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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Drew Marquardt

Scriptnotes, Ep. 17: What do producers do? — Transcript

January 4, 2012 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hello, my name is John August.

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: You’re listening to Episode 17 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Craig, how are you doing today?

Craig: Pretty good. I’m getting ready for the holidays.

John: Ah, very nice. Are you staying in town this year? Are you traveling, getting on planes?

Craig: I am staying in town. Man, it feels good. This time last year I was in Bangkok which is the least Christmassy place in the world.

John: Yeah. Did they have a concept of Christmas there?

Craig: Yeah…

John: Do they know it’s Christmas time at all?

Craig: I’m sorry. Say that again.

John: [Singsong] Do they know it’s Christmas time at all?

Craig: [laughs] They’re aware. They know its Christmas time.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I don’t think they care.

John: Did you see inappropriately dressed Santas on the back of scooters or motorcycles?

Craig: No. It’s not a particularly Christian culture. It’s very traditional — very, I guess, Buddhist.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah. They’re just not into Christmas. It’s not their thing. It’s also super hot. Also, it wasn’t like I was doing Christmas shopping or anything. I was standing in hot streets with scooters going by.

John: Yeah.

Craig: This is nice. I’m actually really appreciating the whole pre-Christmas pageantry.

John: Yeah. We’re actually having unseasonably cold weather in Los Angeles right now. It doesn’t usually feel this cold. It was nearing frost temperatures here.

Craig: Yeah. Also, we had this crazy windstorm and Pasadena and La Canada, where I live, got the worst of it. Our power was out for three days. You know, it was kind of fun for a day. By the third day, man, just darkness is a bummer. [laughs] You really start to miss power.

John: Yeah. You start to revert to like earlier primal forms.

Craig: Yep.

John: Never good. Our big damage around here was that our DirecTV satellite dish got knocked askew which is… Yes, okay, first world problems.

Craig: Yeah. You know what I’ll do is I’ll send you a picture of what the street near our office looked like and you can put it up with this podcast. It was crazy. I mean, huge trees just lifted out of the ground and thrown down. I think they had clocked it at 97 miles an hour which, I looked it up, qualifies as hurricane gusts.

John: Well, good.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah. We shouldn’t say “good,” but it’s exciting when changes happen and when things that you don’t expect to have happen do happen. The earthquake is actually a really good memory of mine, of Los Angeles.

Craig: You’re so weird.

John: I’m so weird. I kind of like when things fall apart a little bit.

Craig: Yeah. What are you, Sauermon, you like watching trees die?

John: [laughs] I don’t want anyone to be hurt. I don’t want things to necessarily be broken. But I like the idea that things are not permanent or that the way stuff is put together right at this moment isn’t necessarily the only way it can fit together.

Craig: Well, life rewards people like you because, eventually, it strikes you down. [laughs] I think it’s the second law of thermodynamics.

John: Yeah. Everything changes. Everything goes towards chaos.

Craig: Correct.

John: And heat…

Craig: Yep.

John: Heat death of the universe.

Craig: Heat death. We’re on our way.

John: Yep.

Speaking of heat death and the universe, that’s not a segue at all actually, today I thought we would talk about producers.

Craig: Heat death and producers.

John: Yeah. Let’s see, how can we tie in heat death and producers? Both thrive on chaos.

Craig: [laughs] Well, they’re supposed to fight entropy, but many times they do contribute to it too.

John: I like that.

Craig: Yeah.

John: It’s a better way of thinking about it.

Craig: Right.

John: Today, let’s talk about what producers are. Craig, what is a producer?

Craig: Well, you ask a different producer you’ll get a different answer. And it’s different for television, it’s different for movies. Do you want to talk about movies first?

John: Yeah. I just want to talk about the general idea of what a producer is supposed to do though. I think we have an image in our head of sort of this rich fat cat who’s smoking a cigar, who’s giving orders and bossing people around. Or like the Robert Evans idea too. Thinking, “Well, that’s what a producer is.”

They used to be a little bit more like that. There’s a reason why some stereotypes are true. There used to be that “force of nature” producer who would storm in and do cocaine off of the table and make five movies before lunch.

Craig: Yes, off of the table. [laughs]

John: Yeah. I always find cocaine stories fascinating because I have just almost no drug experience whatsoever. I remember going to visit a friend of mine who had become a producer and exec at one of the big studios. I’m making this as generic as possible so that no one will actually identify who I’m talking about.

Craig: Right.

John: He was so excited because he had gotten this new office. It had this built-in sort of cubby cabinet thing with the desk that folded down and there’s a mirror on the desk surface of it, which seems really weird. In the corners you could see the cocaine.

Craig: Wow.

John: This was like a special desk that was built to hold cocaine.

Craig: A cocaine desk.

John: Yeah. Which is such an ’80s thing. We got into the industry just a little too late.

Craig: Wow. I’ll confess something and it’s not a good confession. It’s like the opposite of an interesting confession.

John: Yeah.

Craig: I’m not a prude or anything. Not only have I never done cocaine, I’ve never seen it.

John: I don’t think I’ve ever seen it consumed in my presence.

Which is weird. It’s not what you would think of like Hollywood should be.

Craig: Right.

John: You think Hollywood should be like, “Oh, rampant drug use.”

Craig: There should be coke everywhere.

John: I think there is drug use in Hollywood but it’s really not visible.

Craig: Yeah. I feel like cocaine… Cokeheads are really private, I guess, or shy. [laughs]

John: I think it’s also the people who were doing cocaine are probably doing pharmaceuticals now. They’re doing other stuff.

Craig: Oh, like Oxycontin or whatever.

John: Yeah, or like less visible.

Craig: You know, I’m guessing cocaine is still around.

John: Yeah. I’m sure it’s still around.

Craig: Yeah. It’s just… Yeah. Well, most of the producers I know probably aren’t coked up. Some of them, frankly, could do with a little bit of cocaine every now and again. [laughs]

John: Some of them could use a good, firm kick in the butt.

Craig: Yeah.

John: In general, a producer’s job — and we’ll just talk like a theoretical of what a producer is supposed to be doing, — is the person who is responsible for a movie — let’s talk features for right now — is responsible for a movie from inception all the way through distribution, which is now, I would say, all the way through iTunes and down the road. They are the person who is most and primarily responsible for the movie. That’s the reason why they get the Academy Award. They are the person who… It’s their movie.

Craig: Right.

John: They are the person behind it all.

Craig: Right.

John: Rarely does that actually hold true now. There are exceptions. Laura Ziskin, I think, was largely that kind of producer. She was my very first studio development teacher when I went through my producing program, called Peter Stark, at USC. She was that kind of producer. There were movies where she had the idea, she found the writer, she got the writer to do 15 drafts, she got the studio to green light the movie, she was there for every frame they shot, and she oversaw editing. She oversaw the whole thing. That’s what producers used to do.

Now, if you look at the opening titles of a movie, there will be 14 people’s names listed as some kind of producer.

Craig: Yeah.

John: You really can’t know what each of those people did. We can talk through, in general, what those responsibilities are supposed to be, but I really want to also talk about the realities of what it’s like to be a writer working on movies and dealing with producers.

Craig: Yeah. If you think about, sort of, when you and I started in the business, and let’s take Disney for example. It had multiple divisions. It was making a lot of movies. Let’s say it makes 50 movies in a year. There’s only so many executives you have and, ultimately, the job of the studio is to decide whether or not they should make the movie and spend the money on the movie and then market the movie and release the movie. But they can’t be there on the set. They can’t be there in every casting session. It would be impossible.

The producer becomes kind of an interesting independent agent of the studio. They are, ideally, in the best possible world, I’ll describe the best kind of producer, somebody who helps protect and nurture the creative value of the movie while, at the same time, shepherding the business of the production to make sure it’s done in a way that is responsible and satisfying to the financier, typically a studio.

John: Yeah.

Craig: That doesn’t happen. [laughs] Sometimes that just doesn’t happen. Sometimes you get one and not the other. Usually it’s the business one and not the creative one.

John: What’s interesting is, if you were just looking at Video Village, Video Village being at the monitors in which people are sitting in chairs staring at the little screen while the cameras are rolling. If you were to look at the people sitting in those chairs it’s hard to tell, necessarily, who are the producers and who are people who work for the studio because they seem to be doing the same kind of job. To a large degree, their functions do overlap.

We had a guy who worked at Warner Brothers come in once to talk to our class. He said like, “Oh, my friends, at Christmas, will ask me, ‘Hey, I saw that movie you said you were working on but why didn’t I see your name on the movie?'” He’s like, “My name is that shield that plays at the front. The big Warner Brothers logo, that’s my name.”

