yeah. Amanda, at whatever point you feel like you have a script that you want to send in, just send it in to Stuart at ask@johnaugust. I’ll remind him that you were the one who won this competition and the audience won it for you, really.

Amanda: I will be sure to thank you all in my email.

John: And we look forward to receiving it.

Amanda: All right. Thank you, guys.

John: Amanda, thanks so much.

Craig: Envelope B was money, by the way.

John: Yeah, exactly.

So the idea behind that was the Monty Hall problem which is essentially we were going to open up one thing and then she would decide whether she wanted to keep or switch and it involved math and statistics and probability.

Craig: These guys messed it up.

John: No. You guys did a nice thing. You did this all for her.

Craig: They did. Yeah, they did.

John: They did.

Let us get to our very first guest of the podcast.

Craig: Great.

John: Nicole Perlman is the writer of Guardians of the Galaxy. And she’s writing a bunch of other stuff right now and we cannot wait to talk with her. She was a guest way back when, right when that movie came out. And let’s welcome Nicole Perlman up to talk to us again.

Craig: Nicole Perlman.

Nicole Perlman: Thank you.

John: Nicole Perlman, you were on the show before. You had just written Guardians of the Galaxy which was a giant, giant hit. What has changed in your life since we’ve talked to you last, in writing?

Nicole: I’ve descended into heroin use and I’ve lost all my friends and family. [laughs]

Craig: God, I know how that goes.

Nicole: Yeah. Totally. No, it’s been good. It’s been really crazy. It’s been so crazy that I sort of fled to San Francisco. I was like, “Oh, too much stuff. Too much good. Must run north.” So no, it’s been very good. Lots of projects. I’m doing Captain Marvel —

John: Great.

Craig: Awesome.

Nicole: With Meg LeFauve. So that has been cool. We’re really in the early stages but we’re having a lot of fun. And I’m doing a project for Fox, an adaptation of Hugh Howey’s Wool Trilogy, and that has been very cool.

That guy, by the way, really knows how to live. He wrote a best-selling novel and he’s like, “I’m going to go build a boat and sail around the world. See you.” And he like checked out. So that’s what he’s doing which is really cool.

John: I mean you’re checking out to some degree.

Nicole: Totally.

John: Like you’re keeping out of the rat race.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: And so what really prompted the decision? Was it just you had enough stuff on your plate that you actually could leave and —

Nicole: Yes. That was it.

John: That’s the response?

Nicole: And also, people just kept asking me to be on their podcasts and it was just —

John: Yeah, it was such a huge drag.

Nicole: It was a huge drag.

Craig: It’s the worst.

John: Yeah, I mean, Craig, I tell you, you got to back off a little bit.

Craig: I mean, I don’t know what those podcasts are because I don’t listen to podcasts. But I know what it’s like.

Nicole: No, it’s good. It’s probably just for like a year. I’m in LA every week for work but I felt like I could just do it. I spend less time commuting by flying in and out than I did when I was in LA in my car, which is kind of crazy.

John: That’s actually scary, yeah.

Nicole: It’s true though, yeah.

John: So talk to us about — obviously, you can’t give us any character details or really plot details about Captain Marvel.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: But what is it like writing with another writer? Is this the first time you’ve had a writing partner on something?

Nicole: It’s not the first time. I’m working with another writing partner on a spec, my first spec in a long time. So that is another experience. It’s been really good.

Meg and I are really, really just starting out. And she comes from a Pixar background so she’s really used to collaborating. So I think we’re still feeling it out a little bit. The being on the phone part, I’m very meek on the phone when other people are talking. I’m very respectful. I’m just, like, “No, no. You go ahead. No, no. You go ahead.” You know, and —

Craig: You got to lean in, girl.

Nicole: You got to be like, [roars], “Listen to me.” So I think that is — because that goes over really well, too.

John: Yeah, it does.

Craig: I don’t think that’s a good idea, actually. I don’t want you to do that.

John: But you need to get a Groot voice is really what you have to do.

Nicole: A Groot voice for sure. For sure.

John: Simple things.

Nicole: But Meg is wonderful and so she’s really good about character. And I think she comes from a non-genre background and so there’s a little bit of me being like, “Oh, you know, so there’s this history of this type of character, you know, we don’t want to do that because it’s been done that way.” And she’s like, “But we want to have this with character and integrity.” I’m like, “What? Integrity? What? What’s that?” So she’s great. And I think that we balance each other out in a good way. But again, it’s early days yet.

John: So one of the challenges would seem to be that you have to come to a consensus between the two of you about what it is you want to do and how you want this movie to work and how you want the character the work. But also then you have to be able to pitch in a unified sense to Marvel. And Craig sort of loves Kevin Feige or sort of really admires Kevin Feige.

Craig: I do.

John: And so that must be a challenge of like how you want to do your work and also fit into this greater picture. Do you have to be mindful of everything else that’s happening in the Marvel Universe to do your one story?

Nicole: Well, you know, without giving away anything that would get me, you know, excommunicated, basically Kevin and his group of brain trust people go and figure out where we fit in and then have let us know where we fit in. And so Meg and I gave them a list of questions, very long and epic questions and then potential answers to those questions. And they, you know, returned from their mountain top retreat which they [laughs] went to and then returned from and said they —

Craig: Handed you tablets.

Nicole: Pretty much. Pretty much. And so that’s what we’re working with now. And we’re also really in the phase of reading through massive packets of information, you know, which is always fun.

John: Cool.

Craig: I love that you’re writing a spec at the same time you’re doing all this other stuff.

Nicole: Yes.

Craig: In the wake of the success that you’ve had and all of the stuff that they’re now asking you to do, how do you manage to carve these spaces out and keep these things separate? Because you’re working on, you said, Captain Marvel and a spec and —

Nicole: The Hugh Howey Wool.

Craig: The Wool.

Nicole: Yeah. And I just sold a sequel to a movie that was my favorite movie from childhood but I can’t talk about it yet, so that’s going on. And then I’m also doing a virtual reality project with Steven Spielberg.

Craig: That’s five.

Nicole: And then I’m also doing a comic book —

Craig: I’m sorry, with who?

Nicole: Nobody. Nobody. Just a real, you know, up and coming —

Craig: So that’s five things.

Nicole: Yeah. And then a comic book series, too.

Craig: Six things.

Nicole: Yeah.

Craig: So I’ll ask my question again. I mean, how do you keep it all — I mean, do you just push a few things off?

Nicole: Well, honestly, it’s just because — and I’m sure you guys have experienced this — that things go into holding patterns. And especially with Marvel, the movie doesn’t come out for three-and-a-half years, so it’s got a lot of long pauses in between submissions of stuff. So with that and with the other projects, too, there’s a long waiting period.

The people who’ve made me wait the longest are the Marvel publishing people. And that’s like a 20-page thing. You send them and like months go by and then they’re like, “Good work.” “Okay.”

Craig: So in a situation like yours, you’re almost kind of hoping that they’ll take time.

Nicole: Right, exactly. So it’s okay. I think the more projects you have to fill the empty spaces, the less fear, that existential dread of like, “What’s happened to my projects?” You know, they just take a while and so that helps.

Craig: Yeah, because all of your eggs aren’t in that basket. But then there is that sense of being overwhelmed.

Nicole: Yes.

Craig: Do you have that?

Nicole: All the time. All the time.

Craig: Right now?

Nicole: I’m just veering between sheer panic and like different kinds of panic. Like panic of like “I have nothing going on. My career is going to crash.” And “Oh my, god. I’m going to be overwhelmed and die and never get anything done.” So, yes.

Craig: Sounds just like me.

Nicole: I’m really happy all the time.

Craig: Right. Of course. So what do you do to deal with that?

Nicole: I moved to San Francisco.

Craig: Of course, yes. Yes, of course.

John: So I want to get back to the idea of writing a spec. And so what was it? It was an idea that was just burning that demanded to be written? What was the —

Nicole: What it was, was that I’m doing a lot of big, fantastical, world-building projects and I wanted to do something that was contained, low-budget, very character-driven, just a cast of three or four people, and possibly something that would be able to, you know, produce or direct.

My writing partner is a writer/director and so we wanted to do something that was manageable. Which of course my representatives were like, “You realize you’re not going to get paid anything for that.” And I’m like, “Yeah. But get excited about it. Like, you know, get so excited about this guys.” And they’re like, “Yeah. Mm-hmm. That’s great.” So it’s basically what we’re doing in spare time to remind me that I am a writer [laughs] and not a cog in the machine.

John: Yeah, it’s the Joss Whedon do a smaller thing in between the two giant projects.

Nicole: Exactly. Exactly, yeah.

John: Cool. So Scott Neustadter was supposed to be joining us here up on the panel. And Scott Neustadter couldn’t be here because the airport is completely shut down. So like one of many panels who’s not going to be here today. Luckily, Steve Zissis has agreed to fill in. This is Steve Zissis —

Craig: Upgrade.

John: Who is the co-creator of Togetherness. Steve Zissis, come up here.

Steve Zissis: So what’s the processional hymn?

Craig: I’m Jewish. And this is not Greek Orthodox at all. At all. Like the two of us — actually, three of us. And he —

John: I’m good. I’m good. The android faith alone —

Craig: Fucking white privileged man.

John: Yeah. It’s so good.

Craig: I’m good.

John: I’m good.

Steve: What are you?

John: I’m sort of, like, random protestant.

Steve: Oh, random protestant.

Nicole: Random protestant.

Craig: Yes. Yes.

John: Culturally. Steve, thank you so much for filling in.

Steve: Of course.

John: But thank you also for you great TV show, Togetherness.

Steve: Thank you.

John: Tell us how that came to be because this is an HBO show. It was an idea that you sparked with a Duplass brother and is now going into its second season.

Steve: It started, I guess, with Jay Duplass and I fooling around in his backhouse trying to do something creative together. And —

John: It sounds terrible.

Steve: Yeah. We just wanted to do something creative. And at first we started recreating ’80s soap opera scenes from like YouTube clips. And then Jay and I would act them out and we would record them. We didn’t really have a goal in mind.

Craig: How high were you guys? [laughs]

Steve: We just stole someone’s lithium. But then that just started snowballing into something, like, “Okay, we need to do something more structured.” And then we really borrowed upon our own lives and created a relationship show that was very autobiographical.

I was waiting tables at the time. And I would get off of work and stay on the phone with Jay because he was on the graveyard shift with his newborn child. So we would work out the story and the season arc for the first season during the graveyard shift, basically, on the phone.

Craig: Amazing.

Steve: And that’s how it started.

John: So by that point, you were thinking about this as probably a half-hour for cable and it’s going to revolve around these central characters, this family, this guy who’s moving in. You had all those dynamics sort of figured out early on.

Steve: Actually, initially, it was just going to center around the Alex character who was my character. But then when we went to HBO, they were like, “We love it. We really want to work with you. But we’re looking for relationship shows that could be a four-hander.” And we were like, “Yeah. Yeah. We could do that.”

We went back to the drawing board and — I mean, it was tough because we had built something centered around one character. So we were panicked for a little bit. But ultimately, HBO was right.

Craig: Well, I love moments like this because you never — we just did this show last week about William Goldman’s Nobody Knows Anything, which is not nobody knows anything but nobody knows anything. You never know.

So these people hand down these edicts sometimes and our first reaction is, “You know, goddamn. I mean, sure go ahead and turn it into whatever you want. It’s not something that we bled over the graveyard shift while he’s up with his kid and I’m slaving away waiting tables. No, no. Your whim is my command.”

But then sometimes they’re right. And I love that you guys did it. Because the truth is, what was the worst that happened? You tried and it didn’t work, right? But it does work. It’s amazing.

Steve: And HBO in general is really — they’re pretty hands off with notes. I mean, once they sort of, you know, tap you, they want you to do your thing. And they’ve been pretty hands off since then, actually.

John: So when did you actually start writing? So had you written anything before you went in to meet with HBO?

Steve: So we wrote the initial pilot called Alexander the Great which was centered around my character. And then they said, “Let’s go back to the drawing board.” And then it took us about four months to come up with the pilot for Togetherness. We went in and shot that. And then, you know, I was still waiting tables and rubbing rabbits’ feet. And we got the green light for this first season.

John: Great. So you turned in this pilot script. They said yes. They blessed you to go shoot a pilot. But then there’s that long waiting process, you know, whether it’s a show that they’re going to actually want to put on the air.

Steve: Yeah. And we had had the first season sort of arced out. We didn’t write the first season until after we got the green light.

Craig: And then the panic of success set in and you realized, “Oh my, god.” I mean, were you overwhelmed by the thought that you had to do the thing that took you four months again and again and again and again?

Steve: All I remember is calling my mom and crying. And I remember the last day at the restaurant, my last shift, I was so happy. There was such a weight lifted off of me. But I was trying to contain my joy because I didn’t want my fellow friends that I’ve been like slaving with in hell to look at me.

Craig: You’re nice.

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: You’re nice.

Steve: You know, I didn’t want to —

Craig: Right.

Steve: So then I got home and, you know, exploded.

Craig: Oh. It’s such —

Steve: Literally.

Craig: And then — [laughs]

Steve: I exploded.

Craig: I exploded.

Steve: Like the blimp that was released from — .

Craig: Well, we’ll be getting to that.

Nicole: Yes, they will.

Craig: I see you’ve done your homework. You were mostly following the career path of an actor. Is that correct?

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: Prior to Togetherness? Had you done a lot of writing before that? This was kind of the first stab at it.

Steve: The only real writing I had been doing is the countless improvisational —

Craig: He’s an improvisational master, by the way.

Steve: Which I know isn’t really writing.

Craig: Master of improvisation.

Steve: But Jay, Mark, and I had been doing really highly improvised independent films since, like, the early 2000s, even in 1999. And then it just sort of evolved out of that style.

Craig: For your show, I get the sense that it’s not quite like the Curb Your Enthusiasm model where you’re scripting it but you’re almost scripting your own improv. That’s kind of the sense I get from it.

Steve: Well, like Curb and I think, like, the show like The League, they go in with just an outline.

