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

John August

  • Arlo Finch
  • Scriptnotes
  • Library
  • Store
  • About

Drew Marquardt

Scriptnotes, Episode 640: Can You Believe It?, Transcript

June 3, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The original post for this episode can be found here.

John August: Hey, this is John. Heads up that today’s episode has just a little bit of swearing in it.

Hello and welcome. My name is John August, and this is Episode 640 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, the advice to write what you know has become an empty cliché, yet on this very podcast, we’re often advising writers to think about what’s personal and specific to their experience when crafting their stories. Along that axis, we recently had Celine Song on to talk about the many autobiographical elements of her film Past Lives, which recounts and reframes her experience as a child and as an adult. But it’s one thing to reflect on the past and another to deliberately place yourself in a perilous spot in hopes of getting a story out of it. Today we’ll talk to a writer who did just that and what came of it. We’ll also answer listener questions about talking with managers and talking to yourself. In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, how do you set boundaries on material when you’re dating another comedian?

To help us through all that, let’s welcome our guest. Alex Edelman is a stand-up comedian, writer, and producer who has written for shows such as Teenage Bounty Hunters and The Great Indoors. His award-winning special, Just For Us, which has been touring all over the world since 2018, is out now on HBO.

Alex Edelman: Thanks so much for having me. It’s so cool.

John: Unlike many other guests who come on this show, you actually know what this podcast is.

Alex: Yes. When you join the WGA, that’s what happens. Howard Rodman puts a steak knife to your back. He’s like, “Do you listen to Scriptnotes?” I’m like, “Yes, yes, Mr. Rodman, I do, I do. I like it.”

John: People are so intimidated by Howard Rodman, because he has that presence, and so you had to pull out your phone and actually subscribe in your podcast app.

Alex: It’s the last step to getting health care is you have to actually subscribe to the podcast, to Scriptnotes. Look, I’ve always been interested in the craft. It’s such a silly, dumb thing to say. It’s like saying, “I like color.” But I’ve always been interested in the craft of writing. And the more granular, the better. Even the notion of what you were talking about, which is write what you know, I have a whole thing about the advice of write what you know, which I feel so strongly about. I love hearing writers talk about writing. I love conversations about craft. This is me speaking directly to the demographic of which I am most interested, which is also me, so I’m very excited to be here.

John: We both know Mike Birbiglia, but that’s actually not how we met. The true story is you were playing at the Taper here in Los Angeles, and friends had said, “Oh, you should go see it.” At the very last minute, 2:00 in the afternoon, I said, “Oh hey, let’s go see the show. There’s still tickets, a few tickets left.” My husband and I went down. Taped to my seat was a little envelope from you or your manager saying, “Hey, afterwards, come backstage.” I was so impressed that somebody was reading through the last-minute ticket sales and recognized my name. Well done.

Alex: Do you want to know what happened? Whenever I do New York or LA, I read the… I don’t have a manager, so it is me and also my crew. But I have an unfortunate tendency to miss friends and family who come, and then they get offended that I didn’t say hi. Now, I get a seat book about half an hour before the show. I don’t always read it, but if there’s family members coming or if someone I know is coming, but I can’t quite remember who it is, I’ll say to my stage manager, MC or Brian or Kathleen, the three folks I’ve worked with primarily, or Rachel – four folks.

But I think what happened was I had talked about the podcast or I listened to the podcast with one of my stage managers, and they went, “Hey, Alex, your favorite person’s here.” They were like, “John August is here.” I was like, “Oh, I wonder if it’s the same guy.” That was the impetus behind your note. But also, we let some people live their lives. They’ll be like, “Do you want to put a note on so-and-so’s seat?” I’m like, “That guy can just enjoy a quiet evening at the theater,” something like that.

John: You invited James Burrows back my same session. James Burrows, an icon, a legend.

Alex: Oh my god, I love Jim Burrows. I call him Jim because – no, I don’t know him well.

John: Because now you have a close personal connection after meeting him once.

Alex: Close friend. When I was writing on The Great Indoors, he was shooting on the lot Superior Donuts. I was at a garage sale. This will only be interesting to your listenership, and if it’s not, you can cut it out. But I was rummaging through a garage sale somewhere. And I found in this garage sale a Humanitas Prize certificate for an episode of Taxi called Blind Date, which is about Judd’s character in Taxi goes on a blind date, and she is overweight, and he treats her like a human being. That was so revolutionary at the time that it won a Humanitas Prize. I bought it for five bucks. It was literally five bucks. It was a garage sale. I brought it into work. I went down and I asked Bob Daily, who was running Superior Donuts and is a buddy of mine, I said, “Can I show this to Judd and Jim Burrows?” They both signed the Humanitas Prize certificate for me. I’m that much of a nerd.