The studio executive, his function is really the studio’s function so he doesn’t have his own separate title card on the movie. He is the logo of the company. The exception being, weirdly, like New Line Cinema which all those people got producer credits even though they were really a studio.

Craig: Yeah. It gets very confusing in that regard. You’re right. It is interesting, sometimes a very strong studio executive will have more to do with the inception and shepherding of a film than the producer. It’s a very difficult thing. The reason it’s so confusing about what producers do is there is no barrier to entry, anybody can get a blank producer credit. For instance, associate producer really means a sort of producer-in-training who’s working with the real producer, typically.

Co-Producer could be anybody. A lot of times these things are handed out as little cookies for people to feel good about themselves. Sometimes those people are actually doing more work than the person who is the producer.

Then there is executive producer, which sounds more important than producer but actually isn’t.

John: Yeah. Let’s hop through the ranks from the top to the bottom just so people get a sense of what it means in film. After we talk through in film we’ll talk it through in TV because it’s confusing because everything is reversed.

Craig: Right.

John: So, in film the most important producer, the person who would actually receive the Academy Award, is the producer. It just says “Producer.”

Craig: Right. “Produced by…”

John: “Producer” or “Produced by…” there’s no other qualifier in front of it.

Craig: Right.

John: If there are several people with the title “Producer” on a film, the Academy has rules about who gets the award. There’s a Producers Guild which helps step in to specify who gets what kind of award for things. But producers should be the most important, significant person making the film.

Craig: Yes.

John: Below Producer is Executive Producer. Executive Producer used to mean a person who brought money to a project. It still, often, does mean that. It’s a lesser function. It’s probably not a person who is involved day to day although, sometimes, that’s a credit that a Line Producer might be given or someone else who’s incredibly involved day to day but is not the overall overseer of everything about the movie.

Craig: That’s right.

John: Co-Producer, Associate Producer, are sometimes just handout producer credits. I got a Co-Producer credit on Go and I really did a lot of producing on Go, but that was just a stipulation in my contract.

Craig: Right. Or for instance, if there’s a big Producer, they may have somebody working for them that does an enormous amount of work on their behalf and that person might get a Co-Producer or Executive Producer credit.

John: Yep. Co-Producers, a lot of times you’ll see the person who’s responsible for the budgeting, the Line Producer being given that.

Craig: Yep.

John: I should specify: There’s two other titles that you won’t often see in credit blocks but are actual functions and that’s a Line Producer. The Line Producer is, I think of it, almost like the manager of a company. It’s the person who’s physically responsible for doing the budget, for making sure the trucks are showing up at the right place at the right time, all the sort of number responsibilities and production responsibilities.

Craig: Yeah. In the credits they’re called the Unit Production Manager. The Unit Production Manager is, essentially, the business master of the movie. It’s a very interesting position, actually, because the UPM typically is somebody that works more closely with the studio than with the productions. Studios are very particular about which UPMs they use because, ultimately, that’s the person they come to, to say, “You’re spending too much. These days are going on too long. Help us out here. Keep control over this thing.”

John: Yeah. So, the UPM is working with the producers on a general sense, working with the director on a general sense, in terms of some priorities. Or in terms of like how we’re spending our money, really overseeing the accountants and basically everyone who is staying back in those offices who are making sure that all the paperwork is actually done to pay for this thing and to make sure that insurance stuff is handled. All that sort of back office stuff is going to fall under the UPMs job. That person is working as much for the studio as it is for the production.

Craig: Correct.

John: I just realized I have an Executive Producer credit on Prince of Persia, which is very classically the kind of credit I would be given in that situation. It’s a project that Jordan Mechner came to me with. He had the rights to Prince of Persia. We figured out the story, we put together a pitch, and we went around and pitched it to every place. I wasn’t going to write the movie but I was going to oversee the writing of the movie.

I developed Prince of Persia. Like — there wouldn’t be a movie if I hadn’t stepped in to do it, so Executive Producer is my credit for it. But I’m not the Producer. I didn’t oversee every frame of film shot or anything like that. I was a crucial function during one of the stages of production but I didn’t oversee the whole thing.

Craig: Yeah, that’s one of the reasons the Producers Guild exists. It’s not really a guild, it’s not a union, because they don’t… they’re not employees like a union is. But it’s basically, kind of a self-imposed group that wants to try and make some meaning out of these credits.

Because a lot of times, what happens is people get kissed into these things. I was involved in this, I found the initial script, but then it fell apart here. I took it over here, nobody wants to work with this guy. Take an executive producer credit and get the hell out of here.

The producers, rightly, are saying, “Listen, you’re watering down these credits. Executive producer, for some people, means an enormous amount of work, and for others, it literally means nothing. At all.”

John: Nothing.

Craig: Yeah. Sometimes it means we let you take the rights from us, because we didn’t want to make the movie. It’s that crazy. And obviously, the Writers Guild spent a lot of time and effort and strikes and so forth, to make sure that we can protect what our credits mean. Producers don’t have that.

John: No. And it’s going to be very hard for them to ever organize to the degree that it’s going to be meaningful for them to try to step in and say that, because they have to convince the studios to agree to these credits, and that’s a challenge.

Craig: It is a challenge, because essentially, it’s an open market. And the studios love giving credits like that away instead of money, because it doesn’t cost anything. They don’t care.

That’s why you see these, sometimes, especially in independent films. You’ll see a thousand producers, because everybody’s been handed a credit in lieu of money. It’s not that great of a deal.

John: Yeah. Weirdly, I would say, coming from Broadway, where I’ve just been at these producer and investor things, that is very true in Broadway. Like, all those names you see above the title of a show on Broadway, those were people who were, like, investing money. They would be like the executive producers who are coming in with money on a feature, but they all get their names on there.

And I really don’t want our movies to get to that point. I hope it doesn’t happen.

Craig: Me too.

John: Yeah. Let’s quickly talk through the ranks in TV, because it’s different and really confusing. We’ll try to talk through it. I’ll also link to it. I found I had an old blog post from 2004, and it’s actually accurate. So, I’ll talk you through it now, but you may also want to look at the show notes.

The highest rank in TV, executive producer. Now, the executive producer, whoever is running the show, the show runner, is usually an executive producer — not 100 percent of the time, but usually that person is the executive producer.

There can be multiple executive producers. You could have three or four people listed as executive producer. But that’s the highest rank.

Below executive producer, co-EP, which is confusing, because, you’d think that co-EP means the same thing as executive producer. It doesn’t. It means co-EP, it’s just its own title.

Below that, supervising producer. Below that, producer. Below that, co-producer. Below that, story editor, below that, staff writer.

Now, in that TV ranking that I gave you right there, that’s sort of the writers’ version of it, because most of the producers you think about for TV are actual writers. They’re doing the writing on the show and they’re doing the creative supervision of the show.

There’ll be other people who get producer credits on a TV show who are doing those physical production functions. Kelly Manners is a famous line producer type person for TV who did Angel, who’s done a lot of the sci-fi action shows.

Those people have titles, too, and those could be associate producer, or an executive producer. They could have other titles like that, but because TV tends to be so writer-driven, most of what I’m talking about in TV is really the ranks that you ascend through as you become a more and more powerful writer.

Craig: And what are pods? Tell us about that.

John: PODs are producer overall deals. A POD deal is with, generally, a non-writing producer who oversees a show on behalf of a studio, usually a studio or a network. Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen had a POD at Warner Brothers. They would come in and develop ideas with writers and set them up at Warner€™s and oversee the show as producers who are non-writing producers.

Generally, if you are, and I should specify… I have not been doing this TV writing for a few years now, so some stuff changes. Some stuff’s out of date. I rely on my TV writing brethren to correct me on stuff.

But if you are a writer who has a TV deal, your agents will often send you in to meet with a producer, one of those producers who has a POD deal, before sending you into the studio, the network, because they’re going to want to stick somebody on that show anyway. It’s better that you get matched up with somebody you agree with creatively.

Craig: Right.

John: Independent of this hierarchy on TV writers is also consulting producers. Josh Friedman, for example, is a consulting producer right now this season on Finder. That is generally a high level writer who is not on any specific show at the given time.

They don’t have their own series on this season, so they’re assigned to a show. They go on and they help out that show, they write episodes, they help write stories. They do a lot of great work on a show, but it’s not their show. It’s a way to keep those people in the fold and keep those people writing and keep better TV being made by applying them to a show that’s already going to be on the air.