Craig: Right.

Steve: But our show is completely scripted, really tight, really structured. But we just find that, like, the golden nuggets in the scenes and oftentimes the funniest jokes are the ones that are found in the moment. Even the emotional scenes, not just the comedic scenes. Like we talk about it like, sort of like setting up like lightning rods, and then just creating the perfect conditions for lighting to strike.

Craig: Right.

Steve: You don’t always get gold and there’s a lot of trial and error. But if you’re patient, you will.

John: Now, on a show like Togetherness, do you have — obviously you don’t have act breaks, but do you have a template in your head of like over the course of an episode these are the kinds of things that need to happen. We need to be able to take a character from this place to this place. We need to like hit certain milestones. Did you and Jay figure out sort of what the show is like, you know, structurally?

Steve: Yeah. We had a good sense of where the first two seasons were going to be in terms of a story arc and character arc. And then now, we’re preparing to write season three. And for the first time, we’re having to really — we sort of have an open map. We can create our own map at this point. So we’re finding new things now with season three, because the first two seasons were sort of already mapped out in our heads. So now, we’re writing a new map.

Craig: It’s such a great cast, too. I mean, everybody —

Steve: Thank you.

Craig: Everybody is spectacular. You know, the first time I saw the show — I tuned because you know I don’t watch anything. You guys know that. But I watched the show because I’m friends with Amanda Peet and she was in a movie I did and her husband and everything. And so I wanted to see it and there was something about it.

I was one of your first Twitter followers. Because you just — well, there was something, like, you know, I don’t know why I’m attracted to sort of schlumpy side stacks. Yes. Something about you. Something about ethnic, sad men — [laughs]

Like that face right there. It’s like, it’s all I want, like that. Like, look at me moving towards it. [laughs]

No, I mean, honestly, you’re the best. I mean it’s a great show. I’m just so glad that you — I love stories like yours but we don’t hear them a lot. Now, what we do, in a way we celebrate them, I think, sometimes more than we should because a lot of people who are waitering, they’re like, “Fuck it, man. Steve did it. I’m next.” Probably not. Probably not. It’s incredibly rare. So it’s so exciting that it happened, that the incredibly rare thing happened to you.

Steve: And I grew up with Mark and Jay back in New Orleans. We’re all from New Orleans. We all went to the same high school. And we all sort of came across this method of filmmaking sort of by accident. Out of necessity, really, because, you know, we were all broke. [laughs] So, you know, this whole John Cassavetes style, we could say that it was our intention from the beginning but it actually wasn’t. Like Jay and Mark’s first attempt to make a feature film was a complete disaster. It was a failure.

Craig: Because they were trying to make a real —

Steve: They were trying to make something big. They were trying to emulate the Coen Brothers. They failed miserably. They borrowed $100,000 from their father who was like a very successful lawyer in New Orleans. And they squandered — like it was a complete failure. [laughs]

Craig: Was he angry?

Steve: No, not at all. Because he’s —

Craig: Cool dad.

Steve: Yeah. He’s a great guy and so supportive.

Craig: I would be pissed off. My kid blows $100,000, I’m pissed.

Steve: But then after those failures and those failed attempts that they started to find their own voice and style just sort of out of necessity, which is cool.

Craig: And you were part of that from the start.

Steve: Yeah. I did their first experimental films. I did shorts with them. And I loved sort of the improv style of their way.

Craig: Right.

Steve: It just fits with me well.

Craig: Yeah, excellent.

Steve: Thank you.

John: So because we have two of you up here, we want to talk through this feature we usually do called, “How would this be a movie?” And I asked on Twitter for people for suggestions. I’m like, “What should we talk about for how to make into a movie?” And the three best suggestions we got were Zola. People who’ve done their homework, Zola is sort of amazing. So I want to talk through sort of what that is.

We’re going to talk about Zola, we’re going to talk about the rogue blimp, and we’re going to talk about George Bell, The Lonely Death of George Bell. And try to figure out how to make these into a movie or a TV series. Or if someone approaches you with this idea, how do you run with it?

So let’s get some back story on Zola. Actually, I took notes because I’m the preparer. So Zola, if you don’t know is —

Craig: I don’t need notes. I could do this just fine.

John: Just —

Craig: No, no.

John: No, it’s fine. I’ll —

Craig: No, no. I’m done.

John: Just for everybody else, Craig. They might need it.

Craig: Yeah.

Steve: We’ll just ‘prov it.

John: What was the white boyfriend’s name?

Craig: Jarrett.

John: Oh, he’s got it. All right, so for people who —

Craig: I don’t drop mics because it’s not good for the microphone.

John: Yeah. So for people who’ve missed out on the story so far, Zola is a Twitter account. And basically, she had like this epic tweet of like 174 tweets that detailed this wild experience she had in March. And you read this and it is amazing and sort of tweet by tweet sort of going through this long saga of what happened.

Her name is Zola. She meets this girl named Jess at a Hooters. They strike up a friendship. They talk about hoeing. And they exchanged phone numbers. And Zola agrees to go on this trip.

Craig: Just to dance.

John: Just to dance.

Craig: She’s not a hoe.

John: She’s not a hoe. She’s a dancer.

Craig: And she doesn’t know that the other girl is a hoe either.

John: True.

Craig: She knows she’s a dancer. That’s it.

John: Yeah, but —

Craig: She’s not out there trapping —

Nicole: She didn’t seem that surprised though. She’s like, “Oh, yeah.”

Craig: Right.

John: She doesn’t seem that surprised because even early on they were talking about hoeing. So like —

Craig: There was some hoe talk.

John: Yeah. Even not if profession, it’s — they’re sex worker adjacent, if nothing else.

Craig: I ain’t touching that one.

John: All right.

Craig: I’ve gotten in trouble before.

John: So the characters we have are Zola. We have Jess. We have the black pimp whose name is eventually revealed to be Z something.

Craig: Z.

John: Z something. We have Jarrett and Jarrett’s fiancée who shows up every once in a while and is a complete character of mystery. But you guys looked through these tweets and someone approaches you with this, you know, Nicole Perlman, what is a movie you spin out of there? What’s interesting to you as a movie out of the Zola story?

Nicole: Nobody would ever give me [laughs] this project to adapt. I was impressed at her excitement and her enthusiasm about this and she was like, “And then, and then, oh no but wait, oh no, but wait,” you know. And that part was great but I actually kind of lost the thread a little bit, I was just like ah — so I’m going to be lame about it. But I kind of loved the idea of them talking about hoeing like they were farmers, you know. They’re just hoeing and —

John: Yeah. [laughs]

Nicole: That was the twist like —

Craig: I think we’re going to pass on you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I don’t think that that’s —

Nicole: All right, that wasn’t mine —

Craig: But thanks for coming in.

Nicole: That’s okay, that’s okay.

John: Craig, if someone approached you with that story, do you tell the story as just that? Because it felt like a Magic Mike kind of like road trip sort of, like Magic Mike XXL which is —

Craig: Right.

John: Just following a series of events and perspective.

Craig: Well, it’s so crazy that if you try and tell it, it’s just going to seem like you told it again because the story that she lays out is in bananas. The one way to think about it is, like I was thinking about how sad it was. I mean, the woman that is the actual hoe and she’s getting beaten up and snatched and a man gets shot in the face. This is terrible.

And yet, we’re all reading and everyone’s like, “Oh, my god, you got to read what Zola wrote.” Like that’s an interesting movie to me is that somebody types up something like that and it becomes viral. Meanwhile, the people that are in that have no idea and they’re out there somewhere —

John: Yeah.

Craig: And going through something real. That could be kind of interesting because the nature of these viral things, there’s something really creepy about how it separates us from the real. Someone died. That guy murdered someone.

John: Yes, shot them in the face.

Craig: And they beat that woman up.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Plus the hoeing.

Steve: Is the Twitter account verified?

John: Yeah, the Twitter account is not verified, so let’s talk about that possibility.

Steve: Okay. I’m not sure about the movie, you guys would be better for that. But I think at the end, there should be voice over throughout, we should see the little emoticons on the screen, the tweets, and at the end of the film, there should be a 72-year-old grandmother in Ohio —

Craig: [laughs] Right. Catfishing everyone.

Steve: That has catfished the whole thing.

Craig: Right.

Nicole: That would be amazing. That would be so great.

Craig: That’s pretty great. That’s pretty great. And like her grandson is there in the background playing “Grandma, almost done.”

John: So we’ve talked about this on the podcast before, who was the writer who pretended to be much younger than she was and was Felicity. Was that Riley Weston?

Craig: Riley Weston.

John: Riley Weston. So it would be fascinating if it were a Riley Weston situation where somebody is basically spitting a giant yarn for what all this is. It has such a feeling of truth though. I also had the question about whether all those tweets were written in advance or was she writing them one by one.

Nicole: I think she was writing them all in one stream of consciousness.

Craig: I think so too, yeah.

John: But it’s so hard to, I mean I have such a hard time fitting everything I want to say into one tweet. So to be able to stretch that out over —

Craig: She just got to that character limit, hit return and kept going, you know, I can hear the clacking of her nails on the laptop. And she’s like “Bam, ding ding ding ding.”

John: Yeah. And yet it had a structure to it. She just kind of knew where to start and she knew — she was very good about reminding you, this person you saw before, like I didn’t know his name, but now, I know his name was Z, and it was brilliantly done to me.

Steve: Yes. And just when the energy started to wane, she said, “Only four more tweets till the end.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: I know like she actually knew.

Steve: Yeah.

Craig: You think that there’s — you think grandma —

Steve: It’s a 72-year-old grandmother. That just graduated from the Iowa writing program.

Craig: Nothing good comes out of that.

John: Nothing good possibly can.

Craig: All right, all right. That’s pretty solid.

John: Right. Let’s talk about rogue blimp. So for people who are listening to this, way after the fact, there was a giant blimp, actually particularly an aerostat that was designed for East Coast defense. Basically it wasn’t a camera, but it had a like long range radar for detecting incoming missiles that could hit the East Coast. It broke free of its mooring and all hell sort of broke loose. And so it ended up dragging a cable behind it that did not have power and did other things. This is the sort of a little more in your wheelhouse.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: And a producer comes to you and is like, Nicole —

Craig: [laughs] She’s written a ton of blimp movies.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: Yeah, indeed.

Nicole: A whole sub-genre.

Craig: Like another one. I can do more than blimps. [laughs]

Nicole: Dammit, I’m so pigeon-holed.

John: What kind of movie is the blimp movie to you?

Nicole: It seemed like a wacky sort of like two guys think they’re going to get in the Goodyear blimp but they choose the wrong blimp and then they cut it free. And then because of that they end up almost starting World War III because they keep — I don’t know, but I could see it with the whole cruise missiles with blimps, by the way. I was like that’s how we detect incoming cruise missiles, is with a blimp? You know, that just seems really shoddy. [laughs] I was really disappointed in the Department of Defense. I was like, guys, seriously.

And also the whole Google blimps. Somebody has to get something mixed up with the Google blimp. And I thought it would be fun if they — If they took off on the sort of the like cross country trip in this NSA blimp not realizing it wasn’t the Goodyear blimp and causing a whole bunch of problems with the DOD thinking there was some sort of terrorist attack.

John: Steve, what kind of movie do you make out of the blimp?

Steve: Well when I saw NORAD, it made me think of the 80s movie WarGames.

Nicole: Yes, totally.

Steve: So like tonally I think WarGames would be a [laughs] good match. But I think it should be about the guy that was holding on to the blimp, you know, by the line there. And what happened to him the day before.

John: Yeah, so it’s sort of like Up but bigger.

Steve: Why did he — yeah, like Up. Exactly. Why did his grip — why did he lose his grip?

John: I see the campaign for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and she’s — who’s carrying in the balloons and like it’s sort of like that, but it looks — you need to never let go.

Craig: Never let — that’s the tagline.

John: Never let go. Craig Mazin, what movie would you make out of the blimp?

Craig: You know what, I think you could make a really good Pixar kind of movie about a blimp. Because I love the fact that it seems so anachronistic. And I like the idea that this blimp has been there for so long and he’s just blimping along protecting America and we don’t know. And he just follows orders and he just never doesn’t do his job. And then they come in they’re like, “Oh, you know, we’re replacing blimps, we’re replacing it all, you’re done.” And he’s so depressed. And he basically pulls himself away to just go. And then he kind of goes on this journey that may — helps him find his purpose again and he meets other things that float.

I mean there’s, you know, like dandelions and —

John: There’s a cloud.

Craig: A cloud, you know. But the blimp finds his, you know — it’s basically, he’s committing suicide is what he’s doing but, you know — so it’s — I think he could — I don’t know —

Nicole: It’s really heartwarming.

Steve: I think for sure, at the end credits, there should be a Led Zeppelin song.

Nicole: Ah.

Craig: Nah. No, no. Yay. [laughs]

John: It’s improv. Only good ideas — yes and…

Craig: Yes and.

John: The other —

Craig: Yes and no.

John: Yes and. Another possibility is a — the Michael Bay version is essentially it’s stealth because essentially like the death blimp sort of goes out there and you cannot possibly stop it. And so like if it has a sentience, if it has a thing it’s trying to do. There’s something also kind of like slow motion zombie about it because it’s not fast, it just like — it’s a path of destruction, it’s like the tornadoes this morning. It’s just that it’s going to move through in a straight line.

Craig: So even more blimps start coming and they just keep coming.

John: Yeah. Absolutely.

Nicole: It’s kind of like that — what is it, Rubber with the one about the tire?

John: Oh yeah the tire, yeah.

Nicole: It’s just like this rabid tire that’s running over people. It’s just like that. It’s like the cable very slowly dragging and causing devastation. It would be like, “No,” and it just keeps coming.

Craig: [laughs] It’s a little low stakes. It just — shoot the — just takes the —

Nicole: You just step to the side —

Craig: Just shoot the blimp — yeah.

Nicole: One foot.

Craig: It’s a blimp.