But yeah, Jim Burrows is a legend. He shaped the face of sitcom comedy in the ’90s, ’80s, 2000s, everything. By the way, when I showed him the certificate, he’s like, “We actually shot that one with three cameras instead of four, and then we decided that three was better,” and walked me through the episode as if it happened last week instead of several decades ago.

John: I love when you meet these titans who have been in the industry forever and they’re still incredibly sharp. It’s none of that like, “Oh,” big stories about things, they can’t put stuff together. Clearly sharp as a pin and is thinking about tomorrow’s work.

Alex: Maybe this is a knock on me actually, but I’m very reverent of all of the older guys and gals and everyone in between. I hosted Norman Lear’s 100th birthday special for ABC. Getting to be in a room with Norman Lear, it’s really something. When Christopher Nolan accepted his Oscar, he said, “We’re 100 years into filmmaking. Think about how special it would be to be 100 years into music or painting.” Comedy is an even younger art form, essentially. Comedy is a very young art form. A lot of the people that built the face of it are still around or they died in my lifetime. I had the good fortune to be around a lot of these people. Mel Brooks is pretty sharp. I never was lucky enough to really have some time with Carl Reiner, but I was told he was very sharp. Norman was sharp as a pin all the way to the end, as far as I know. You’re just lucky to be able to share oxygen with these people.

John: We’ll look forward to another 90 years of your career, but let’s start back at the beginning, because before you did this show, you actually had a long ramp up. I’m curious where you start your story in terms of comedy. What were the first things you were doing in performing? You’ve done stand-up. You’ve written on traditional shows. You’ve done your solo shows. What’s the journey there?

Alex: Where do I consider my career starting? I guess in baseball, which is a really weird place. But I started at the Red Sox. I got a job when I was 13 years old. I wrote the Red Sox kids’ newsletter and just did general writing bits around the ballpark and got into the world that way and then fell in love with sports and then fell in love with comedy.

John: Back to the baseball. You were writing up what happened? Were you actually on the PA? What were you doing?

Alex: I wrote articles. I would stand in the press line and stuff like that or be in the press conferences in the back, scribbling stuff down. But I also worked in the office doing odd jobs and being a little amanuensis to this guy Larry Lucchino and this guy Charles Steinberg. Larry, who was a titan of the game himself, passed away actually last week. He was a really great guy, a really huge figure in the sport. They were amused by this kid who loved sports and loved history and loved writing and was always around.

They always found writing for me to do. I wrote a bunch of press releases. I’d write public address speeches. I wasn’t on the PA, but I was part of pre-game ceremony sometimes. This guy Charles Steinberg, who worked for Larry, had a flair for the creative. He would put together these elaborate pregame ceremonies to celebrate retirements or various other milestones. I was always part of dreaming up those ceremonies and executing them. It was very creative. It was a blast. To be an employee of the Red Sox between 2003 and 2007 when I left – they won two World Series, they ended this 86-year drought without a championship – it was really, really beautiful.

John: You’re doing this, and at what point are you moving from, “Okay, I’m writing stuff. It’s being printed places or being spoken aloud on the PA,” to working on stuff for yourself? What was the transition? Were you going to school for it? What happened next?

Alex: I was an Orthodox Jew, so I was going to yeshiva. I was in a low-key rabbinical school. Then I spent a year in Israel in a seminary there, thinking that maybe that was my thing. But it was stand-up comedy. I had gone to see this show called Comics Come Home that Denis Leary organizes every year, and still organizes it. They do it in a huge arena in Boston. I fell in love with comedy, and I started going to open mics at a pizzeria, at a music place.

John: How old are you when you’re going to open mics?

Alex: I’m 17 or so. It was dilettante-ish. I was writing around. I won a sports writing award here and there. I started fishing around. I got a summer job on the set of The Departed running drinks for the Teamsters. I was finding myself a little bit. But things really kicked into high gear in my last year of college. I spent my last semester of NYU, which was chock full of writing stuff – I had the best professors you could have. I had Zadie Smith. I had Nathan Englander. I had Jonathan Lethem. I had Darin Strauss, who was an English major, Megan O’Rourke, Susan Orlean.

John: Wow.

Alex: I had all-star lineup of professors. I’m extremely privileged in the education department. I am such a disappointment to so many of those people.