Craig: That makes sense.

John: Yeah. Regardless of the actual titles you get, I find that there’s three basic roles that producers play. You may have amendments to this. But I find, no matter what the nature of the production is, somebody in the production has to play these roles. Sometimes you get them found in one person, sometimes they’re split up between three people.

But there’s the peacekeeper/diplomat. There’s one producer whose job is to make everybody feel better. That is the person who’s always going to be on the phone talking to the studio or the network, talking to the agents, talking to the actors, getting everything to feel good.

When the actors have a problem, especially if the actors have a problem with the director, there’s got to be one producer that the actor can go to to discuss the problem. That’s a crucial role.

Craig: Yes. Yes, for sure, producers, good producers are very parental. Movies are made by emotional artists. I don’t care what the movie is. I don’t care if it’s Ernest Goes to Camp. Everybody’s an emotional artist.

In order to be creative, you know, when people always say, “Oh, look at the imagination of a child. When did we lose that imagination?” Well, people who write and make and act and direct, theoretically, didn’t lose their childlike imagination or any of a number of hosts of childlike things that go along with that.

Sometimes, you just need a mommy or a daddy to help everybody play better, feel better about themselves, get over whatever drama or nonsense is going on at the time.

John: Yeah. Classically, this producer’s responsibility is to get the actor to actually come out of his or her trailer.

Craig: Yeah, sometimes, a producer has to undo a hissy fit. But, similarly, I think producers are the ones that sit down with directors and say, “Here’s the thing. The studio does not like the dailies, and we have to really think long and hard about what we’re doing here.”

The producer’s the one that sits down with the writer and says, “We just got notes back from the huge A-list actor, they don’t want to say these lines. So, we have to figure out how to get the dramatic intent across a different way.” The producer is the person in the middle of those problems.

John: Yeah. The second role that a producer often plays, or somebody on the production has to play, is the general, people that just sticks to the physical production, the, “This is how much it’s going to cost us to do this, this is today’s work, this is how much time we have left today.”

Your 1st AD is going to be doing a lot of that, getting the day’s work done. But in terms of getting the whole show done, or figuring out, “Okay, our script is taking place in these five countries, this is how we’re going to fake this country for that country, this is how we’re going to make our schedule work.”

It’s not just the AD’s job, it’s not just the line person’s job, it’s a semi-creative job and an ability to see how you’re actually going to get the movie made. Somebody on the production does that.

Some of the movie’s I’ve worked on, Bruce Cohen serves that function. I think it’s because he, in a previous life, was an AD, so he has a very good sense of, “Okay, this is how we’re going to get it done. These are the problems that are coming up. I’m going to deal with this crazy insurance situation and we’ll get the stuff handled.”

Craig: Yeah, and I would say, conversely, very good producers also understand that the essence of what we do is not to make a budget or make a schedule, but to make a movie. Sometimes, you’ve just got to break the rules and spend a little extra or go above or risk getting slapped on the wrist to get better work.

Somebody said to me the other day, and I thought it was very astute, there are two kinds of producers. There are anxiety buffers, and there are anxiety conductors. Good anxiety buffering producers will sort of see the pressure squeezing down on the director, usually, to get better work out of less time and money, and somehow, protect them from it and help the movie.

Because, in the end, the producer is that one person who needs to be able to play both sides of the field, business and creative. Whereas, the director, frankly, should be entirely concerned with creative and hey, if you want to give me 10 extra days and another 30 million bucks, yeah, of course.

Then there are the anxiety conductors, who get squeezed by the studio, amplify it, and then squeeze everybody else around them. That does not do anybody any good.

John: Yeah. I would say, related to the anxiety people are sort of dual functions I’ll call the bulldozer and the bodyguard. Sometimes you’re doing one or you’re doing the other one.

Dick Zanuck, to me, is classically a bodyguard. Dick Zanuck is a producer with tremendous credits who I’ve worked with on many movies. But I feel like a lot of his job is to serve as a bodyguard.

To say, like, anything that’s coming in Tim Burton’s direction, he will throw himself in front of and catch the bullet, so that Tim can focus on the work he needs to do and that Dick will take the hit and will figure out, like, what to do with this studio note, or just to keep people away from Tim. That’s a crucial function.

Likewise, sometimes you need a bulldozer. The bulldozer’s that person who has no shame and has no off switch. You can say, “Hey look, Paul, Paul. You see this ball in my hand? I need you to get this ball.” You throw the ball as hard as you can and he will knock down every building in the way to get it.

You need that person who’s delighted to break rules and to piss people off, because that’s, a lot of times, what you need. It’s the person who will risk getting the whole production stopped by the police, or will make those really awkward phone calls, because he doesn’t have filtering mechanism to stop him from doing that.

In the era of drugs, the bulldozer function was probably a lot easier. Anyone can be a bulldozer with the right narcotics.

Craig: I mean, they were all slamming into each other. You know, Hollywood is full of the legends of angry yelling producers who are screaming on the phone and throwing ashtrays at assistant’s heads and many of those stories are true.

It is an enormously difficult thing to make a movie. Enormously difficult. It is a business that must be built from scratch, ground up, tuned up to perfection, create this thing that absolutely works, and then be dismantled.

It has to be done on the fly, while you’re going, while temperamental people all around you are asking for something that’s intangible, namely, quality, and also, disagreeing on what that quality is. Everybody knows what it means to create a thousand widgets a day. It’s a number. We don’t have that.

It’s an enormously difficult task for anybody. Yeah, naturally, the people that often succeed are very loud and very dramatic and obstinate, but there are also producers who are known for quietly, magically, getting their way.

Frankly, depending on what the movie, depending on the director, different producers are better in different situations. As writers, typically, we don’t get to pick. And that’s where we can sometimes end up in trouble.

John: Indeed. The other function which I’d never really considered, breaking off here but I think it’s absolutely a good fourth role, is that sort of creative chaperone That’s the function that I think Judd Apatow ends up playing on some of the movies he doesn’t direct, which is that he is the guy that says, like, “Oh, let’s try this, let’s try this, let’s try this.”

It’s the person who reminds you, “Oh, this is what the movie’s supposed to feel like.” That’s the person who is helping out while you’re shooting. It’s the person who is taking a big role in editorial to get to the story, working the way it should, hopefully, early on in the process, was really working with you on the script to get stuff to feel the right way.

That was the function I played at the start in Prince of Persia, it’s the function I played in Go. Now, obviously, I was there during all the shooting, but also, in the editing room, it’s finessing stuff to make it feel like the right thing and reminding people what movie it is you’re trying to make.

Craig: Yeah, I wrote a draft for an animated film production now called Turkeys, and that’s what I’m doing now. I’m serving in that producorial role to help keep things going. We have another writer who’s working. The director and I read his work and we take notes and suggest and all the rest of it.

Interestingly, for most writers, that is the bulk of our experience with producers. Producers, even if you’re selling your own original work, typically, when you go to each studio, you have a producer, quote unquote, “bring it in.” You’re picking a producer to already assign to this project,

If it gets bought, that person will help you develop the material. If it’s an assignment, there’s always a producer already attached. That producer will be the one that’s primarily working with you to develop the draft.

John: Yeah. Now something listeners may not be aware of is that sometimes a studio will develop a movie with producers who were involved with the project originally, but the studio does not feel that they can actually deliver the movie. The producer will go out and put another producer on a film. That happens because the studio has a track record working with a certain producer and believes that he or she can actually develop something.

Sometimes you’ll hear something like, “Oh, he got put on a movie.” That’s because this is a person they had a relationship with, and they really felt more comfortable making the movie knowing that this person was going to be on the film for them. That person is truly a producer. It’s not a studio executive, but it’s somebody who got brought in to help on something.

Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen were brought in on Milk, which was a movie that the studio wanted to make but they didn’t have people they felt could deliver the movie for Gus Van Sant. They came in to do it.

Craig: Yeah, and this is where as a director I always felt like the best situation would be to have the bodyguard kind of producer because if you get the studio’s producer, you just have to be aware of where they land in the big game of things. This is the tricky part. Who do you work for? In the end, we all work for the people that sign our checks. But the writer and the director also work for this other thing called the movie, which we hope is good.

You want very much to make sure that your producer is working for the movie. Unfortunately, there are times when that’s not the case. I’ve been pretty lucky. I’m working with producers right now that I think are terrific and absolutely are in line with supporting the movie. When I work with Todd, he’s the producer along with Dan Goldberg. The filmmaker is the producer, and this is no problem at all.