John: Yeah. But the fact that it just keeps coming. And they had to shoot it down. That’s actually the funniest thing. It’s like —

Craig: They do. Use a shotgun.

John: They use a shotgun to shoot a blimp.

Craig: But by the way — I’m sorry but if that’s Pixar and they shoot him at the end and he deflates. You’re going to feel, like that will kill you.

John: It’s Old Yeller. It totally is.

Craig: It’s freaking Old Yeller, but then somebody finds him and inflates him again. You see what I’m saying? It’s like, let’s go make that, guys. Somebody just steal it. I mean, it’s gold.

John: All right. Another option, you have the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, one of those gets loose and you have to go after that thing and shoot that thing down and that’s pretty good. So Underdog gets loose, and you have to shoot down Underdog.

Craig: Underdog.

John: Yeah. That’s how I would do it. Or Snoopy. One of them would do it.

Let’s get to our third possibility which is, well maybe there’s a comedy but it’s The Lonely Death of George Bell. This is a New York Times story.

Craig: Hehe. Hahahahaha.

John: Hahahaha. Written by N. R. Kleinfield. And it talks through the death of this man, George Bell, who was found in his apartment, he’d been dead for about a week. He was a giant, obese, he was a hoarder, everything was sort of awful and he had no —

Craig: Otherwise, good.

John: All of it was great —

Craig: Yeah, yeah. Otherwise, good.

John: He had no next of kin and so he talks through this, how does the city and the state have to deal with people who have no next of kin and sort of what that whole process was. It was a fascinating look at sort of the different layers of bureaucracy that sort of happen to settle out the estate and deal with the body.

Craig: And a lot of people do die alone and disconnected and they don’t even — like they were having trouble even just identifying him even though he was — everyone was like, “Oh yeah, that’s George Bell.” They had to find some — it took them forever to even match up an x-ray to know that it was really him.

John: Yeah. And it wasn’t a remarkable case —

Craig: No, just a guy.

John: The journalist picked this one situation, but like it’s a very common situation. So what kind of movie? You do sad well. So what kind of movie do you make out of George Bell?

Steve: I was — It was a great article. I was really — I immediately thought of It’s a Wonderful Life when I was reading this, for a bunch of reasons. The main character’s name was George Bell instead of Bailey. And then also, if you’re reading the article where unclaimed bodies go, is a place called Potter’s Field which is where the evil Mr. Potter, you know, his area became — but I was thinking, you know, It’s a Wonderful Life is about George Bailey learning about the lives he touched while he was alive. But in this article, you could study the lives that this man touched by his death, which I find it really interesting like the workers who were sifting through his apartment and his other relatives that were getting like — they weren’t hardly relatives, but they were getting some of his money through his death. It’d be interesting to examine how the death of someone can bring people’s lives together and unify people in a way that is unexpected.

John: Nicole, what kind of a movie do you make out of Bell?

Nicole: I mean it’s going to be a sad movie no matter what I think, but if it’s one of those movies that makes you feel better about your own life [laughs] or rather it gives you a more insightful look into what makes a life worth living. I thought that the heartbreaking thing was the lost relationship, the woman that he loved, and he left in his will, and she still cared for him and how he had withdrawn it. And I think that there’s something really interesting about how objects reflect choices that we make in our lives sometimes. And the whole investigation into who this man was, trying to piece together who he was based on objects left behind. And that was really interesting because it, you know, was definitely a memento mori, but it was also a — it was like a case study of every object represented — I almost saw it more as like a mini-series, almost like a Serial kind of thing. But, you know, each object represented a choice that he made to either connect or disconnect and leading to the final disconnection with the one person who still loved him, you know. And what else do you have to live for, you know.

Craig: I love that part. So in the story, he’s left money to people and they have to find these people. Some of those people are dead, one of them is this woman who we find out he was engaged to. The woman’s mother told her daughter, you have to get a prenup, and the guy said, “I’m not signing any prenup,” and he left. And they never spoke again except for occasional cards. And the woman always felt like that was the path she should have gone. And then by the time they find her, she’s also dead, and she kind of ended up in a bad way. And you know what I was thinking was, just because — my whole thing about these stories is, at some point, obviously we need to find the uplift and the redemption or else it’s kind of brutal.

And I love the characters of these people that go into your apartment and start investigating from your stuff. And I thought what if a man dies alone in an apartment in New York, and a woman dies alone in an apartment in Florida. And you have a guy in New York — or probably a woman in New York looking through the stuff and a guy in that apartment in Florida looking through the stuff. And they find things that are related to each other, and they have to call each other to help, and they fall in love.

John: Oh, Softie Craig.

Craig: Well, I mean because they’re — it’s like The Notebook except with different people, you know, and just like —

They’re both like — well, the point — I mean — because I love — there was one guy they talked to who was like, “Yeah, I’m probably going to end up like George, like his buddy.” He’s like, “Yeah, I’ll probably die alone, too.” And here are two people that are like, this could be me, you know, and almost have given up, and then through this they — and so their love happen, you know. It was like there was some George and whatever her name was, you know. I’ll give her a name, Evelyn.

John: As I was reading through this, I looked at it more as a world in which you could set a story, rather than looking at George Bell because it felt like the people who were the investigators, that was a fascinating job and that fascinating job could take you into lots of really interesting places. So you could have the comedy version where — or the romantic comedy where people meet this — sort of meet-cute over death. But you also have lots of good thriller options. So you discover like — it looks like it was just a guy who died, there actually is a much more complicated situation. And once you start digging around, you yourself get in danger. So that’s the thriller way to take it.

With all these three scenarios, this one has characters and has a world which is great, but doesn’t really have a story. It doesn’t have a story driver. It doesn’t have like present day story drive, so we have to find a way to make the story drive take place. The blimp one has a lot of sort of like present day stakes, but there’s no characters, whatsoever, so we have to create a whole new characters.

Craig: Except for the blimp.

John: Except for the blimp. If the blimp is anthropomorphic and can talk. If the blimp can sing, well…

Craig: “Well, I guess they don’t want me no more.”

John: Yeah.

Nicole: Plush toy potential.

John: Yeah

Nicole: Inflatables.

Craig: Actually, you know who’d be a great voice for the blimp?

John: Josh Gad. Oh Steve Zissis.

Craig: A great voice for the blimp. He would, because he can bring sadness but then he can bring joy.

John: I like it — I like it so much.

Nicole: He can lift your hearts.

John: How do you feel about — ?

Craig: Look, look, that’s blimp. That’s it. That’s the blimp face. We should totally do this.

John: Zemeckis. Motion Capture. Steve Zissis. Done.

Craig: Wait, hold on.

Steve: Or it could be Andy Serkis being the blimp.

Craig: Yes, yes. Andy Serkis. He does the voice and he does the blimp.

John: That’s nice. I think Andy Serkis would be delighted to have someone else do the voice because it’s going to work out really, really well.

Steve: Sure.

John: And then the first one has characters and plot and there’s so much but it feels like it’s so already made. I mean it’s Spring Breaker 2 or like my first movie, Go. It has that same aspect of like all this stuff just happening.

Craig: It also has that thing that a lot of real life stories have which is that they’re incredibly episodic and then and then and then and then and then and then and you know what happens at the end? This.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And you’re like, okay, but that actually is a great example of a story that if you just took and tried to narrativize without re-contextualizing anything, people would go, “Why did I watch that?”

John: Although I would push back on that. Zola herself has a lot of agency in the story so Zola is the one who’s like taking photos of the girl and putting it on the back page.

Craig: I know. So who are we rooting for?

John: Yeah. It’s a real question.

Craig: There — I mean Zola literally starts — Zola starts out great like, “I’m not — I’m just a dancer and that’s fine.” And then she’s like, “Oh no, this guy is trying to hoe us. That’s no good.” And this girl is scared and says, “Please, you know, we just got to do this.” And Zola is like, “Well, okay, if we’re going to do this, we might as well do it right. I’m now going to make a whole bunch of money. I’m going to pimp you.” Who are we — ?

John: Yeah, it’s Risky Business though. I think what’s fascinating is that —

Craig: Well —

John: If you would — well, if you take — I think Zola is part of the reason why she’s so fascinating is because she is a woman in that situation. She is taking control and ownership of —

Craig: Another human being.

John: Yes.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yes.

Craig: Not good.

John: [Crosstalk] another human being.

Craig: Like she’s sex trafficking a person.

John: I also love that she will just run at the first sign of danger.

Craig: Right.

John: Anything goes, she’s out of there.

Craig: That was the other thing. Yeah. So this poor woman gets snatched up. What does Zola do? Runs. Does she call the police?

John: No.

Craig: No, just runs.

John: Yeah. So people who listened to the show before know that we’ve had a really good track record of the things we discuss on what would — would this be a movie. They always get kind of picked up. At least one of the three things gets picked up and so maybe an audience poll, of these three movies, which one do you think Matt and Ben are going to try to make into a movie first?

Craig: Right.

John: Because it’s usually them. Sometimes it’s DiCaprio, but usually it’s Matt and Ben.

Craig: Usually it’s Matt and Ben.

John: All right. So can I get by applause, who thinks the Zola movie will happen? Okay, by applause, who thinks the blimp movie will happen? And who thinks the George Bell movie will happen?

Craig: People love death. They love death.

John: They love death and uplifts. Yeah.

Craig: And there’s tragedy and it’s good. It’s Greek tragedy.

Steve: Yeah.

John: It’s good Greek tragedy. This is the time in the podcast where we open it up to questions which we can’t normally do because we’re usually recording this on Skype and there’s no one else in the room. But at this point, we would love to hear your questions.

So there’s not a microphone out there, so you’re going to just raise your hand to ask your question. I will repeat back the question and then we’ll answer it. So if anyone has a question, raise your hand. You have a question right there in the first row.

Craig: So the question is that, so this woman knew about the George Bell story, wanted to write the George Bell story. I assume you contacted the author of the story to try and get the rights, and the author said, “No,” and then sold the rights to somebody bigger.

So John Lee Hancock is here. He’s an excellent, excellent director and filmmaker. And John Lee and I tried to get the rights to a story and we failed, we got beaten out by Brad Pitt. It’s hard. The truth is that the people who write these things, they kind of go where they want to go. It’s tough, you know.

John: So let’s talk about what her options are. So I would say if there are things that are so appealing about that movie for you, you might be able to find different real life details or basically a fictional version that can get you to those places because the stuff we talked about with the George Bell movie, it doesn’t necessarily need to be George Bell.

There were things that were interesting about his specific case, but there were also just things that are interesting about that world and that world is —

Craig: I’d even go a step further. There’s actually nothing specific to his story that — I mean, well, the thing about the woman is great, you know. But you can invent a lot using — no, you can’t? Okay.

You know, and the other thing to remember is that the rights are granted on cycles. They are not in perpetuity usually. So they give people 18 months and if nothing happens in 18 months, a lot of times there’s an option to renew and sometimes they don’t and the rights become available, so stay on top of it. You know, that’s the best you can do, but it happens to everyone. And it’s not just, “I’m a little girl and I’m nobody.” Everybody has to deal with this. It’s one of those things.

John: John Lee should direct that movie. Wouldn’t he do a great job?

Craig: He does a great job all the time with all movies. Yeah. Thank you.

John: Thank you, John Lee. Another question from the audience. Anything you want to ask us. Such a quiet group. Right here. So I’m going to repeat the question. Question is, is anything happening with Challenger that someone might see down the line?

Nicole: Yes, this is the project, this is the zombie project that will not die and I’m glad because it’s my favorite but it keeps coming back from the dead and every time I’m sure it’s dead, it keeps coming back.

So yes, it’s been re-optioned, we have financing from E 1 but again this whole, it all really depends on casting. There’s like four people who could play the part and so if we get one of those four people, hooray. If not, it will die again until somebody else wants to option it.

John: I don’t even know what the project is so this is a script that you wrote?

Nicole: This is a script I wrote a million years — I wrote this script in college actually and it was a love letter to Richard Fineman because he was my childhood crush when I was in high school which is why I had no dates until college. But I really, really loved Richard Fineman. And so I wrote a screenplay about his investigation into the Challenger shuttle disaster and it was my golden ticket kind of, you know, my Willy Wonka ticket in a sense that that was what got me meetings and I won a bunch of contests and got my first job off of that as a sample.

And so it was this project that had, one day it’s like a hair raising story of lots of crazy experiences with directors and actors and it hit financing like five times. So it’s funny every time I get a new financier, I’m like, “Great, awesome, yay. We’ll see. That would be so great if it happens.”

But yes, I love that project. I’ve rewritten it a million times. We’ll see what happens.

John: I remember it now because you talked about it on the podcast the very first time.

Nicole: Yeah.

John: Great. Another question from the audience. Right here.

Craig: It’s a big question.

John: I’ll try to recap it. So what is the intellectual property at the heart of a movie and related, sort of what do we really mean when we’re talking about sort of what a movie is or what the fundamental idea of a movie is?

Craig: Well, I guess we’ll limit it first to screenplay, you know.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Because once the movie is made, that’s the intellectual property. So intellectual property is unique expression in fixed form movie, fixed form done so that works, right?

Screenplay, that’s the intellectual property. It’s the unique expression in fixed form. Courts interpret this. That’s why judges sometimes go, yeah, no. We know that ideas aren’t intellectual property so the blimp idea is just an idea, right, plus it’s not written down. It’s not in fixed form.

If you write a screenplay, that contains dialogue but it also contains scenes that you’ve written, characters that you’ve described so everything that is evidenced by the text in your screenplay is in large part your intellectual property. It’s just the concept, the basic idea of it that isn’t.

So more is protectable than you think. In fact, that’s why so many of these cases fail because eventually somebody goes, “Well, show me what you have and let me see what you have.”

John: So arbitration which we talked about on the show is the WGA process for figuring out who deserves the writing credit on a script when there were multiple writers. And that’s not copyright. That’s literally looking at sort of the copyright is owned by whoever is making the movie.