John: A while back I had an interesting run-in. I was visiting a set, and I was talking with one of the producers in Video Village. I asked him, “Oh, hey, is Universal taking this movie all by themselves or are they splitting it with somebody else?” because this being a pretty expensive movie. He’s like, “Oh, I don’t know.” He asked somebody else. I was like, “You are a producer on this movie, are you not?” He had no idea.

Craig: Yeah, that’s not cool. [laughs]

John: No, I feel like if you’re going to get a producer credit, you should understand who’s releasing your movie, like those basic fundamental business things. I don’t care what role you play on the movie. If you have a producer title, you should know that.

Craig: Well, the job has changed. Here’s the basic evolution of the feature film producer: It used to be that they ruled the world. I mean every studio had multiple producer deals. These producers were very well compensated. Studios made a ton of movies, and they desperately relied on these producers to provide them with that material — to find it, grow it, and provide it to them. That’s changed.

Studios have become far more adversarial with these producers because they feel like a lot of their deals are far too rich for what they get. There are fewer producers because they make fewer movies. The recent strike, for instance, was a chance for them to force majeure out. A ton of their producing deals they just didn’t feel were worth their time or their money.

They tend to look at producers more and more like employees of the studios opposed to independent operators. They tend to look at producers more and more as agents of budget squeezing and schedule enforcement as opposed to creative partners with the filmmakers. Some studios just don’t seem to like producers at all. They think they’re the producers.

All of this adds up. Unfortunately, for writers it adds up to a very unstable environment. A lot of times you can’t quite tell who it is you’re working for. You can’t quite tell who’s in charge. Everybody’s competing internally. It becomes particularly difficult when the producer and the studio are not working together creatively because you just start getting pulled in two different directions.

For me, personally since I began, I’ve always had a simple rule. I don’t mind notes, but I like one set of notes. I don’t want producer notes, then studio notes, then producer notes, then studio notes. It’s a way to basically ruin your movie in three months.

John: Yeah. Really the problem comes even before it gets to the notes stage because if you’re going in for a job… Let’s say a producer bought a book at a studio. That producer is meeting with you to talk about, “Oh, how are you going to adapt this book?” You end up having meetings with this producer to say, “Okay, this is what we’re going to focus on, and we’re doing this.”

You end up spending a lot of time working with that producer to figure out how you’re going to do it. Hopefully, you’re the only writer who is going in to talk on that thing, but maybe there’s other writers, too. Then you’re going in to talk to the studio to pitch your take on this project. The studio may say yes or may say no. Or the studio may have completely different instincts than the producer did.

Craig: Yeah. [laughs]

John: Whose instincts are you supposed to follow? The producer ultimately just wants to get the movie made, so the producer is really looking for, “Well, what does the studio want? I’m going to somehow magically read their minds, or I’ll just call them on the phone and try to get them to say what they want.”

It’s just functioning as an extra step before you’re getting in to talk to the people who are actually going to make the decisions. The producer’s not making any decisions at all. The producer’s just basically saying, “I will bring in people, and hopefully you will like somebody.”

Craig: Yeah, it’s very important to understand the economics of producing movies to understand the decisions that are made. Writers are paid for the work that they do. It doesn’t matter if the movie gets made or not, to the great chagrin of the producers. “You want me to write a script? Pay me. I’m paid. I’ll write a script.” You decide if you’re going to make it or not or if you want me to do another draft or want another writer to do a draft.

Producers are paid almost nothing until the movie gets made. This is why producing is becoming incredibly difficult. They just don’t make that many movies anymore. The opportunity to get paid has shrunk down dramatically. The stress level therefore for producers, when they’re developing material, has skyrocketed. They are desperate to get these movies made so that they can support themselves and their families. I get that.

In that desperation bad producers tend to make bad decisions. Good producers frankly tend to make good decisions because they understand that the way to get a movie made is to stop caring about getting the movie made and start caring about making a good movie. [laughs] Those are two different things.

But if you have one of those producers that is just hell-bent on getting it through the system, just put it out there, just dump it out there so I can get paid, you end up in a bad place because sooner or later everybody starts to realize that this particular space shuttle is losing heat tiles. This thing was glued together. It wasn’t [laughs] really built right. Then you perish in a ball of fire.

John: Yeah. Along with desperate to get this one particular movie made and make whatever compromises have to be made to get this one movie made, the producer, seeing that there are fewer movies getting made, is incentivized to step up to the plate as many times as possible. The producer has many more irons in the fire and is trying to strike them all just to make one of them actually work.

The amount of time that he or she is able to spend on one given movie is lessened. The amount of time and energy that person has to devote to getting that next step of the movie happening can be diminished as well. My frustrations with movies that haven’t gotten made or have gotten made poorly, sometimes I can pin it on the studio. But a lot of times I really can pin it back on producers not doing their job. I feel like they need to be doing their job.

Producers theoretically should have the ability to take a project out of a studio, too. If a producer came into a studio with the rights to something, to a book or to a remake of something, the studio is optioning those rights for a time. The producer may own some things. The studio may own some things. But that project should be able to travel outside of that studio if it becomes clear that this studio is not going to make this movie.

Unfortunately, producers have fifteen deals on other projects with that studio. They’re loathe to anger the studio by trying to execute turnaround, which they should have — turnaround being the process by which they can reacquire something — to take that project and travel with it to someplace that may actually make that movie.

Craig: Yeah, it’s really difficult for them. I mean look. Put yourself in a producer’s shoes. Let’s say you’ve worked on developing a script for three years. The writer’s been paid. You haven’t. But finally the studio is willing to make the movie. It’s just that they won’t make it unless you do A, B, and C to the movie, and A, B, and C are terrible ideas. What do you do?

You just pack it up? You go home? Or do you compromise? Do you sell out? Do you try and broker some sort of better idea? It becomes a very difficult thing for producers and becomes a difficult thing for everybody involved.

Frankly, they don’t even have the security anymore that they used to have of just what they call the housekeeping deal. Many of them don’t even get their offices and assistants paid for. It is a high-wire act to be a producer. I’m not one of those writers that vilifies producers. Good producers are fantastic — fantastic, and absolutely necessary. The way the business is structured now, I just don’t know why anybody would want to become a producer.

John: I don’t either. I see feature writers who segue into producing. I don’t get it because the only movie I was a producer on that I didn’t write was Prince of Persia. I found the process maddening because here’s what it is: It’s like I’m sitting with Jordan, and we’re working through drafts, it was like, “Okay, here are the controls of the airplane. Now you’re not allowed to touch the controls, but you need to tell Jordan how to fly the plane.”

Craig: [laughs] Right.

John: It’s like, “Oh, just give me the controls. Let me fly the plane.” Jordan was awesome. I love Jordan. I can’t even imagine what that process would be working with a writer who you didn’t respect and like going into it. It ends up being a tremendous amount of time. You end up using the same parts of your brain that you would use to do real writing. It’s just that you’re not allowed to actually touch the paper.

Craig: I totally agree. Writers fall into this trap all the time. Every single one of them always comes back and says, “This was a huge mistake.” We like the idea of being producers because producers have typically represented power to us. We think we’ll be a producer now. We’re that guy. We have the shingle and the sign and the people working for us in the hallway at a studio and look at us and hooray.

Then you realize this is not great. You’re exactly right. I got into the business to write screenplays, not to tell other people how to write their screenplays. In fact, I would argue that writers are terrible producers because we’re writing it in our heads. We don’t have what a good producer has. They can’t write. If they could write, they probably would write.

What they can do is be a really good reader and a really good shoulder to cry on and support us and help us get where we need to go. They’re not sitting there trying to get us to write the script in their head because that’s what I do. [laughs] I’m talking to other writers.

Producing for writers to me, it’s just my opinion, is a trap. I don’t think it’s even helping the writers. I think the best thing would be for studios to be more encouraging of good producers. But unfortunately it seems like the trend is going the other way.

John: Yup. Alas.

Craig: Alas.

John: Alas. Well, Craig, thank you for this discussion of producers.

Craig: Thank you.

John: I look forward to calling all my producers awkwardly after this podcast runs so they think like, “Oh, you weren’t talking about me.” I’m like, “No, no, no. That’s…”

Craig: [laughs] “No, no, no. You’re one of the good ones.”

John: “You’re one of the good ones, yeah.”

Craig: [laughs]

John: If I didn’t single you out by name, I lumped you with the good ones.

Craig: [laughs] I’ve actually been pretty lucky. I haven’t worked for…

John: I’ve worked for some terrible producers.

Craig: Really?

John: I have enough credits and stuff that’s not made that I can just generically say that I’ve worked for some just terrible producers. Terrible producers. Some who were far too meticulous and, “Turn a page. Fifteen notes on this page. Turn a page.” “Oh, my God. Just make the movie.” Others who you can’t get them to lift up the phone and call somebody.

Craig: Yeah, I’ve been lucky, I have to say. Maybe it’s just that I steer clear when I smell trouble but…

John: But you’ve worked for some amazing executives.

Craig: Aha, well. [laughs]

John: Maybe that makes up the whole difference for it.

Craig: Yes, it does.

John: It does. All right. Thank you, Craig. Talk to you soon.

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: All right. Bye.

Craig: Bye.

Zen and the Angst of Kaufman

Episode - 18

Go to Archive

January 3, 2012 Scriptnotes, Transcribed

Craig and John look at the year ahead, from resolutions (we don’t have any) to reunions (20th!). Along the way, we discuss archery, piano and left-hand weakness.

The bulk of the episode is a discussion of Charlie Kaufman’s BAFTA speech about screenwriting and screenwriters, artistry and artifice. Which of us comes down on the side of self-examination and the purity of intentions? The answer may surprise you!

LINKS:

  • Austrian wines
  • Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert M. Pirsig
  • Zen in the Art of Archery by Eugen Herrigel
  • Zen Driving by K. T. Berger
  • BAFTA: British Academy of Film and Television Arts
  • Charlie Kaufman speech at BAFTA
  • Transcript of his speech as a .pdf
  • Craig’s short story Lightning in a Bottle
  • John’s short story The Variant
  • John’s short story Snake People on Kindle
  • INTRO: HBO 1983 intro
  • OUTRO: Man in the Mirror (Acoustic) by James Morrison

You can download the episode here: AAC.

UPDATE 1-9-12: The transcript of this episode can be found here.

What do producers do?

December 20, 2011 News, Producers, Scriptnotes, Transcribed

Craig and John explain what producers do — at least, what they’re supposed to do — and discuss the myriad subclasses of producers that litter the opening titles of many movies.

Which is the more impressive credit — producer or executive producer? In film, it’s the former. In TV, it’s the latter. But whatever the title, producers are integral to getting a movie or TV show made.

Craig feels producers can be either anxiety buffers or anxiety conductors. John breaks down four essential roles you find producers filling:

  1. The general. This producer keeps things moving forward and protects the production. She forces you to make decisions.
  2. The diplomat. This producer makes sure crazy people feel respected, even when they’re being giant pains-in-the-ass. He talks the actress out of her trailer.
  3. The creative. This producer reminds everyone what kind of movie they’re trying to make. She performs quality control for the production.
  4. The bulldozer. This producer will smash down a phone booth to help the director get his shot. (This actually happened.)

Some producers can fill multiple roles (like diplomat-creative), but you’ll often find these qualities spread out among several people on a production, regardless of the size.

Who’s that fat cat, and how did he afford such a fancy cigar? Find out on episode seventeen of Scriptnotes.

LINKS:

  • Producer credits and what they mean
  • Producers Guild of America
  • Kelly Manners on IMDb
  • INTRO: The Weebles
  • OUTRO: What More Can I Say (Falsettoland) performed by the San Francisco’s Gay Men’s Chorus

You can download the episode here: AAC.

UPDATE 1-4-12: The transcript of this episode can be found here.

Scriptnotes, Ep. 16: Thirteen questions by Daniel Barkeley — Transcript

December 15, 2011 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 you are listening to Scriptnotes episode 16, yet another podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

I should correct or amend, a friend of mine was listening to the podcast. He says, “I’m not a screenwriter and I find the podcast interesting. So you need to stop saying that header thing.”

I felt that just because we might be interesting to screenwriters doesn’t mean it’s exclusively intended for screenwriters.

Craig: No!

John: You’re welcome to listen to this if you’re a nurse, for example.

Craig: Yeah. I mean, dresses are made for women but men can wear dresses.

John: Absolutely. It’s completely your choice.

Craig: That’s right.

John: This is in the digital world. Listen to whatever you want to listen to. That’s really the goal.

Craig: Yeah. Why should we stop saying that it’s for screenwriters because you like it and you’re not one? Look at this. I’m doing everything I can to lose listeners.

John: Yeah, you really are.

Craig: Yeah, I’m the worst.

John: Yeah. I should explain to you listeners that often Craig will sort of ramble at the start of these podcasts and we’ll have to snip thing out, because we’ll always end up talking about terrible things about tragedies that happened during the second World War to certain groups of people. It just never really plays well in the podcast. So I’m always flagging to Stuart, “Maybe you could lose that little part of what Craig said at the header here.”

[laughter]

Craig: I won’t do it today.

John: Good. A little bit of housekeeping before we get started. This is Episode 16 of Scriptnotes and I keep getting confused about what number we’re on because you and I did some episodes that got thrown out because they were terrible.

On iTunes, only the last 10 episodes are listed. So someone who is coming to the show for the first time, they think, “Oh, they have 10 episodes recorded.” No. In fact we have more episodes recorded and you can find them all at johnaugust.com/podcasts to see everything that we’ve done and listen to everything that we’ve done.

Craig: Yeah. Dig deep into the archives.

John: Indeed. And if you’re digging deep into the archives, you’ll also see transcripts for all of our previous episodes. And not every podcast is going to give you a complete transcript of everything that’s said.

Craig: But ours does.

John: We do. Craig, you meticulously check the transcript to make sure it’s exactly what you said, correct?

Craig: I pour through it. Well, first of all, I do the transcripts myself. John pays me $33. I do the transcripts. It takes me about six hours.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Then I recheck it and then we put it up. I try and put back in the stuff about the Holocaust that he takes out.

[laughter]

Try and edit that out, Stuart.

John: Ugh. And here’s the best part about our conversation right now is a day from now somebody, I presume in India, is going to be transcribing this conversation about the podcast being transcribed.

Craig: I mean no offense.

John: No. But I think it’s kind of great. I think it’s just wonderful that there’s a cycle of digital creation in the world that hopefully is making this profitable for someone to transcribe.

Craig: Somebody somewhere should be making money off of this because I’m not.

John: No, I’m not either.

Craig: Yeah.

John: A podcast — people are interested in like, “Oh, I want to do my own podcast.” A podcast is not expensive in any real way. I mean, Craig and I had to buy our microphones and that was kind of it in terms of actual hard costs.

Craig: Yeah. Although you made me buy this $16,000 microphone. I don’t know why. John insisted that we both get this very rare Neumann microphone that was used initially at the old RCA. I think Toscanini used it for recordings.

John: Yeah. If you want a visual for it, it has the springs all over it and it would be very good if you’re a lone singer at a USO Show and you’re on a spotlight. This is the kind of thing you might do. Or if you were George Clooney and you were making Good Night, and Good Luck. It’s the kind of microphone that the woman would sing into in Good Night, and Good Luck.

Craig: Yeah. We always go vintage. We don’t like…

John: The other thing the microphone is fantastic for is recording all the bus noise outside Craig’s window.

Craig: Well, it was designed originally for bus noise.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Interesting fact.

John: It does that really well.

Craig: By Germans.

John: By Germans.

Craig: Right before that thing they didn’t do.

[laughter]

You should have never said anything.

John: Yeah. Craig, I think you wanted to bring up our first sponsor. Our podcast has its very first sponsor this week.

Craig: Yes, yes!

John: I’m so excited to be able to introduce this, a sponsor who will pay us absolutely no money.

Craig: That’s right. He’s not really a sponsor because we have no costs, but our mutual friend, Derek Haas, a terrific screenwriter who works with Michael Brandt. They’ve written movies like 3:10 to Yuma and Wanted. Derek is a novelist as well. He is writing a series of books based on a hit-man character and his latest book, Dark Men, is out. You can get it on Amazon. Dark Men by Derek Haas, H-A-A-S.

If you’re saying, “That’s not right. It should be Derek Haas,” correct, but he insists on pronouncing his last name Haas. I have to say, look, you change your name because people didn’t pronounce it correctly. Haas seems like the worst choice of pronunciation for that name. You just imagine what a fourth grader does with that. But he insists.

John: Derek’s also from Texas so I think that explains a lot.

Craig: Oh, you think it’s easier in Texas to walk around with the name Haas?

John: Well, I think you also might just make bad choices if you’re from Texas.

Craig: Oh, I see. Well, listen, Texas is a big place now. Our friends in Austin, for instance —

John: Our friends in Austin are fantastic. There are many awesome things in Texas. I just feel like if you’re going to be in Texas, maybe Haas really is a better way to pronounce your name because it might be the more natural way people are going to say your name anyway.