The arbiter’s job is to figure out, of the things that constitute this screenplay, who did what and sort of whether that person did enough that it actually should count as being her movie or it should be shared credit. And that is a difficult thing. That’s why it’s a good thing overall that we are having screenwriters look at that stuff because it’s a hard thing to judge.

Craig: Yeah.

John: And when you see those weird copyright cases or those things where like, “Oh, this person stole my movie,” they’ll often be — those cases will often be brought in really weird venues because it won’t be sort of in Los Angeles, it will be in like some weird Texas court because they have a better track record of getting those things to happen there.

Craig: But they never —

John: But they don’t actually work. Yeah.

Craig: Yeah, but you’re protected. I mean — great example. Okay, so the question is, you write an in-depth outline for a movie and then somebody else takes that outline and writes a script. Have they infringed on your copyright? Essentially is what you’re asking. The answer is absolutely, no question.

One of the things that copyright gives you is the right to make derivative works which means other people do not have the right to make derivative works unless you license and grant them that permission. So the screenplay that is taken from an outline is a derivative work of that outline.

So this is why when we sell screenplays to the studios, they buy everything. They never leave anything out. They want to own everything. The last thing they want is for you to then go, “Oh, by the way, I’m writing another screenplay that you don’t own this derivative of my treatment that somehow you didn’t buy stupid, haha,” right? Okay.

So yes, that is a treatment and outline in fixed form is protectable copyright. That is intellectual property for sure.

John: Great. Question right back there. Nicole Perlman is a great person to answer that question.

Nicole: I don’t know if I could answer it particularly because I didn’t write samples of different genres. When I was starting out, I kind of got a lot of work from my Challenger sample, got me a lot of biopic, space, aviation, technology work and then randomly an Argentinean tango movie with Sandra Bullock. [laughs] Which did not get made. I can’t imagine why.

So yeah, I would say that it can help you having a brand. I think that if maybe it’s not your strength, definitely try other things and if you might find that you — and I personally — I’m writing Marvel movies and big fantastical science fiction and fantasy kind of things and I’m also interested in space, technology, aviation as well at the same time so — which drives my representatives crazy, but I think it’s a — I think you write what you want to write and what you love and don’t really — if you have a great idea for romantic comedy, write the romantic comedy and then maybe people who are looking for romantic comedy wouldn’t have thought of you because they thought you only did, you know, thrillers so I’d say whatever is your best idea that’s most on fire at this stage in your career, write that, and don’t worry about it.

Craig: Have you sold a screenplay yet or — ?

Audience Member: No.

Craig: Then think of it this way, you don’t even have a brand yet because the brand thing is really just, “Well, we bought something from him so now we’re going to put him on a list for things like that.” So at this point, you’re free, free, free, and by the way, you’ll be free later too.

I mean the nice thing about writing is you can write yourself in and out of trouble. So yeah, now write that great script. There’s no need to worry about pigeon-holing.

John: We have time for one more question. Which question will be — right here.

Craig: That’s a good Zissis question because I feel like your character is a bit of a reluctant hero in Togetherness. I mean it’s not a movie, it’s — but I look at that season, that first season.

Steve: Yeah, in terms of the first season, Amanda Peet’s character is kind of like the catalyst. She’s the kick in the pants of my character that gets him going on a trajectory. But after that, after she does do that, I am on a mission to, you know, transform and pursue my acting goals and et cetera.

Craig: So there’s this tension that happens with the reluctant protagonist where we’re actually waiting for them. You know, a lot of times reluctant protagonists will take on some job begrudgingly just to go back to what they had. It’s very common. Shrek I think just wants to get his swamp back. He’s a pretty reluctant protagonist, right? But then they are transformed.

I think that’s the key for the reluctant protagonist is that we’re waiting for somebody to light that spark. They don’t really — they’re reluctant because they’re afraid, it’s probably a better word, the fearful — and I think all protagonists are afraid, on some level.

I mean your character, definitely, you can feel it. He’s just scared, you know, and then Amanda comes along and she forces you but then — and I love the dramatic irony of what it also does between the two of you which is great, you know, but that’s — that would be my short answer.

John: So what we’re describing with Steve’s show is a show where you have, you know, multiple characters who are functioning as each other’s protagonist and antagonist. They’re causing each other to change. Classically what we are often talking about with movies is you have one character taking a trip that they’re only going to take once.

And so I can’t think of a lot of movies where I’ve been willing to watch a character just never engage and like finally at the end engaged. That doesn’t tend to be a really successful paradigm. So you as the writer have to find a reason to get them engaged with your story so whether that’s burning down their house, so they can’t go back to their original ways, or taking that one thing that actually means something to them which is what Shrek ultimately does.

You are forcing them into because you’re creating a situation where they have to change. Go back to sort of those Pixar story rules, like every day is the same except one day and that’s usually the day that your movie is taking place.

Steve: I think it happens a lot with the lovable loser archetype actually now that I’m thinking about it. If you think about a lot of Bill Murray type movies, he’s usually in that role like Stripes where he is that reluctant — reluctant guy.

Craig: Groundhog Day, he’s just refusing to change, refusing, refusing, refusing to the point where he just, he would prefer to kill himself than change which is the sort of ultimate reluctant hero but again, there’s Andie MacDowell transforming him.

And so I love that you said that that because that’s the answer to every reluctant hero is a relationship that changes them. That’s why we go to movies. It’s for that. I think all heroes in a weird way are reluctant. I mean I don’t like heroes that wake up in the morning and go, “Time to kick ass, let’s go.” Jerry Bruckheimer loves that.

I wrote a movie for Jerry once and the first note I got back was, “He doesn’t seem like a hero on page one.” I’m like, why would — who wants to beep, that’s the movie, beep, hero, hero, hero, hero, credits.

John: Things blow up.

Craig: Yeah. Boom. That is not me.

John: But think about George Bell. Like George Bell is like a reluctant hero who never actually sort of kicks out of gear but there’s a version of George Bell where like he’s in that situation.

Craig: Right.

John: And something kicks him out of that life.

Craig: Okay, so —

John: And he’s a Shrek.

Craig: So have you seen the movie Marty, classic Paddy Chayefsky screenplay, 1955? Ernest Borgnine won an Oscar for it, beautiful movie, and it’s one of those old movies that honestly is not old.

And it’s a very simple story of a butcher who’s not a particularly good-looking guy and he’s lonely and he lives with his mom who harangues him, and he’s resigned and then he meets this woman. And stuff happens and there’s a transformation but it’s a difficult transformation. There’s a price to pay for leaving your shell, you know. You should come to this, I’m doing this structure talk tomorrow, I don’t know if you’re available, this is all I talk about — okay, good. You’ll hear it again but like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It will be a lot —

John: Okay, very quickly because we’re running out of time. I forgot to do One Cool Things. So One Cool Thing is a tradition in the show. My One Cool Thing is actually a little thing I used for filming this last week. It is called a Glif. It comes right here in Austin, Texas. It was a Kickstarter, so Craig’s favorite thing in the world.

It is a little device for holding your phone, being able to mount it on tripod which is tremendously useful when you want to shoot photos or video with your phone because the iPhone is a really great camera these days and so it’s a little mount for your phone so you can attach it to a tripod. That’s my One Cool Thing, the Glif.

Craig: Fantastic. Nicole, what is your One Cool Thing?

Nicole: I was in London last week and I went to the Cosmonauts Exhibit at the London Science Museum and it was amazing and the Russians had some great stories and I highly recommend you guys all look into Cosmonauts. They are fantastic.

John: Great. Steve, do you have One Cool Thing?

Steve: I was just going to recommend an animated film called The Man Who Planted Trees. That’s old but you can get it on Netflix. It’s one of the greatest pieces of animation ever.

Craig: Is it American, Japanese, or?

Steve: It’s, it was a Canadian animator and it’s narrated by Christopher Plummer.

Craig: Awesome. Well, my One Cool Thing is an update on an old One Cool Thing called Thync. I don’t know if you guys listened to the show. A while ago, I found this product that you stuck on your head and it sent electrical impulses into your head in an attempt to calm you down or perk you up and I thought, “You know, this sounds cool.”

And then every now and then on Twitter, someone will be like, “Have you done it? Have you done it?” I’m like, “No.” So I did it, kind of works. It kind of works. You definitely feel it and it allows you — you have an app that sort of is Bluetooth connected to this ridiculous thing and as you move the dial up and down, you can feel it. And if you move it too high, it hurts and you feel your scalp contracting, it’s bad.

So, but there’s this calm lady on your iPhone going, “Find your sweet spot,” and you’re like, “My head, my head, my head, my head, fuck” but then you get, and it actually did. I felt spacey. I don’t know if that’s calm, but I felt spacey.

Nicole: It’s like electroshock therapy.

Steve: I’m thinking of the last scene of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest right now. Craig, we might need to smother you with a pillow.

Craig: Pillow me. Yes, give me the L’amour treatment, I need it. Yeah, it’s time.

John: Excellent. So glad we actually got to shock you, Craig and actually — and attach you —

Craig: Shocking myself.

John: It’s so good.

Nicole: Can we get access to that? Can we just shock you whenever we want?

John: I think —

Craig: No.

John: We’ll build an app for that and soon everyone will be able to zap Craig.

Craig: Shock Craig.

John: Yeah. Nicole and Steve, thank you so much for being our guests.

Craig: Thank you, guys.

Steve: Thank you.

Nicole: Thank you.

John: We need to thank the Austin Film Festival for having us. It’s a huge pleasure to do this every year. Thank you guys for being an incredibly good audience. We need to thank Annie Haze who’s our assistant this week. So thank you very much. Guys, thank you so very much.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Links:

  • The Austin Film Festival
  • The Monty Hall problem on Wikipedia
  • Nicole Perlman on IMDb and Twitter, and on Scriptnotes, 164
  • Steve Zissis on IMDb and Twitter
  • Togetherness on HBO and Wikipedia
  • Papermag on The Harrowing Twitter Odyssey of @_zolarmoon
  • The Baltimore Sun on the rogue JLENS blimp
  • The Lonely Death of George Bell, from The New York Times
  • Variety on Nicole Perlman and Challenger
  • Marty on Wikipedia
  • Glif tripod phone mount
  • Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age at the London Science Museum
  • The Man Who Planted Trees, on Wikipedia and Netflix DVD
  • Thync
  • Intro/Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)

Live from Austin 2015

Episode - 222

Go to Archive

November 3, 2015 Film Industry, Follow Up, News, QandA, Scriptnotes, Transcribed, Travel

Craig and John return to the Austin Film Festival for a supersize live show with guests Nicole Perlman and Steve Zissis.

We talk with Nicole about what’s changed in her life after the breakout success of Guardians of the Galaxy, and how she juggles multiple projects.

Steve Zissis tells us how he transitioned from waiter to co-creator of HBO’s Togetherness, and the unusual origin of the show.

Then all four of us play How Would This Be a Movie, looking at #Zola’s adventure, the runaway blimp and the lonely death of George Bell.

Plus audience questions!

Our thanks to the Austin Film Festival for hosting us, and our terrific audience.

  • The Austin Film Festival
  • The Monty Hall problem on Wikipedia
  • Nicole Perlman on IMDb and Twitter, and on Scriptnotes, 164
  • Steve Zissis on IMDb and Twitter
  • Togetherness on HBO and Wikipedia
  • Papermag on The Harrowing Twitter Odyssey of @_zolarmoon
  • The Baltimore Sun on the rogue JLENS blimp
  • The Lonely Death of George Bell, from The New York Times
  • Variety on Nicole Perlman and Challenger
  • Marty on Wikipedia
  • Glif tripod phone mount
  • Cosmonauts: Birth of the Space Age at the London Science Museum
  • The Man Who Planted Trees, on Wikipedia and Netflix DVD
  • Thync
  • Intro/Outro by Matthew Chilelli (send us yours!)

You can download the episode here: AAC | mp3.

UPDATE 11-6-15: The transcript of this episode can be found here.

Scriptnotes, Ep 221: Nobody Knows Anything (including what this quote means) — Transcript

October 28, 2015 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 221 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the program, we’re going to be looking at one of the most quoted and misapplied statements in Hollywood. That little chestnut, “Nobody knows anything.” We’ll also be looking at zombie cars, film school, and the question of whether screenwriters are gaming the system. Craig Mazin, are you ready for this big show?

Craig: Let’s put this way. I filled up my umbrage tank on the way in [laughs], so

John: I’ve got a bit of umbrage in my tank too, so I think it’s going to be an umbrage-filled podcast.

Craig: Here we go.

John: Yeah, so we should get right to it.

Craig: Buckle in.

John: A little bit of follow up and news about events ahead. At the Austin Film Festival, we’re doing our two live shows. We’re so excited. Andrea Berloff will not be joining us for the live Scriptnotes. She’s not going to be able to travel in to Austin. But instead Nicole Perlman who was our guest who talked about Guardians of the Galaxy and she’s phenomenal, so you should come see us and see Nicole Perlman and Scott Neustadter and other wonderful special guests at our live show.

Craig: Correctamundo.

John: Second off, on our last episode we talked about writers’ rooms and this trend towards hiring multiple screenwriters to work simultaneously in a room to break ideas for big franchises. And we talked about a couple of different properties that were trying to do this. We had a writer write in who is actually part of one of these big rooms. And so she didn’t want to say which room specifically she was in or she didn’t want us to say which room specifically she was in.

So I generalized out some of the things she said. But she actually had a really positive experience with it and thought it was a good thing. So I want to put this more or less in her own words, but considering I am just a man and she is a woman, we thought it might be better to have a woman read this aloud. And I could think of no person who’s better qualified to talk about Hollywood than Karina Longworth, the host of You Must Remember This. And after all Craig has often been a guest on her podcast.

Craig: Yes.

John: Being Louis B. Mayer, so this is just payback for all that. So this is Karina Longworth reading the words of this screenwriter who is still anonymous.

Karina Longworth: I actually think the room was really smart and effective. It was certainly the most fun I’ve ever had in my career sitting around with a bunch of extremely smart writers. We spent the first couple of days learning all about the history of the project then spent subsequent days talking generally about mythology and interesting places one could take the franchise. We set out to tell a long-form story as opposed to get trapped in the typical formula of any big franchise sequel, blow more stuff up. The goal was for each of us to come up with a sequel, spinoff or prequel, enough to fill out the slate for at least the next 10 years. We weren’t therefore in competition with each other. All of the movies could get made if the studio found them viable.

We all went away to our lone wolf feature writing holes and came back and pitched our movies to the group. Some people asked for notes and others didn’t. It was amazingly valuable to have feedback from a bunch of people who write for a living, even if the feedback was just a round of applause from people who know what the hell they’re doing. But in no way were those stories broken as a group. It was no different than what we all do after we finish our treatments. We give them to our friends to tell us whether we’re crazy or not. Only in this case our friends happen to be getting paid really well.

It was a completely writer-driven process to an extent that I’ve never witnessed in studio development. The result was a bunch of movies that together form a cohesive narrative but also stand alone. If they pull off what we architected and what the intention is at present, then I think they will have pulled off something very novel and worthy indeed. Writers are very, very smart. Give us authority and autonomy and put us in a situation where we’re not competing or begging for scraps, and we can literally deliver you a franchise.

John: So, that was a very glowing perspective on what it’s like to be in that writer’s room. So it sounded like she had actually a really good experience.

Craig: Well, not only was it a glowing perspective, but it also is different than the story we’ve been told.

John: Yeah.

Craig: So when we did our podcast, our last podcast, we were keying off of an article. I think it was the Hollywood Reporter. And this isn’t what they said. I mean, factually, they seem to have gotten it completely wrong because what this writer is describing is essentially, exactly what’s going on with the Monster franchise over at Universal. And in our podcast last week I think we both said that that sounded like they were doing it the right way. And in this situation it sounds like they’re also doing it the right way. There’s nothing wrong with — and I would imagine it’s essentially necessary, if you are planning on writing multiple movies around the same shared universe, you need to coordinate. It sounds like they’re coordinating.

What it doesn’t sound like they did was the thing that we were most concerned about which was breaking individual stories together as a group. So I’m really glad that she wrote in to share her experience and also particularly glad that the studio in question seems to have opted to go about this the right way.

John: Yeah. So we don’t know specifically what the property was or what the thing that she’s working on. So I’m guessing it’s not the Monster movie properties, since we know all the writers who were involved in that. But, in a general sense, it does feel like, you know, each of these writers is coming up with an idea and it sounded like they were getting paid for a treatment. I’m not clear that they’re getting paid for a treatment. They were at least pitching something. It’s not clear that they were turning in any written material. Where it could be — let’s take, let’s say this was He-Man or something. If you were trying to build out the He-Man Universe, where I could see there being problems with this down the road is, you know, two different writing teams have a way to use a certain character or a certain beat that’s in that mythology, well, who gets to do that. And if they both write up this thing that involves some aspect of that mythology, that could still get kind of murky down the road. So

Craig: Yeah.

John: It doesn’t absolve everyone of all the problems that could possibly happen down the road but it does sound like a much better process than what I had envisioned.

Craig: I think that the job of traffic cop rests with the person who’s overseeing — for instance, at Universal, Chris Morgan

John: Yeah.

Craig: Who is our friend and a screenwriter is along with Alex Kurtzman they are the traffic cops. And so, they can’t I don’t think run into a situation where two people are both grabbing at the same bit of mythology, because their job is to say, “Sorry, you can’t. That one is doing that one.” You have to have somebody like that. I think at Marvel that’s Kevin Feige. You need somebody or it’s chaos.

John: Yep, and where this wouldn’t work especially well is if there’s no underlying material in a strange way, like, if you just said like, we want to do a bunch of movies that are set in space and you had a bunch of people trying to do that where there was no fundamental underlying piece of IP, then it gets sort of especially difficult because just the potential overlaps between those things and characters you didn’t really control — I could just imagine that being a bigger mess in some ways than if it were based on an existing piece of property.

Craig: It would never happen.

John: Yeah.

Craig: You can’t. If you opted to try and invent a shared universe from whole cloth, which is insane, you would still need them to create some genesis piece of material, a bible, you know.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That everyone could reference. Otherwise, I don’t even know what they would be buying anyway and they certainly wouldn’t be committing the resources to, you know, make many, many movies.

John: Absolutely. All right, let’s get to today’s topics. The first thing is something that somebody tweeted at me this week and it was in response to something I tweeted. I’m not even sure what my initial tweet was, but someone wrote back, “Oh, like William Goldman said, ‘Nobody knows anything,'” and I just bristled a bit because “nobody knows anything” has been one of those chestnuts that gets trotted out at any moment whenever something surprising happens. It’s like, “Oh, Hollywood, nobody knows anything.”

And I was frustrated because I wasn’t quite sure the context of the original quote. And so, I actually did some research this week and I pulled up William Goldman’s Adventures in the Screen Trade. So William Goldman is of course a legendary screenwriter, everything from Butch Cassidy to Princess Bride. Has worked, you know, throughout Hollywood. But the book in question is from 1983. It is Adventures in the Screen Trade. And so I got the book on Kindle and I did a word search to figure out where does he actually say, “Nobody knows anything.” And he says it a couple of different times in the book.

But the way William Goldman is actually using that phrase is so different than how people are trying to use that phrase whenever they’re tweeting it at me or when I see it quoted in an article. And so I wanted to look at what the original intention was behind that quotation and how we might steer ourselves back towards that quotation.

Now, Craig, as we mentioned before, you’ve been on Karina Longworth’s podcast

Craig: Yeah.

John: Being the voice of Louis B. Mayer. So I’m wondering if I could invoke your skills to be William Goldman and read this first little quote aloud.

Craig: Well, I won’t do it in the Louis voice because that’s

John: I think it’s probably appropriate.

Craig: She has the exclusive rights to it.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And I’ll just read it on my own bland voice. Although William Goldman, I did have the pleasure meeting him a year or so ago. And he has this wonderful voice actually. He’s very patrician kind of — it’s very — he seems like — he’s Jewish but he seems like a WASP. It’s that fascinating — who else had that? There’s a little bit of a — well, anyway, it doesn’t matter. The point is he has a great voice. I’ll do my best here.

This is from Adventures in the Screen Trade “Nobody Knows Anything.” “Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for certainty what’s going to work. Every time out it’s a guess and if you’re lucky, an educated one. They don’t know when the movie is finished. B.J. Thomas’ people after the first sneak of Butch were upset about their clients getting involved with the song Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head. One of them was heard to say more than once, ‘B.J. really hurt himself with this one.’ They don’t know when the movie is starting to shoot either. David Brown, Zanuck’s partner has said, ‘We didn’t know whether Jaws would work but we didn’t have any doubts about The Island, it had to be a smash. Everything worked. The screenplay worked. Every actor we sent it too said yes. I didn’t know until a few days after we opened and I was in a bookstore and I ran into Lew Wasserman and I said, ‘How are we doing?’ And he said, ‘David, they don’t want to see the picture.’ They don’t want to see the picture may be the most chilling phrase in the industry.

“Now, if the best around don’t know at sneaks and they don’t know during shooting, you better believe that executives don’t know when they’re trying to give a thumbs up or down. They’re trying to predict public taste three years ahead and it’s just not possible. Obviously, I’m asking you to take my word on this. And there’s no reason really that you should because pictures such as Raiders of the Lost Ark probably come to mind, which I grant was an unusual film. Why did Paramount say yes? Because nobody knows anything. And why did all the other studios say no? Because nobody knows anything. And why did Universal, the mightiest studio of all, pass on Star Wars, a decision that just may cost them and all the sequels and spinoffs and toy money and book money and video game money totaled over a billion dollars…” it’s a little bit more than that William “…because nobody, nobody, not now, not ever knows the least goddamn thing about what is or isn’t going to work at the box office.”

John: Uh-huh. Well done, Craig, and well done William Goldman. So I want to focus on what this isn’t saying. So this isn’t saying that decision makers are ignorant, that they know nothing. It’s not saying they don’t have taste. It’s not saying they don’t have experience. They truly do have the wisdom of crowds. They have sneak previews. They have all of these things. They have experience. They have, you know, their own taste. They have crowds. But they don’t have perfect knowledge of the future. And you instinctually did exactly the right thing was emphasizing the word no is that, you know, William Goldman is saying like you may have very good reasons to believe something but you can’t know with certainty what the future will hold. And anyone who does tell you they know with certainty what the future will hold is lying because you cannot predict all these things.

And so, what I get so frustrated about is they’ll use nobody knows anything as excuse for, “Well, why don’t we just try something wild because nobody knows what’s going to work.” Well, people actually may have really good sense of what’s going to work but they can’t predict things perfectly.

Craig: That’s exactly right. It’s a little bit like that exchange where someone says, “You think blah, blah, blah…” and someone says, “I don’t think, I know.” That means something, right? It means that it’s not in the realm of opinion, it’s a fact.

John: Yes.

Craig: What Goldman is saying is that essentially all this stuff boils down to opinions so you can’t know it and therefore you have to make your peace with an uncertain world.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And so, of course, people are going to make mistakes but they’re not mistakes at the time. They’re only mistakes in retrospect. That’s the thing. You just don’t know. And he even — it’s interesting, he even italicizes the word know. There’s no — so we actually know that this is what he means. We don’t think this. We know that.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: We know he doesn’t mean nobody knows anything. He means nobody knows anything.

John: Exactly. So there’s one other place in the book where he goes back to this nobody-knows-anything idea. And this is where he’s talking about studio heads and studio executives. And what’s so fascinating to me is that this book is written in 1983 and every place I sort of pulled stuff out, it’s like, wow, that feels so incredibly true. I mean, Star Wars is a billion-dollar franchise which is just so funny to think about it, you know.

Craig: [laughs]

John: I don’t know if it’s necessarily a trillion-dollar franchise but we know it’s still an incredibly big deal

Craig: It may end up.

John: All these years later.

Craig: Yeah. All right. So here’s another passage from Adventures in the Screen Trade. “As stated, the knowledge of their eventual decapitation is central to the life of the studio executive. And as also stated, when that happens, they will go indie prod which is both easier and more lucrative. So, why do the executives care at all if their movies succeed? Because there is a giant caveat involved. The better they’ve done as executives, the longer their lifespan, the fatter the deal they can strike for themselves when they’re canned. None of the Heaven’s Gate group at UA got rich when they were told to get lost. So it’s essential to the studio executive to be at least, for a time, successful. And since nobody knows anything and since the studio heads today haven’t got a lot of faith in their creative instincts since they’ve never been creative, they turn for salvation to the one thing that got them where they are: stars.”

John: And again, this is 1983 he’s writing this and yet everything he’s saying is completely true today.

Craig: Yep.

John: When he says, “Go indie prod,” what he’s basically meaning is when you get canned as the executive of whatever studio, you get a deal at that studio to make movies. And so, when Amy Pascal leaves the leadership of Columbia Sony Pictures, she gets a big deal at Columbia Pictures to make movies for Columbia Pictures. And she gets to make a bunch of movies there and she will get a good deal there because she had a lot of success running Sony Pictures. That’s the way it’s always been and it seems to be the way that things are going to continue to be because that’s how this business works.

And so, you look at the studio executives, the studio heads, they are the decision makers. And so, as they’re making decisions, they are weighing a bunch of different factors. So if she doesn’t know how things are going to work, she’s going to attempt to stack the deck in her favor in a couple of different ways. Goldman says “stars”. So if you’re making a movie with Jennifer Lawrence, that’s more likely to be a hit than a movie with Zooey Deschanel.

Craig: Right.

John: It’s going to cost you more. But the odds of success are higher because Jennifer Lawrence is a true star.

Craig: Yep.

John: A genre, a movie in a popular genre is more likely to be a success than a movie in a less popular genre. So making a western right now is incredibly risky. Making a superhero movie right now is much less risky. Even if the superhero movie is a lot more expensive than that western would be, it’s still less risky.

And the flip side of this is really the defense. If you’ve make a superhero movie with Jennifer Lawrence and it bombs, you have a real good plausible deniability like — I don’t know how this failed, but this was a pretty good bet. Like, I wasn’t going crazy here. This seemed like a reasonable bet. The chance to keep your job a little bit longer hopefully, but also to explain why you made this movie in the first place.

Craig: Yeah, he’s making this fascinating point about the motivation of studio executives that frankly I had never really considered and I’ve read this book but I think when I read it I didn’t have as clear of an understanding of the landscape as I do now just as the result of experience. And that is, this notion that they’re not trying to succeed because they want the studio to do well. They’re trying to succeed so that when they eventually get pushed out, they land on a comfier mattress, that’s kind of fascinating. It makes a ton of sense.

John: Yeah, I don’t know that it’s a conscious decision for them at all times. But I think it is the reality. I think, you could ask any studio executive, anyone who’s running a studio, “How long do you think you’ll be in this job?” And at some point, deep down, they do know that they’re not going to be there forever. And so they’re looking at sort of like, you run a studio for a set number of years and then you stop running that studio. It’s like there’s just a term-limit to it and you will move on. And there’s an expiration date sort of built in to that job.

Craig: I’m not going to ask any of them that question.

John: [laughs]

Craig: [laughs] I don’t think that’s a conversation that I want to have.

John: Next time you’re sitting down with a head of one of the studios, you just say, “Oh, by the way, how much longer do you think you’re going to be here?”

Craig: Yeah. Donna, you’ve been here for a while.

John: You really have been here for a while. Things seem to be going really well, Donna, right now.

Craig: I know. Right.

John: But how many bad things do you think would happen before you have to

Craig: I mean, you’re going to get fired, so I’m just wondering like, how long do you think is going to take you? That would be awkward.

John: Don’t ask that question.

Craig: No. I don’t think that that’s going to go well for you. I really don’t. And there’s actually — this is a — not to steal your Segue Man job, but there’s a really nice segue here to our next topic.

John: Let’s go for it.