Craig: It matches the drawl.

John: It matches a little bit of a drawl.

Craig: Well, Derek, I hope you got your money’s worth. I hope you got your zero dollars worth from that bit of promotion, most of which was spent on how ridiculous your name is.

John: Yes. We will include a link to Derek’s book on Amazon in the show notes. Every episode of our podcast has a list of links. You can go to the actual post on the site johnaugust.com and find this post, and you’ll find a link to it. You’ll also find a link to Popcorn Fiction, which is the short story collection that Derek initially created and I think, introduced to maintain that editorial control over…

I wrote a short story for that. You wrote a short story for that.

Craig: That’s right.

John: Many screenwriters have written short stories for that. That’s another Derek Haas creation.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Derek, by the way, somehow is able to write all the movies for Brandt and Haas and write fiction on top of that. That seems kind of crazy and impossible.

Craig: Well, Derek has this thing, or maybe it’s that he doesn’t have a thing that I have, which is a neurosis. He is the least neurotic writer I have ever met in my life. He’s happy. He sits down to write and he writes. He doesn’t sit there and torture himself and then suddenly novels are done and scripts are done. It’s remarkable.

One of the happiest people I know. I don’t get it.

John: Yes. Some part of his brain got burned out early on. I think they reached up a wire through his nose and shocked the little part of self doubt. And God bless him. We have Derek Haas to —

Craig: By the way, if they offered that as an elective surgery, I would absolutely do it.

[laughter]

John: You would completely take it.

Craig: I feel like my brain is mostly that thing.

John: Yeah.

Craig: Yeah. Self recrimination.

[crosstalk]

John: The self doubt and…

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah.

Craig: It’s great.

John: Our last podcast was talking about residuals. We got some good questions and we already provided some good answers I think on residuals.

Craig: Yeah.

John: But we got really just an amazing essay, which I’m going to call now Thirteen Questions by Daniel Barkeley, which feels like a short film — or actually a long film — that you’d find at the Sundance Film Festival, but is in fact a series of questions by Daniel Barkeley, all of which were worth answering. So I thought we would just quickly power through Thirteen Questions by Daniel Barkeley.

Craig: Do it.

John: Do you need a breath? Do you need a drink of water?

Craig: No. Although I remember that some of them were about TV and I’m a little fuzzy on that so I’ll say “Pass” for the ones I don’t immediately know the answer to.

John: I looked up answers kind of for the TV ones.

Craig: Okay.

John: But we’re going to do our best. That’s what we’re going to do.

Craig: Good.

John: We can’t promise more than our best.

Craig: No.

John: “In television, how is the residual allocated between the Created By, Storied By, and Teleplay credits?”

Craig: Can I guess?

John: Guess.

Craig: I don’t think Created By gets any residuals. I think Created By gets some sort of pass of payment that’s negotiated individually by the writer and that all of the residuals are attached to the story and the Teleplay By.

John: That is correct.

Craig: Woo! Ding-ding-ding!

John: Ding-ding-ding! And the split is the same as features, which is the next thing we’re going to talk about. “So how is the percentage credit on a film or TV episode determined?”

Craig: 25 percent of residuals are attached to Story or Screen Story By and 75 percent of residuals are attached to Screenplay or Teleplay By.

John: What a perfectly concise answer, and actually correct.

Craig: Thank you. Woo!

John: Question three. “The Hangover Part II used characters created by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore. Did Mr. Lucas and Mr. Moore” — I love the Mr.’s in there.

Craig: Misters, yes.

John: “…receive residuals for Hangover II?”

Craig: They do not. The Characters Created By is part of a separated right. If you are the credited story writer, so if you receive Story credit or Written By credit for an original screenplay that is produced, on all sequels you will receive contractually a Characters Created By credit. That credit comes with no financial attachment whatsoever.

John: Yeah.

“Who pays residuals when Go airs on HBO?” — And Go has been airing on HBO quite a lot, so hooray. — “Is it HBO that pays the WGA or is it the producer of the film or the original distributor of the film?”

The answer is it is the distributor of the film. So there is one entity who is responsible for paying residuals, and that is the entity that has the, in this case, home video rights to the movie Go. So in this case it’s Sony or Columbia TriStar or some giant shell corporation.

Craig: Is that right?

John: You don’t think that’s right?

Craig: Well, I’m just wondering because I always thought that the people who paid were the people that employed the writer under a WGA contract. If, for instance, one company employs the writer and produces the movie, and then another company simply distributes it, I think the employer pays the residuals.

John: You could be correct. In the case of Columbia TriStar, they are on entity so therefore that could be a little bit murky. I’m also, though, going based on The Nines, which is a movie that we independently produced and then we sold to Sony Newmarket. Sony and Newmarket, which is really just Sony, is responsible for handling all the residuals on that movie. And me and the production company are not responsible for the residuals.

Craig: That’s right. Because what happens is, yeah. There’s something called an assumption agreement and it gets really complicated. But once they buy it and they purchase it, they have to do it under a WGA deal. For instance, on The Nines, they didn’t just buy the movie. They also bought the screenplay.

Once they buy the screenplay, then they are the owner and they are the WGA employer. I believe it’s the WGA employing entity. So either way, it’s never the “producer.” It’s always the company that’s actually making the WGA deal, I believe.

John: Yeah. And it’s not HBO. It’s not the people who buy the movie.

Craig: No.

John: It’s the people who are showing the movie on a channel.

Craig: Certainly not, no.

John: It’s not, yeah.

Craig: It would be the people that hired the writer and produced the movie, usually one in the same.

John: Yeah.

Question number five. “I often heard it said that writers/producers ‘have a piece of the show.’ How is this distinct from residual payments?”

Craig: Well, a piece of the show is some sort of profit participation. You are a part owner of the show so when receipts come in that are above and beyond costs, and there are all sorts of ways of defining that, people who have a piece of the show get paid a portion of the money the show generates.

Residuals have nothing to do with whether the show is in profit or not. They are simply attached to exhibitions or repeat showings of something. Having a piece of the show is something that you negotiate individually. Residuals are something that are already negotiated as part and parcel of the union contract.

John: Yeah. If there’s nothing else to take from our repeated discussions on residuals, it’s that you get residuals no matter how successful the film is.

Craig: Right.

John: Whether it makes $5 at the box office or $50 million at the box office, you will get residuals. You’re more likely to get more residuals from a very successful run in post-theatrical life if your movies are incredibly successful. But the movie does not have to be profitable for you to see residuals.

Craig: But there’s probably some examples where I can imagine a movie that did fairly well in theaters and maybe just wasn’t a big seller on DVD. The writers of that movie could make less in residuals than, say, Mike Judge on Office Space, which made nothing in theaters and was massive on DVD.

John: Yeah. You know what? That actually was question number six. You kind of got ahead of us.

Craig: Hm.

John: His question was, “In film, it seems that the example John gave means that it is not uncommon to earn more in residuals than upfront payments. Is this a common experience in television as well?” So we were talking about film. In TV would you make more in residuals than you made on the first writing of a show? I don’t know.

Craig: Not anymore. I think those days are gone. It used to be that that could be the case, back in the days of the healthy network rerun. I think those days are gone. I could be wrong. Maybe we’ll hear from somebody that writes in TV frequently.

In movies, that would be the exception to the rule, generally speaking. Well, no. I take it back. In movies, if it’s a big hit I could definitely see you making more in residuals than in payments.

John: Definitely.

Craig: Yeah.

John: “Would you please discuss the differences between foreign levies and residuals?”

Craig: Yeah. Okay. So a big topic, and I’ll boil it down very quickly. So we have work for hire here. We don’t own the copyright to our work. The rest of the world doesn’t have work for hire. Not only that, the rest of the world thinks work for hire is a big scam and that, in fact, an individual must be the copyright or the author in law and in fact of any particular audiovisual work.

So in other countries, one of the things they do to reward authors for reuse of things it they charge a tax or a levy on blank media — cassettes, rewritable CDs, even hard drives, things like that — anything that people might be using to make copies of television shows or movies. That tax money in part is then parceled back out to the authors.

The problem is who is the author of Go? Is it John August or is it Sony? In the United States it’s Sony. In France it’s John August. So when they started collecting this money and we started looking for it, the MPAA here in the United States said, “Uh, we’re the authors so we’ll take that money.”