Craig: The idea that studio executives are looking for security leads us to this next topic. An article that I read at Medium.com about — well, it’s called the Zombie Mobile. And we’ll include a link in the show notes of course. And it’s essentially a story of the crossover, the crossover which is that thing that’s not a sedan. It’s not an SUV. It’s that sneaker mobile kind of thing. And what the author Adrian Hanft does is he depicts, it looks like about 50 of these cars and they look exactly alike.

John: Exactly. If you’re looking at the graphic, he has all the different brands of these cars but in white and with like the hub caps sort of marked out. And you really could not tell them apart, one from the next.

Craig: It’s truly madness. I mean, when you look at it you feel like this can’t be real. But it’s real. And he goes into why this happened. And so I’m going to read a little excerpt from his article that I think is pertinent to a question that we’re constantly asking about studios and the movies that studios make.

He says, “People think they want a huge variety of options. But variety cripples our ability to make easy decisions. Car companies give the illusion of variety while keeping the actual categories very basic. This is why you only get five color options instead of choosing from a Pantone book. Deciding between red and white is easy compared to deciding between fire red or cherry red. Car companies understand that in order for you to make a purchase, they can’t overwhelm you with options. There are millions of combinations of vehicles, brands, and options but by breaking the selection down into bite-size mini decisions, salesmen are able to overcome our indecisiveness. Broad categories (car, truck, van) funnel customers towards making a purchase.”

What he goes on to say is the crossover became such a massive success because it even removed that choice. You didn’t have to decide between car, truck, van. They’re going to give you something that was car-truck-van. And they were all going to look alike basically because that’s kind of what everybody wanted.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And the same thing goes for us I think in the studio system. People say, “Well, why do studios keep churning out the same kind of movie?” Because that’s kind of what the audience wants. The audience struggles going for movies that force them to make tricky decisions. They need to know what it is before they go to it.

John: Yeah. Barry Schwartz’s book, The Paradox of Choice, sort of laid out this, you know, this idea sort of most recently in sort of in a biggest way about sort of how whenever you force somebody to make a decision, they sort of freeze and they don’t want to make a decision. And so by taking away their choices and not letting them make their decisions, you can get them to do something much more easily and much more quickly. And, to some degree, I think that’s true and when you look at the movies that stand out, they are sort of the oddballs and they take a lot more work and subtlety and skill to market and get any sort of breakout success because they were such oddballs. And the reasons why we see such a reliable template for making some of our big blockbuster movies is because people are familiar with it. They know what that is and they’re not going to be challenged by what they’re about to see.

Craig: Yeah, I think the idea of illusion of choice is really important because the audience or the marketplace, they do struggle with choice. But they hate the idea of no choice. So you have to make them feel like they’re getting a choice without actually forcing them to go through the pain of a choice. And so we have genres. And so we have movie stars that help kind of eliminate choice. When you talk to the regular American moviegoer, you get yourself out of Hollywood for a few days and just talk to people or you’re on vacation somewhere, they don’t refer to movies the way we do. They talk about, “Oh, that’s a Brad Pitt movie”. That’s it. “That’s a Brad Pitt movie.” That’s the genre: Brad Pitt movie.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It doesn’t matter. Everything else. All the — your fancy choices and things, it doesn’t matter. They don’t know who directs anything. They certainly don’t know who writes anything. If you asked people what movie directors do you know, you’d hear Steven Spielberg and maybe Martin Scorsese.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Nobody really cares about that stuff. So stars became incredibly important because they’re visible and they help them make choices. And then genres, “Oh, my god, that’s a funny movie. Oh, it’s like a physical comedy. Oh, yeah, it’s a horror movie. Oh, yeah, it’s a thriller. Oh, that’s a spy movie.” So interestingly, if I were to sit and talk about this article with, say, some of the fine people that run marketing departments in Hollywood. What I would say to them is this. You don’t necessarily have to be worried about material that doesn’t fit into a conforming box. As long as you think you can sell it like it does. In fact, I think the best situation is to offer something that’s familiar and comforting to the audience with marketing. And then once they’re there, because it was familiar and comforting, give them something that’s different so that they don’t walk out going, “Oh, yeah, well, it was the same old thing.”

John: Yeah. I’ve had similar conversations a couple of times recently about properties that I was trying to get involved with. And it was that question of balancing expectations versus what you’re actually going to deliver them. And so people think they’re going to come in and get this kind of movie. And they are but it’s actually differentiated by quality in a weird way. It’s like, you know, what’s our secret sauce? Oh, it’s actually a really good movie. It’s actually a really good version of that. And so, somebody comes in expecting like, “Oh, it’ll be okay.” And then like, “Oh, it’s actually surprisingly good,” well, that’s an extra kind of bonus. And I’ve had to have those conversations about like, I think you market it like it’s this. And so someone will say like, “Oh, well, I know, the script seemed like it’s really complicated.” It’s like, “Yes, but you know what, that’s the experience of watching the movie.

Craig: Right.

John: The experience of what you’re actually going to see in the trailer is actually much more sort of it’s these beats, it’s the simpler version of what that is. So the movie I wrote for myself, it definitely falls into a genre. And so the movie does some unusual and interesting things, but I think from the trailer, you would see the simpler version. Even a thing I turned in recently, there was concern that it would be confused as a different kind of movie. And so I wrote up the trailer saying, like, no, I think you sell it like this. I think you sell it like this genre of movie which it largely is but you don’t even discuss these other story points or don’t even bring them into the idea of the trailer because it’s just not important for your experience. If you’re a person who likes this genre of movie, you’re going to like this movie regardless.

Craig: Yeah, this is really important. And I think the good marketers understand that because, of course, now marketers are involved in what movies get green lit. The question shouldn’t be, “Does this movie having now watched it fit into a comfortable category for an audience?” The question should be, “Can I market this as a comfortable category?”

John: Yeah.

Craig: The fascinating thing is that most people ascribe the word “cowardly” to the studios who continue to pump out the expected how many more superhero movies can we get. How many more of this can we get? How many more of that? They’re just cowards. They’re just playing it safe. No. I think actually studios are willing to take all sorts of risks. It’s the audience that’s the coward. And I understand why.

Going to the movies ain’t cheap. And you know the easiest thing in the world to do? Stay home. So people are afraid to risk two hours of their life and maybe 50 bucks when all is said and done between you and your date to see a movie that they kind of don’t know that they want because they’ve never had before.

John: So let’s tie together our studio executive and our ticket buyer. So our studio executive three years in advance is trying to figure out what ticket-buyer wants to see. Ticket-buyer is saying like, “You know, which movie do I want to see tonight?” So they’re going to cost me the same amount of money to see Steve Jobs or to see Goosebumps. I don’t know that I’ll like Steve Jobs. Goosebumps, I’m not sure I’ll like it either, but I think I know what Goosebumps is. So maybe I’ll go see Goosebumps.”

Craig: Right.

John: And it’s a conservative decision but it’s a reasonable decision for the ticket buyer. And so the studio executive has to weigh these decisions but three years in advance and not even knowing what the movie is going to look like or what the marketing materials for that movie are going to look like.

Craig: That’s absolutely right.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It’s hard because we — are brains aren’t correct. I may say, “Well, I generally don’t like biopics and I don’t really care about computers. I do like horror movies and I like funny movies and I like Jack Black.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: “I’m going to see Goosebumps.”

John: Yeah.

Craig: The problem is that’s actually not a rational decision because even if I stipulate all those things, I still just might not love Goosebumps because Goosebumps is its own experience, separate from everything else. And I might love Steve Jobs. That’s really what marketing and what the studios are constantly struggling with is the irrationality and safety of the audience.

John: Well, doesn’t it make some sense though in terms of loss aversion — so, I’m not saying that loss aversion is a reasonable strategy. But it’s a very well-understood strategy. It’s that you’re more worried about hating something than you are getting joy about maybe I’m going to love this thing. I don’t think people — and I don’t mean to slam Goosebumps as a movie. I’m sorry I picked that as an example, but I don’t think you’re going to Goosebumps saying like, “I think this is going to be the best movie ever and I think it’s going to change my life.” I think you’re going to Goosebumps maybe saying like, “Oh, I think that’ll be an enjoyable way to spend, you know, 90 minutes.” Whereas the Steve Jobs decision is like, “You know, I might love it but I might also really hate it. And it’s not just my decision, it’s like whoever I’m taking on a date to see this movie, what is he or she going to think.” And so there’s a whole psychological aspect of that that is challenging.

Craig: Yeah.

John: There’s a part of the article where he talks about a wind tunnel. And wind tunnels are incredibly important for designing cars. And when you’re looking at how you’re going to build the car, ultimately the wind tunnel is going to influence the shape of the car greatly. He says, “There are only two directions you can go in the wind tunnel. You can either get blown away or move towards the wind. Take comfort of the feeling of resistance. It means you’re headed in the right direction. If you aren’t feeling wind resistance, you might be going in the wrong direction in the wind tunnel. Savor the feeling of the wind on your skin. Your heroes face the same winds and overcame similar rejections. Eventually, the headwinds produce lift and launch their work skyward.” So talking about the Wright Brothers. It’s essentially, you know, sort of trying to make a plea for — go to the thing that’s making you a little uncomfortable, go towards the thing which you’re not sure you’re going to love. It’s going to spark more interest in you ultimately than the thing that is really safe. And that’s really easy to say but hard to do on a daily basis.

Craig: It’s a wonderful sentiment and I’m certainly all for individual bravery and culture choice. However, it will not happen. It will not happen at least on a mass scale ever, because humans on a mass scale are fairly predictable and we have a lot of data here.

John: Yeah.

Craig: There’s a theory that they used to talk about in the old days with network television and when you had three channels. And it was called the least objectionable programming theory, LOP. And the idea was you didn’t have to be the best show on at 8:30, you just had to be the LOP. If people didn’t like the other two more than they didn’t like you, they’d watch you.

John: Yeah.

Craig: And so your job is to basically just be bland and inoffensive and not stick out at all and they would turn away from those other things and come to you. And I think a little bit of that goes on in movies but I would continually push this point that it’s okay to market things on a LOP basis and then deliver something better, because unlike television, when they bought their ticket, they’re in.

John: That’s absolutely true.

Craig: And then the game has changed. The game is not, well, just keep watching it week after week. The game is now, “Don’t walk out of the theatre until it’s over.” And then when it’s over, go home and start tweeting about it. That’s the name of the game. Two very different goals.

John: Craig, I have a question for you. Do you think LOP still makes as much sense in the age of, you know, infinite channels and infinite programs?

Craig: No, I think it’s over.

John: I don’t think it does at all. I think that’s really an outdated concept. I think it actually still does hold true in movies because you’re making a decision about how you’re spending these two hours of your time and it’s a zero sum game to some degree. You’re not going to be able to watch two movies that night. But with TV, you can easily graze. You can find the thing that most interests you. And so, this paradox of choice isn’t quite as much of a problem. It’s just, you know, there’s not enough time in the day to watch all the things you might be interested in watching but that’s a lovely problem to have.

Craig: Yeah, LOP is great for a situation where you’re trying to get enormous numbers to come to your choice and your competition is maybe two other choices, which was very typical for the networks in the ’70s and ’80s. MOP, not Michael Oates Palmer but the most objectionable programming theory, I think makes a lot of sense for TV today because everything is so fragmented that what you’re trying to get is you don’t mind getting a tiny audience. You just want them to be fervent

John: Yes.

Craig: And you want them there week after week. So in fact, sometimes, the stuff that works best now on television is the stuff that’s the most stick-outable, and the strangest, and the weirdest, and the most hooky. It’s a very different vibe.

But for movies, when two or three major motion pictures are slugging it out to capture the eyeballs of mainstream movie-going America, not the movies but the marketing, I think, the marketing has to feel like that movie is the least objectionable.

John: Yeah. To try to wrap a bow around these two topics, getting back to nobody knows anything, I just want to stress the idea that William Goldman is not saying we might as well just have a bunch of monkeys throwing darts at a dartboard. That’s not what he’s pushing towards. He’s just saying that you can do all of these tests and surveys, you could look at what people say they really want, you could try to find the least objectionable program and do all these things that seem like really smart choices and you still don’t know that that’s going to be a path to success.

So I think he’s actually saying, you do all those things because those are reasonable, smart things to do. But don’t mistake the doing of those tests for what is really going to happen in true life because you just don’t know that. You can’t predict that.

Craig: You don’t know.

John: You don’t know me.

Craig: You don’t know me.

John: Our next topic, this is actually a short one. It could be a whole podcast by itself but it’s based on something that happened to me this week.

So I went to USC for film school and some USC film students started up this program, which is a very smart program called Dinner For Eight. And what they do is they invite an alum and eight current film students and we just have dinner someplace and we talk over stuff. This is a no-pressure dinner. You’re talking through what their life is like and they’re asking you questions and you’re asking them questions.

And I really took advantage of the chance to ask them questions because I’m always fascinated by why people go to film schools. And it’s something we’ve talked about on the podcast before. Because I can list good reasons to go to film schools, you can list good reasons not to go to film schools. But I was curious what people in film school right now thought about their decision. These were all grad students who were in their second or third year of grad school, and whether they thought it was worth it.

And so, around my table, they tended to think it was worth it, which I think is sort of a self-selecting group probably. But I asked them why they thought it was worth it. And here are some of the things they said.

Context. So, they were learning about screenwriting or filmmaking in context of the actual business that they were in right now. So, it wasn’t learning it from a book, it wasn’t learning it from one person. They had a bunch of people around them making movies. And they were making movies all the time, which was good and useful.

The collaboration, just that they got to work on either shooting movies or they were writing their stuff and they had people constantly there to sort of give them feedback on what they’re doing. Their professors, they had their peer group.

Acceleration. A couple of them said that they felt like they’d been writing for a while but it wasn’t until they were sort of like forced to sit down and constantly be delivering stuff that they really felt that sort of rocket ship take off, which could also be imagined if you like were staffed on a TV show, that sense of like, “No, no, you really have to do it now. There’s no excuses.” They described it similarly as being like good for people who were sort of stalled overall.

And so, a couple of these people had written before and they’ve been trying to do it for a while and they just couldn’t sort of get all the pieces to fit together. And sometimes, it was a skill thing they lacked but more often, it was a psychological thing. And they’re like, there wasn’t a gun to their head to do it, and so with a gun to their head to do it, they were actually delivering stuff.

I asked them how much they were actually writing in a semester. They said they were generally writing two bigger things in a semester. So they might be working on a feature and a TV pilot. That’s a lot. That’s a lot to be working on. But they also said that writing a bunch of little things, a lot of little small class assignments, was getting them sort of more fluid and more fluent.

So, it was interesting to hear this group of young writers, mostly writers, talking about their perspective on why they thought film school was working out well for them.

Craig: I always wonder, it’s really interesting, I always wonder what film school would have done to me. I don’t know if film school would have been good for me at all, you know. I mean, because I think about me, you know.

John: I think about you, too. So I think about you and John Glickman is a person we both know.

Craig: Yeah.

John: John Glickman runs MGM right now, but John Glickman was in my film school class. And I remember being in an elevator, we were going to I think it was our law class. And I was in the elevator with John Glickman and we held the door because Joe Roth got in the elevator. And Joe Roth at that point, he had already left Disney. He’d been running Disney and he just started Revolution, I think was his company.

Craig: The initial name of it was Caravan, then it became

John: Caravan. It was just

Craig: Then it became Spyglass, then it became Revolution.

John: So it was just Caravan at that point.

Craig: Yeah.

John: So, Joe Roth of Caravan gets in the elevator and John Glickman says, “Oh, hey, Joe. My name is John Glickman. I think the movies you’re making are really great. I really want to work for you. And these are the things I’m working on. This is what I’ve done.” And by the time he got out of the elevator, John Glickman had a job working at Caravan.

Craig: [laughs]

John: I can envision a young Craig Mazin in film school being similarly driven and plucky and smart and being able to get himself well-situated really soon. But I wonder if you would have become a writer or if you would have become a studio mogul.

Craig: Right. Well, it’s interesting because John Glickman did, in fact, go to work for Joe Roth and Roger Birnbaum at Caravan, stayed with them when they turned into Spyglass. Then when Revolution happened, I think Joe did Revolution and John and Roger went over to MGM. And then Roger kind of retired, I think, out of that. And John’s still at MGM.

John: Yeah.

Craig: He really actually has only had that job that he got in the elevator, which is crazy.

John: I was right there when he got it.

Craig: I don’t know, you know, it’s a really good question. I don’t know. And by the way, great segue into our next topic because our next topic sort of posits what would have happened with you and with me.

Somebody on Twitter tipped me off to this podcast between a guy named Ashley Scott Meyers and his guest, Gordy Hoffman. Ashley Scott Meyers runs a website. He’s a screenwriter and he also runs a website called sellingyourscreenplay.com. I’m not sure what it’s about. Oh, yeah, of course, it’s about selling your screenplay.

And, you know, the usual offer of script consultant, money, you know. You know how I feel about that. [laughs] Not good.

John: Not best.

Craig: I don’t feel good. But he also has podcasts that he does and he interviews people for it. And he himself is, in terms of his screenwriting, well, you’ll see he describes himself essentially as a B-movie writer.

Gordy Hoffman is a screenwriter and he also runs the BlueCat screenwriting contest. Have you heard of that, the BlueCat screenwriting competition?

John: I’ve heard of the BlueCat screenwriting competition mostly from tweets saying like, “Hey, should I enter the BlueCat screenwriting competition?” And I say, “I don’t know what that is.” But I sort of do know what it is just because people have tweeted me the question of should I enter the competition.

Craig: Yeah. It ain’t the Nicholls, but it’s a thing where you, again, pay money [laughs] to submit your script to a competition. And then there’s a prize, I think, of $3,000 or $4,000 or something like that. Also, he is the late Philip Seymour Hoffman’s brother. So they have this conversation and suddenly, the topic turned to you and me. [laughs] And I’m going to read you some things and we’ll see what you think.

I mean, they start off debating this question of whether the oft-repeated advice, “Just write a great script,” is actually good advice. And Ashley says, “Look, I’ve spent my career writing B movies and I think that’s a great place for screenwriters to start out in. If you want to write a studio film, those scripts have to be great.” This is his words. “But there are some terrific opportunities for people in genre movies.”

And Gordy Hoffman says, “I don’t know. Can you raise a family on that income? How does writing a movie that’s not good, that’s product, how does that build a career?” And then Ashley says, well, you know, in the B movies that he, I guess, in that world that he’s in, you can make $30,000 to $60,000 — I think he meant doing one of those movies or maybe in a year, I’m not sure.

And then Gordy Hoffman starts talking about you and me.

John: Ah.

Craig: And here’s what he says. He says, “When you look at John August and Craig Mazin’s point of view, they’ve made money in the studio system. My whole thing is I want to help you write a classic movie. Those are two different things. Gaming the system to make a ton of money is one thing, but ultimately, it’s my belief that if you want to get money as a writer and you don’t care if nobody likes your movie, some people are like, that’s exactly what I want. But I don’t want Craig Mazin’s job. [laughs] I don’t want to do that. If I chase a gratifying body of work, I’m still probably going to make some money.”

“What gets confusing is the John August/Craig Mazin podcast, it’s not really about writing an emotionally compelling, great culture-shifting movie, it’s about making money as a screenwriter. The fact is, that’s not what I ever talk about. That’s not what BlueCat is about. I’m just going to make good things. Chasing writing the best movie might in the long run be better for your career and your bank account.”

John: So it sounds like he’s disagreeing with Ashley Scott Meyers who says that like, “No, no, no, write B movies because — well, write B movies, I guess.” And Hoffman is saying, “No, you should write a great movie.” Am I fair in sort of there are two different opinions there?

Craig: Yeah. It seems like what Gordy is saying, aside from [laughs] he’s editorializing about you and me, is that in fact you will ultimately make more money if you do write something great.

John: So I’m trying to think about this in terms of the context of what we have said on the podcast and sort of what we are extolling. And the degree to which screenwriters are gaming the system to write movies that either I guess don’t get made or aren’t trying to be good versus the alternative, I’m not quite clear on what his perspective is here.

Craig: No, you aren’t because you’re a good person. You know, here’s the difference between you and me. A good person sees something that is deserving of vomit and says, “I don’t understand. Those words don’t fit together. I’m puzzled. I will take a nap.” The bad person says, “I am filled with rage [laughs] because I can see the bad conscience behind this.”

Putting aside how insulting it is, it’s also just stupid and wrong. There is no gaming the system to make a ton of money. There’s no such thing. Does not work. I don’t know what it would be. If there were a way to game this system to make money, then many, many more people would be gaming the system to make money.

John: Well, let’s talk about gaming the system because there are some examples of screenwriters who you feel like they just took that rewrite for the money and they had no interest in actually delivering a quality movie. I will say, in general, those people do not have long-lived careers or they eventually get called out for it and then they have to go back and start writing good movies.

Craig: Well, see, that’s exactly right. But then, that’s not really gaming the system. That’s making a mistake. Somebody says, “Here, I have a job for you,” and you say, “Well, I don’t care about it. I like making money. I’m not going to write anything good here,” then you’re right, you will not last. And so you didn’t game the system.

In fact, the system gamed you. There is no gaming the system. And they are talking about people that have, you know, long-running careers. That’s insane. Now, Gordy, his one writing credit I think is a movie called Love Liza, which he’s certainly very fond of. He speaks of it in a very fond way. I don’t think it meets his criteria of a culture-shifting classic film. But I haven’t seen it. I just

John: But I would say, it doesn’t seem like he’s describing it like a B-movie like Ashley Scott Meyers is describing his own movies.

Craig: No, no, no, no.

John: Not a bit.

Craig: No. He’s describing it as a big work. And he talks about how people still write him letters about it. I mean, he’s sort of saying, “I wrote something that’s important that people really like. That’s better than those things that those guys are writing because that’s just about making money.”

And my response is, we actually care about what we do, it’s just that you maybe not like those kinds of movies.

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: That doesn’t mean we don’t. We do. We like what we are doing. It’s, oh my god, people might have different taste. I’m not sure I would like Love Liza. I haven’t seen it but it doesn’t look like my cup of tea.

So I’m not going to say, “Well, obviously, that guy was just trying to game some system.” That’s crazy. Similarly, I get confused by people who think that they understand our motivations for writing based on what they see on IMDb and not based on all the things we’ve written that haven’t gotten made.

But that aside, what I do know for sure is this. I know, as opposed to nobody knows anything, I know that this podcast is in fact [laughs] about, among other things, writing emotionally compelling, great culture-shifting movies. I’m hoping to God that some of our listeners do great work. Does this really sound like a podcast about how to make money?

And creepily enough, we’re the ones doing this for free and this guy is charging writers money to send him scripts. So, huh?

John: Hmm.

Craig: Huh. Well, moving on.

John: [laughs]

Craig: They continue their argument. What Ashley says is, “Well, you know, when I set out ” he’s pushing back on that, “When I set out to write B movies, I have high hopes. I try and make it as good as possible. But my main point is that I have accepted that I’m not a gloriously gifted writer. I have succeeded and sold a bunch of scripts because I’m pragmatic. Most people listening to this are probably in that boat. The chance of getting to the John August/Craig Mazin level is rare and there’s a certain amount of luck.”

Well, I was feeling really good there for a second.

John: Yeah. And I’m agreeing with some of what he’s saying there. There’s a certain amount of luck, absolutely. And I think we’ve said that many times on the podcast is that some stuff just happens because it happens. And you have to be in the right place to be lucky. But things could go very differently for anyone in this business.

Craig: Yeah. And I like his point, by the way — first of all, I think it’s an incredibly grown-up and brave thing to say “I’m not a gloriously gifted writer.” And he’s right. Most people aren’t. Most people trying to be screenwriters aren’t gloriously gifted because this isn’t Lake Wobegon where all the children are above average, right?

John: Yeah.

Craig: So his argument is, “Hey, there’s this other area of screenwriting that may not be quite so, you know, golden city shining on the hill, but it’s something for people that maybe aren’t good enough to play in the major leagues.” It’s an interesting point. Gordy gets all upset.

He does not like the idea of luck at all. He says, “People that are successful, like Ron Howard, they don’t have a plan B,” which I thought was a fascinating choice, Ron Howard.

John: Yeah, Ron Howard, like he got to direct his first movie but he was already a successful actor when that all happened. He was a kid actor who was growing into being a grown-up actor.

Craig: Oh, yeah, all Ron Howard had going for him was being Opie and then being Richie on Happy Days. That’s it. Other than that

John: That’s it. No, he had no plan B.

Craig: You know what his plan B was? Living off of the money he had made. [laughs] That’s a pretty good plan B. He then refers to Ben Affleck and says, “That guy had some duds. Now he’s a huge success and in the middle of three tent poles,” which I think maybe he also thinks is part of the gaming the system. And I can’t tell. At this point, I’m confused by his point of view. But he’s saying, basically, take responsibility for your career.

And then, so at this point, I’m like, I think I’m rooting for Ashley here. [laughs] But then

John: [laughs] Craig, frankly, you’re rooting for the tidal wave, I can tell.

Craig: Well, I always end up rooting for the meteor. So then Ashley says, “Well, listening to the John August/Craig Mazin podcast, there wasn’t a lot of struggle in their career. Craig Mazin went to Princeton. But he was in the right place at the right time. He sold some scripts.” [laughs]

John: Aww, Craig. I’m sorry for you because I know there was some struggle in there.

Craig: Well

John: Yeah, I mean, you

Craig: Come on.

John: I guess, how do you define the outer boundaries of struggle? I mean, how bad do things have to be to be a struggle? That’s actually a good thematic question for a play on Broadway, or actually, Off-Broadway.

Craig: Yeah, feels Off-Broadway. [laughs]

John: [laughs] It feels more Off-Broadway, obviously.

Craig: I just love the description of the birth of my career. It’s so awesome because like, went to Princeton, right place and right time, sold some scripts.

So here’s what happened, I go to Princeton where I don’t study writing or movies [laughs] or screenwriting or anything. I graduate with nothing. I drive to Los Angeles. I happened to walk out on the right street corner where in my hand is a script suddenly. And a guy is like, “Hey, you got a script? I’m buying.” And I go, “Yeah, here.” “Great, kid. Come with me.” It’s insane. Why would anyone think that?

John: What’s fascinating, Craig, is I remember it more like a Coen brother set up in a thing where like you accidentally got in the wrong car and there’s like a whole trunkful of money, except instead of a trunkful of money there was a script, and then you like accidentally drove up to some place that wanted your script. And it became a whole caper kind of thing.

My story is similar and sort of plausible in that same way where I came out here and I went to USC for film school. And I think I was genuinely lucky to be here at a time where the industry was growing and there were spots for more people and I got a job as an assistant and worked my way up. And I did very classic boring things where friends would read my scripts and pass them along. And I eventually got into rooms, and got hired to write scripts for people.

And whenever I talk to people about my origin story, I try to make it really clear, like that’s my origin story but that won’t be your origin story because all the variables will be different, both because it’s a different time, because you’re a different person, because everything just generally changes. But I would say, the broad strokes of how I got my career started are probably the broad strokes of how most screenwriters got their career started.

Craig: Yeah. You know, lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about gratitude. There’s an interesting study about the components of happiness. And one of the major components of happiness is expressing gratitude. And it’s hard when you don’t believe in God and you don’t have a system of religion to contextualize gratitude and yet it’s also not that hard really.

John: I don’t think it’s not hard at all.

Craig: Yeah. I mean it’s only — I guess I should say, it’s not hard, it’s just not as obvious.

John: Okay.

Craig: So I’ve been thinking a lot about — and I try and be grateful and I try and express gratitude and feel gratitude in those moments. And I think that everybody that embarks on a path will have some aspects of circumstance at the time for which they ought to be grateful. And you’re right, there were aspects of the time that we began for which we should both be grateful. And, there are other things that, you know, were hard.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That is true, I think, for everybody. Everybody will have their advantages and disadvantages. Why people keep harping on this Princeton thing, I have no idea. I wish to God it had something for me, something, anything. I wasn’t hired by people who went to Princeton. [laughs] There wasn’t a network of people who all went to Princeton.