And the writers and directors who considered themselves both in authorship position on these movies, and foreign countries consider writers and directors both authors of movies, said, “No, no, no. That’s our money.” And essentially there was this massive threat of a lawsuit that would have ended up in The Hague for God knows how long.

So a compromise was struck. Over time I think we have moved to a place now where writers and directors receive half of the share of this money and the companies receive the other half.

In time, I think given the trend, eventually writers and directors will receive all of it, I think over time. In the meantime what it means is that every few months you might get a check. It’s not a lot of money but it’s some money, hundreds, maybe a couple thousand for more popular fare. That is sort of an aggregate amount of money that’s been collected from all of these foreign tax collection agencies.

John: Yeah. And the math behind it is crazy.

Craig: Insane.

John: You couldn’t possibly imagine it, because it’s not really tracking the success of one of your movies. It’s the success of your movies and the tax collections across a whole range of European countries. It is nuts.

Craig: It is nuts, and it also gets stranger for television, because a lot of times what they’ll do is they’ll re-chop these things up. I mean, Germany may buy a package of five shows and chop them up and make one weird long show out of it. Well, who gets the…? It’s crazy.

The bookkeeping is crazy. And frankly, the Writers Guild doesn’t do a particularly good job of getting this money to the people quickly. There’s a lot of controversy about whether the Writers Guild should be collecting this money at all because it doesn’t just collect money for Writers Guild members.

These countries collect those foreign levies on behalf of any author. That doesn’t mean just Writers Guild authors. It means non-Writers Guild authors. It also means, frankly, people who write and direct porn. Yes, porn generates a ton of foreign levies.

So the Writers Guild has become a collection agency on behalf of both Writers Guild members and non-Writers Guild members, which has led to a lawsuit, I think more than one lawsuit, and those are still wending their way through the system.

John: Yes. Thank you.

Craig: You’re welcome.

John: Question number eight. “Could you please discuss the new media residual that was gained in the last strike? Has it been a good deal for writers overall?”

Craig: Well, I mean, the feature side is easy. Is it a good deal? It’s better than what we had. We already had 1.2 percent of 100 percent for Internet rentals of movies. We got that in 2001.

In this last go-around, what they wanted to stick us with was 20 percent of 1.5 percent for Internet sales of movies. What we got was the equivalent of 40 percent of 1.5 percent for sales of movies. So we doubled the DVD rate for Internet sales.

Is that good for writers? Yeah. It’s twice as good as… Well, let’s put it this way. It’s twice as good as a terrible rate. So I don’t know what you’d call it, not great but not the worst thing ever?

John: Yeah.

Craig: But the streaming and the media, that stuff gets crazy.

John: It does get crazy. And you also have to consider if you’re doubling that rate for DVDs, the price points are also potentially a lot lower, too. So it may be less money actually coming into your pocket.

Craig: Yeah. There’s a bunch of factors. The price point may be a lower. We don’t know, frankly, if Internet sales will ever even come close to what DVD sales used to be.

My big hope is that, frankly, rentals are the things that capture the wave of the future, because we get a bigger piece of that. Even though that’s a smaller number, if rentals happen consistently and frequently, that could be a big upside for us.

John: Yeah. I want rentals. Just as a consumer, I want rentals. I want that media should be available to me when I want to see it and I don’t have to worry about holding onto it or storing it or doing anything.

Craig: Yeah.

John: I just want to be able to see the show I want to watch when I want to watch it.

Craig: Yeah. Now for television, it gets pretty complicated and there’s actually a pretty good rate for television streaming and reuse over the Internet. However, some of it is then qualified by the fact that they do this thing called imputed value, where essentially we’re talking about $2,800 for a year of streaming new programs over the Internet. It gets complicated.

If you go to the Writers Guild website, I think they do a pretty decent breakdown of how that works.

John: Cool.

“Have you two ever received a check from Netflix or Hulu’s reuse of your work? Who is paying the residuals in this case to WGA?”

That’s exactly like HBO.

Craig: Yeah, same deal. We wouldn’t get a check from Netflix or Hulu. Netflix and Hulu pay money… They don’t deal with residuals at all. They pay fees to the studios for the right to purchase those DVDs that they send out in the red envelopes or the right to host them and resell them on their servers.

The companies get this gross amount of money. It’s attached to a movie and they give us a piece.

John: Yep. And now currently — I actually don’t know the answer to this question — let’s say Netflix buys a block of Sony movies and Go is one of those movies. Are they splitting the money equally between the movies that Sony is selling at that block or are they apportioning for each play of Go on Netflix’s servers?

Craig: Our deal is structured so that every time your movie is rented you get a piece of the gross that that movie generates. However, I don’t believe the companies are restricted from doing the kind of deal you’re talking about.

If they did the kind of deal you’re talking about, somehow they would have to figure out, in some sort of lump sum arrangement, how to apportion that money. Because obviously Go deserves a certain amount of money and Moneyball deserves a certain amount and an Adam Sandler movie deserves a certain amount, and they can’t just make it equal across the board. That’s where it gets crazy. I don’t really know.

And frankly, that’s why the next few negotiations are going to be so difficult because the truth is no one really knows how the stuff is going to work. We have to smash a very mature contract to pieces and make a new one based on the way the market’s changing.

John: Exactly.

“What makes you think that new technology…” It’s always a bad sign when a question starts “What makes you think that?”

[laughter]

“What makes you think that new technology won’t enable the studios to escalate their underpayment shenanigans?” That’s a loaded question. “If a television program or film is re-aired on cable, it’s pretty easy for the guild or writer to determine how many times it was re-aired and what his compensation should be. With new media, there is no publicly accessible way to see how many times an episode or film has been downloaded or streamed.”

Some of that’s a good point, some of that I would take exception to.

Yes, one of the nice things about traditional broadcast and cable is that you can see, “Oh, that show is on HBO right now so I will get a payment for that.” It’s harder when it’s split across a whole bunch of different platforms. You don’t know how many times it’s actually being played. That I totally get.

But I don’t know that you’re necessarily going to know what the numbers were behind the cable deal or TV deal at the start.

Craig: Exactly.

John: You don’t know how much they paid Sony for the rights to show that show on cable.

Craig: That’s exactly right. The truth is, the part of the question that’s correct is the part that presumes that there are shenanigans. Absolutely there are shenanigans. They occur on a daily basis. The part that’s incorrect is presuming that it’s any more difficult to run those shenanigans with an old model than it is with the new.

What the guild has built into its contract along with the DGA and SAG AFTRA is the right to do something called a tri-guild audit, where the three guilds essentially force an audit of all of the signatory companies to check their books and to go through the accounting and make sure that we’re getting paid properly.

This is one of the great failings of the Writers Guild over the last 15 years, I would say. I don’t know the last time we actually imposed the tri-guild audit. That is part and parcel with the strange political culture at the guild that is fetish-ized appearance over results. We will go to strike to get a better rate on a deal that we aren’t checking.

I would much rather us spend the money to do these audits every year, and collect money that we are probably missing out on every year, as opposed to shutting the town down to try and improve our rate by some minuscule amount.

As I like to say, you can get 100 percent of nothing, it’s still nothing.

John: So, a true life example, here. For The Nines, we had to endure a motion picture television fund audit. And so, here’s how they audit an individual film: they came, we had to pull up all our boxes out of storage, and a guy sat at a table for two days solid with a laptop and went through every single file, checking everyone’s payroll, their time cards, and everything else like that. And at the end, gave us a bill for, like, $7,000 for underpayment on something.

Now, it was a pain in the butt for me. And it was kind of a pain in the butt for them. And we were able to negotiate it down, because there were disagreements about how some stuff was done, but they were enforcing their contract. They were making sure they were collecting every penny that they were owed, and that’s their job. And so, I would love to see a more aggressive tactic taken.

Craig: Yeah, and as you can imagine, when you’re dealing with three unions, each of which, maybe, have, I mean, for instance, the Writers Guild, I think it’s yearly income from dues and so forth, is somewhere in the 20 millions, you know, maybe 28 million dollars, let’s say.

28 million dollars isn’t an actual amount of money for, say, Fox. Does not exist, it doesn’t even compute. So, we’re talking about very small companies going into very large companies, and obviously, they’re going to resist these audits and do whatever they can. And, frankly, I think it should be job number one. I think we should be doing these audits, literally, it should be the most important thing we do. But, I’m not in charge.

John: No.

Question 11. “Are you aware of web only television series, such as Jane Espenson’s Husbands, or Lisa Kudrow’s Web Therapy?”

Why yes, I have. And I will put links to both of those on the show notes.