John: I think honestly, what’s helped underscore that is like, you know, he went to Princeton and you won’t believe who his roommate was. And I think that is what sort of gets Princeton stuck in the back at people’s mind.

Craig: There’s struggle by the way. [laughs]

John: There is struggle. Yeah, he did struggle. He had to live with Ted Cruz for a semester.

Craig: No, two. A whole year.

John: Oh, a whole year, I’m sorry.

Craig: Freshmen years, stuck in a room with that jerk. And, by the way just a political aside. Apparently, George W. Bush was speaking at some sort of Republican fundraiser for his brother. And he went out of his way to say Ted Cruz is dangerous and I don’t like that guy. And it was

John: Yeah, when George Bush is saying that, that is something remarkable.

Craig: Well, they said specifically that what shocked everybody was that W is like of all the things that he is known for, and there’s quite a few, one of them he doesn’t do that. He never ever bad mouths people like that, you know, at least within the Republican Party. Like he’s such a, you know, like he learned from his dad, you don’t do it. And they’re like, well, anyway, that’s what Ted Cruz does. He shakes everybody out of there.

So these guys kind of back and forth about and so Ashley is taking the position that luck matters. Gordy is taking the position that luck doesn’t matter. And then Ashley says the following. He says, “Would Craig has stuck it out for 10 or 15 years grinding it out?” And I think he means like it weren’t working. “And John August has all these technical skills, creating software, would he have stuck it out? He’d probably be running some sort of tech company. They’re smart and hardworking, so other opportunities would have come their way.”

And then he says, “The most successful screenwriters I’ve interviewed, there wasn’t a lot of struggle in their stories. They took off pretty simply.” I don’t think that he’s — that this word means what he thinks it means.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Struggle doesn’t mean failure. And success does not mean the absence of struggle. We have talked a lot about how you don’t really break in. You get a job. At which point, the gun now goes into your mouth. And you are typing in fear. And then you try and get another job and another. And the entire time, everything is conspiring to get rid of you. You are like a contagion in a body with an immune system. So you are being beset upon by your competition, by agents, by studio executives and producers and directors, all of whom know that they don’t have to care about you so they’re not going to because they already have to care about a bunch of other people they wish they didn’t have to care about. You never stop struggling. You never stop. If you stop — there’s no stopping. You know when you stop struggling, the day you say, I don’t need to struggle anymore, period, when you need to, that’s when you stop. Otherwise, you need to and you have to keep struggling.

John: Yeah. I think this idea of struggle fascinating because it’s really two different things we’re talking about. We want to talk about how writing is difficult, screenwriting is difficult in its own special way. The opportunity to get your writing in the hands of people who want to actually make it into a movie and then actually get that movie made, that is all incredibly difficult. So that is struggle, that is labor, that is difficult and it’s painful.

But I think they want to use struggle to be all the times it doesn’t work. And there’s a sense if you didn’t go through all the times where it didn’t work, then you didn’t really, I don’t know, you sort of don’t deserve it in a way or that — and its’ not true. That weird sense of like, art is an art unless you had to like cut your ear off to some degree or if you had

Craig: Yeah, art must require some sort of brutal pain and also, luck is hugely important because it seems like the people that succeed somehow got hit by a leprechaun’s magic shillelagh and just sort of coasted into millions of dollars and worldwide box office and packed movie theatres. And everybody else, it’s just as good, didn’t get by the shillelagh, so they’re struggling.

John: Yeah. I think we’re going to call our next podcast Struggling Gratitude because I think they’re wonderful, really amorphous concepts that are so key to what we’re really talking about because I think gratitude really plays into that sense of luck. And acknowledging that things could have gone so many different ways and we’re very lucky and fortunate to have, you know, ended up in this specific place and this specific set of circumstances that things worked out so well and to acknowledge that things could have worked out very, very differently in any of our lives.

And so, you know, to be thankful for our health and to be thankful for our families and for all the things in our life that are going so well and simultaneously to acknowledge that not everyone is going to have those things and it doesn’t make one person better or worse than the other person.

But I worry that, you know, glamorizing the struggle is ultimately a self-defeating kind of prophecy. It’s a sense of like how people in depression sometimes don’t recognize that they’re in depression because they literally can’t see that they’re in depression. And so romanticizing struggle is not necessarily the — it could have its own sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Craig: It’s not even a useful word.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I just prefer work.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Just work. Work, you know. And by the way, I will say that when all is said and done, with this exchange, I will — I have to give the fight to Ashley. I think that ultimately, he was making an interesting point and a valuable point about what you do when — forget the world of luck — the marketplace is telling you repeatedly over time we’re not going to put your work in a category of say this. Your work is in this category. And he’s being very, I think, responsible and pragmatic in saying, that’s not a death sentence.

John: Yeah. I want to actually sort of validate both of their experiences in the sense of Ashley who is self-identifying as writing these B movies, that he’s actually found a way to make that profitable for him. And he seems happy. Or at least, you know, he’s declaring himself content with sort of how he’s being labeled there which is great.

Simultaneously, if your objective is to write a kind of movie that is difficult to get made and, you know, artistically challenging and you like that artistic challenge, which many great movies come from that — I don’t want to say struggle — but come from that place. That’s wonderful too and that’s why I think we’re lucky to live in a film ecosystem where there’s now ways to make those movies.

So I don’t want to sort of denigrate either of their experiences in doing this or even that they can talk to us about, you know, how they perceive our experiences. I just think they’re perceiving our experiences very differently than how we perceive them.

Craig: Well, yeah, that’s a nice way of saying that.

John: Again, I’m being too nice.

Craig: They’re completely wrong is what you just said.

John: [laughs]

Craig: I think your perspective of your own experience is slightly more valuable than their perspective of your experience. I think that it’s not a bad operating principle to say the following. There are a lot of different ways to pursue the career of screenwriter. And if somebody pursues it honestly and with passion and vigor, then that’s good.

John: I agree.

Craig: I would never say to Gordy Hoffman, “Enjoy making your navel-gazing mumblecore,” because that’s not fair. It’s just a broad caricature and it implies motivations that I simply can’t say are true. It’s just mean. And I don’t know why he would feel the need to denigrate an entire swath of screenwriters who oftentimes work in certain kinds of movies and then suddenly make something else. I mean look, God knows, the best script I’ve ever written has not been produced. I’m looking at it. It’s on my desk. [laughs]

I love it. And I’ve heard wonderful things about it. And it is very — I think it’s very emotionally compelling. And I think it could be a culture-shifting movie. I don’t know if it’s going to get made, you know. This is the way of the world. It’s just the thing. But I try and like the way Ashley says, I try and make it as good as possible, no matter what it is. And you and I have said before, if we wanted to game a system to make a lot of money, we are in the wrong job.

John: For sure.

Craig: We should be in finance.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: Yeah, no question.

John: All right. Let’s go to our One Cool Things for the week. Mine is a very simple series of books designed for preschoolers. It’s called Tessy and Tab. And so we got these when my daughter was two years old, three years old. She got them when she’s four and five also. But it’s called Tessy and Tab. Tessy is a duck, Tab is a Kangaroo. They are preschool age. They do sort of standard preschool kind of things. They kind of flip out on each other. They love to play in the park. The sentences in there are super, super simple. They’re designed for a parent to read with a kid, but ultimately for a kid to be able to figure out how to kind of read for themselves.

It’s not phonics, it’s all sight words. So it’s not going to really just teach your kid how to read, but for my daughter, they became sort of her go-to books for just like picking up to read at any point at any time. They are also really, really thin, so you can like shove 10 of them in a backpack and go through them.

What’s smart about Tessy and Tab, originally when they first came out, they were — they would come every two weeks in the mail. And so kids love getting mail. It’s like, oh, you’re opening this thing. And so that’s a whole special thing for them. The company kind of went under. It came back. And now they send you 60 of them all at once. And so if you were to get this box, I would recommend you sort of hide it away and give it to — you know, make a special envelope and like give it to a kid like every couple of days or on a set schedule because if you have young kids, they’re going to want to read the same book over and over again. You don’t want to strangle this book because you just can’t read it anymore. So it’s a great way to sort of swap in what the book is that you’re reading with your little kid on a daily basis.

So Tessy and Tab, there’ll be a link in the show notes. But they’re just really good and they’re the one thing that my daughter from two years old through six years old still continued to love.

Craig: Wonderful. Wonderful. Well, my One Cool Thing, I have a couple of cool things this week, but they’re thematically linked. They’re both puzzles. This first is an easy one, BuzzFeed has a new crossword puzzle. I think it’s a daily actually from what I can tell. And it’s really good. The puzzles are constructed really well. They’re not too easy. They’re not crazy hard. There’s, you know, a touch of challenge to them. I would put them sort of like midweek New York Times level, sort of Wednesday-ish.

But what’s interesting about them is that they don’t have the editorial constraints of the New York Times. The New York Times famously has this — I can’t remember the exact name of the test. But the idea is would the clue and answer be something that you’d be comfortable reading to your grandmother at breakfast? BuzzFeed has no such restraint, whatsoever. And so they have like some pretty racy things and obviously, because it’s BuzzFeed, a lot of very modern, current language. So it’s a nice change of pace from The New York Times if you’re a crossword puzzler.

The other one is this site called logic-puzzles.org. That’s logic-puzzles.org. And it’s a company called Puzzle Baron or something like that. And it’s just one kind of puzzle that I love, that I always have loved. And it’s the logic puzzle where you are told six or seven facts about an arrangement of things and you have to deduce who ate what sandwich with what drink, you know, that kind of thing. Have you done these puzzles before?

John: I do. And Clue is a variation on those, but they are really fun. And there’s only really one way that everything could work out.

Craig: Exactly. There’s only one. So they are designed and I do them on the challenging setting where sometimes for a big puzzle, you get like four clues. And I’ve learned all these extra tricks that I didn’t know. And it’s such a great way to pass 20 minutes without feeling like you’ve totally wasted your time It’s a little brain sharpener. So I like them a lot. Give them a try. Logic-puzzles.org and it’s free.

John: Our special thanks to Karina Longworth for providing the voice of the anonymous writer in our first segment. You should really check out her podcast, which is amazing, called You Must Remember This. It’s on iTunes, but we’ll also have a link in the show notes. So thank you, Karina.

Our show, as always, is produced by Stuart Friedel. It is edited by Matthew Chilelli. If you have a question for us, you should write it to us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com. johnaugust.com is also where you’ll find the show notes to all the things we talked about on the program today. We are on iTunes. We love it when you leave us a review there because it helps other people find the show. So thank you everyone who leaves those reviews. If you have a short question for Craig or for me, find us on Twitter. Craig is @clmazin. I am @johnaugust.

Our outro this week, in the spirit of Halloween, I thought we’d end on something really disturbing. So our outro is something Stuart found. It comes from Pokémon Red and Green, specifically a location within that game called Lavender Town. Do you know about Lavender town?

Craig: [laughs] I’m going to ask my son because he’ll know.

John: So according to urban legend, this really disturbing theme song caused Japanese children to commit suicide which is back in 1996.

Craig: [laughs] I don’t know why I’m laughing. I mean, no, it didn’t, that’s why I’m laughing.

John: So here’s a quote from what they say on the site. During the first two days of release of Pokémon Red and Green in Japan back in February 27th 1996, a peak of deaths occurred in the age group 10 to 15. The children were usually found dead through suicide usually by hanging or jumping from heights. However, some were more odd. A few cases recorded children who had begun sawing off their limbs, others sticking their faces inside the oven and choked themselves on their own fists, shoving their arms down their throats.

Craig: Oh, yes, shoving their arms down. Yeah, no, that’s — you see that. You see people doing that.

John: So anyway, the music you’re hearing underneath this is actually that theme music.

Craig: [laughs]

John: And it’s disturbingly — well, it’s familiar. So I leave you on this.

Craig: Don’t choke on your fist.

John: And have a happy Halloween and we will see you at the Austin Film Festival.

Craig: Bye, guys.

Links:

  • Austin Film Festival 2015 panel schedule
  • Karina Longworth’s You Must Remember This
  • Scriptnotes, 220: Writers Rooms, Taxes, and Fat Hamlet
  • William Goldman on Wikipedia, and Adventures in the Screen Trade on Amazon
  • The Zombie-mobile
  • Least objectionable program on Wikipedia
  • The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz
  • The Selling Your Screenplay Podcast, episode 95
  • Tessy and Tab
  • BuzzFeed Crosswords, and logic-puzzles.org
  • Pokémon’s Creepy Lavender Town Myth, Explained on Kotaku

Nobody Knows Anything (including what this quote means)

October 27, 2015 Film Industry, Follow Up, Psych 101, Scriptnotes, So-Called Experts, Transcribed, Writing Process

Craig and John get to the bottom of William Goldman’s famous quotation about Hollywood, which is so often misapplied. Then it’s a discussion of zombie cars, wind-tunnels, blockbusters, and the paradox of choice.

Finally, we look at the intersection of luck and talent behind a screenwriter’s career, and why struggle isn’t a useful yardstick for much of anything.

Links:

  • Austin Film Festival 2015 panel schedule
  • Karina Longworth’s You Must Remember This
  • Scriptnotes, 220: Writers Rooms, Taxes, and Fat Hamlet
  • William Goldman on Wikipedia, and Adventures in the Screen Trade on Amazon
  • The Zombie-mobile
  • Least objectionable program on Wikipedia
  • The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less by Barry Schwartz
  • The Selling Your Screenplay Podcast, episode 95
  • Tessy and Tab
  • BuzzFeed Crosswords, and logic-puzzles.org
  • Pokémon’s Creepy Lavender Town Myth, Explained on Kotaku

You can download the episode here: AAC | mp3.

UPDATE 10-28-15: The transcript of this episode can be found 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.