“For now, these seem to be passion side projects. But is it possible one day we will live in a cable-less world where there are thousands of shows online, all produced on a shoestring budget? Could it be, one day, that everyone will have their own show, but no one’s making much money?”

Again, that is not really a question we can answer, it’s really more a statement with a question at the end, not the answer.

Craig: Well, I mean, if you’re asking me to prognosticate, I would say, no. And the reason why is, people who are very good at what they do want to be recognized for it, because they will be recognized for it. So, if one person that’s making this terrific show that hundreds of thousands of people tune into because it’s really, really cool, somebody else is going to come to them and say, “You know, you could make a ton of money on ads and stuff.” And suddenly, there’s budget and there’s ads and the cycle begins again.

We always reward; attention is a resource. We don’t just spread resources out willy-nilly. The marketplace will draw resources to the stuff that deserves it, generally speaking. So, no, I don’t think we’re going to live in a time when everything gets equal attention, that just goes against human nature.

John: Okay.

Question 12. “How do you see film marketing evolving in the new media era during the home video window? In the old days, a writer’s film would be sold to HBO, HBO has an interest in promoting it, so it runs a few ads during its other programs. The fact that it’s playing gets put into TV Guides, newspapers, and to cable set top boxes across the country.”

So, the question’s really asking, with new media, how do we maintain the profile of big movies across the different platforms, I think?

Craig: Well, that’s a little scary. And I mean, movies, the studios’ marketing divisions rely heavily on television. And if television becomes fragmented to the point where no one’s seeing anything, then they obviously lose a massive tool.

Now, I will say, and I like using the word massive tool, when I talk about marketing.

John: I knew you did that, yeah. I can see the little glee in your voice.

Craig: Yes, yes, those massive tools. And I did start in marketing, so.

But look, let’s face it: it’s already happened. So, instead of companies spending 100 percent of their budget on television spots on three networks, they spend 100 percent of their budget on television spots across 80 networks. And, theoretically, the cumulative eyeball factor adds up. But, of course, you see movie ads everywhere on the Internet, all over the web. And then, there’s outdoor. And outdoor, I actually think, is going to become more important over time, because you can’t escape outdoor.

John: Yeah. Motion pictures are one of those things that you need to have everybody there your opening week. Your opening week is so crucial, that we’re going to continue to spend a ton of money on network TV, because that’s the only way you can sort of make sure to reach everybody all at once. And, to the degree that stuff gets fragmented, you’ll just have to buy up all the little different places that they could be watching something, to do it.

This is, I think, in marketing, or in ad buying, called a “roadblock,” where you’re buying a commercial on every channel at the same time so that at 8 p.m. on Monday, you’re buying out all the channels, so that you make sure that everyone is seeing your ad.

And you can do the same thing on the Internet. It’s called the Internet roadblock, where you’re buying massive ads on the top 20 sites, so that you make sure that everyone has been exposed to your thing on the same day.

And you’ll see some of that sometimes with other product launches. Like when Apple has a brand new thing. You’ll see a roadblock where they basically, they’re buying out everything on the New York Times, or they’re buying out a major ad on New York Times and all the other newspaper sites, same day.

Craig: I will also mention this other thing that is going to get worse and worse. The one advantage that studios have over car companies or Apple is that they own most of the delivery systems. So, as obnoxious as it is, these local news stories that are really just ads for the stuff that the parent company of the local news station is producing, it’s going to get worse. No question.

You’re going to see characters on TV shows talking about upcoming movies. You’re going to see, it’s going to infect everything, because it is becoming harder and harder to reach a unified audience.

John: Yeah.

Question 13, finally. “Craig, my web browser is full of Hangover two DVD ads for the December 6th release.” —

Craig: — See? —

John: — “Presumably, a big residual day is coming up for you. How soon after a film’s release on DVD do you get your first check?”

Craig: Well, there’s a formula, I believe it’s something like the company has — I think — six months following the beginning of the first quarter in which they receive grosses. There’s some very complicated thing. But the short answer to your question, my guess is something like a half a year later.

John: Yeah. So, my prediction will be, you will see a spike, and that will be like, “Oh, that will be a big check.” It’ll be actually the second check you get is going to be the big one. Because you’ll see, like, “Oh, there’s a bunch of things sold,” and then the next one is bigger. Based on other, bigger movies that I’ve sold.

Like the first check for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was nice and big. Like, “Oh, wow, this should be great.” And the second one was, like, “Oh, twice as big. It should keep growing.” And then it goes and it crashes and it does the familiar sort of long tail thing.

Craig: Yeah, I’m kind of, I’m very curious to see what happens. That’s actually, the Hangover II DVD is an interesting case study, because it’s one of the first ones that’s really promoting this UltraViolet concept, where the studios are doing their own digital locker. And it’s also an interesting test case just to see, just to check the DVD market itself, because the first Hangover was extraordinarily successful on DVD and that was two years ago.

Granted, it’s a different movie, it’s a sequel, it may not even, apples to apples, it may have not done as well. But I’m kind of curious to see what the effect of the allegedly eroding DVD market is on the sales of this one.

John: Yeah, UltraViolet is stupid. I just don’t think it’s going to work. I think it’s a bad name. I just don’t get it at all.

Craig: It’s, you know what? I used to think that I understood this good name, bad name thing. But, man, I say Blu-ray now, and I thought that was the dumbest name I’d ever heard of in my life. But now, when I say it, it’s like a thing.

John: Yeah. I mean, I didn’t like the name iPad, but now I can’t imagine them calling it anything else.

Craig: Well, everybody was “iPad, yeah, it’s tamponesque.” And yet, here we are, just like sheep.

John: Beyond the name, I just don’t think I want to trust these other new people to hold on to my media in any meaningful way. I mean, Apple, I get, I mean, Apple has reason, I believe Apple’s going to be around five years from now. I don’t know what UltraViolet is, I don’t know who those people are. It just feels too much like HDDVD or all those other things. It’s like, I’m waiting for the winner, and I just don’t feel like that’s going to be the winner.

Craig: That’s the thing. Because the truth is, anybody, look, I save all my screenplays on my Dropbox account. I don’t know who the Dropbox people are, either. But, so, it’s not like, security wise, or will it still be there? It’ll always be there, it’s the studios, they own the movies anyway.

The real thing is, who the hell are — most people don’t know it’s the studios. And studios, what they’re good at making and selling isn’t this. What they’re good at making and selling are movies and TV shows. I don’t think they’ve done, as far as I could tell, a particularly good job of convincing people that UltraViolet is this great new idea. It’s great for us as writers, in terms of residuals, if it takes off. But this is all, this is a war between the studios and Apple.

John: Yeah. It basically is.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Yeah. So, Craig, as we’re doing follow up, and some wrap up, too, we had a previous conversation about Follies, the great Steven Sondheim musical. So, two bits of exciting news that I think you’re going to be excited about. First off, the soundtrack to the Broadway production of Follies is now available on iTunes, and it’s great. It’s great. It’s actually really, really great.

Second off, and probably more exciting to you, Follies is coming to the Ahmanson in Los Angeles.

Craig: Well, it looks like we should go.

John: We should totally go.

Craig: I’m going to make you go again.

John: We actually have season tickets to it, because this is actually going to be replacing Funny Girl, because Funny Girl was supposed to be coming to Broadway.

Craig: I can’t go see Funny Girl with you. It’s just too gay. Sorry.

John: It is, it’s too gay.

Craig: Too gay.

John: So, Funny Girl got nixed. It got, it fell apart.

Craig: Why, do you mean, fell apart? Just the, no one wanted it, or?

John: No, it’s actually, this was interesting, because it was while we were doing our second Big Fish reading, for our producers and investors and theater owners and stuff. It was that same week that we were in rehearsals, Funny Girl fell apart.

So, it was Lauren Ambrose and Bob Cannavale to star in the show, and it was originally, it was going to do its out of town at the Ahmanson, before traveling to New York, to Broadway, to open. And kind of at the last minute, it evaporated and fell apart. And so, the Ahmanson was left with this big hole, for like, “Oh my god, what are they going to do for their production now?” And they’re going to take Follies. It’s great.

Craig: Nice.

John: Everyone loves Follies. Yeah.

Craig: All right, I’m there.

John: Cool. And I think we’ll leave it at this.

Craig: Yeah.

John: Craig, thank you for a lot of good follow up today.

Craig: Thank you, John, and thank the great questions.

John: All right, absolutely. That was Daniel Barkeley, who did, really, the heavy lifting on today’s show.

Craig: Thanks, Daniel.

« 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.