John: I want to talk about this. I want to go from open mics to NYU. When you’re at the open mics at the pizza places, what is your material? You’re 17 years old. You have a very interesting background as the Orthodox kid coming into these places. But were you talking about yourself or were you just imitating other comedy you were hearing?

Alex: It was terrible, wasn’t it? It was the worst, most horrible impressions of these Boston comedians. I’m sure you’ve heard this from other people on your podcast, but every time you get a great note… I love notes. I think they’re responsible for my work getting to a certain place. Whenever you get a great note, there’s a part in you that’s always known that it was true. There’s a little bit of you that, as soon as they start giving you the note, you’re like, “Yeah, of course. I knew that but was denying it,” or, “Yeah, of course, I knew that.” In the back of my mind, I was always like, “This isn’t really me.” But I was just trying anything I could to make people laugh. My comedy, there wasn’t much of me in it. But I was trying to get laughs. I had one good joke. I had one good joke that I limped along with.

John: Do you remember it?

Alex: Yeah.

John: Willing to share it?

Alex: The premise was I’d describe the scene from The Godfather where Sonny Corleone pulls up to the tollbooth. I would describe in graphic, long detail, “They’re spraying him full of bullets, and he gets out of the car, and then more bullets, more bullets, and he dies right there on the pavement.” After this long description, I go, “If that’s not the best commercial for E-ZPass I’ve ever seen.” Oh, wow, Drew likes it. Drew likes it, everybody. I was really terrible, but it was that one joke. At one point, I was at an open mic bombing, and a comic from the back of the room went, “Alex, tell your joke.”

John: Wow.

Alex: Which is so devastating and so true. I was just awful, but I was doing my best. Also, I think you need that time in the dark, that sort of incompetence where you’re too incompetent to know that you’re incompetent. It was the perfect time to start stand-up comedy, which is as a teenager.

John: Ira Glass has this speech where he talks about you have taste, but you don’t have talent, and you’re climbing both things at the same time. You probably had some taste, you knew what you liked, but you couldn’t do those things that you liked. You’re imitating. You’re trying to get there, and so you’re telling your one joke.

Alex: But you also don’t know what’s out there. Everything was within my very limited purview. I think I’ve always tried to see as much as I possibly can, because you never know what’s for you. People say write what you know. I guess we’re doing this.

John: We’re doing this. I think we’re into the meat of this now.

Alex: When people say write what you know, a good synthesis of that is what Norman always said, which is, “I’m just another version of you.” He would always say that to people, which is a handy thing to say if you’re doing a Latinx One Day At A Time.

John: Is this Norman Mailer, Mark Normand?

Alex: Norman Lear. Sorry, Norman Lear.

John: Norman Lear. Sorry, there’s too many Normans.

Alex: Sorry. Norman Lear would always say, “I am just another version of you.” He was really, really big on that humanist idea. The idea of write what you know to me always meant if you know humiliation, write humiliation. If you know fear or aspiration or a desire to fit in…

Everyone thinks that my solo show is about antisemitism, but I’ve always been insistent that it’s about the desire to assimilate and the cost of assimilation. No one will understand this more than you. What the story is versus what the show is about can be completely different things.

I didn’t really have exposure to good comedy for a while. I had exposure to some good comedy. Steven Wright would drop in sometimes, or I’d go see Brian Regan, or I once went to see George Carlin at the Cape Cod Melody Tent, although that memory is very fuzzy. I saw lots of comedy. The dominant culture in Boston was extremely regressive and extremely, looking back, kind of boring. There were only a few bright lights that stood out. I was off into it because of those comics.

John: What strikes me about stand-up comedy, unlike traditional writing, is that you have the immediate feedback of are people laughing or not. But you can also just become probably seduced by that laughter and just go back to your one joke, or you can get into these grooves and these ruts, that you’re just doing this one thing that is going to be successful for this thing, for this crowd, but it’s not actually pushing you forward, it’s not pushing your storytelling forward, it’s not getting you anyplace new. Obviously, going to NYU broke you out of some of that, and you’re being challenged by good professors. But when did you have a vision for what you actually wanted to do with your writing and with your comedy?

Alex: Such a perfect question, because the preamble is the thing that I always struggled to explain to people. Sometimes I’d come off stage at the Comedy Cellar, which is where I work on new material, and people will say, “Good set.” And I want to say, “No, it’s not a good set. I went up there wanting to try four or five new things, and I got a little scared after the second new thing didn’t work, so I shut it down and went back to the chestnuts that I know worked.”

If I never wanted to fail on stage again, I could do that. I have enough material. I have probably five hours of material that I know works bagged. I could if I chose to never push myself, never go on stage. Sometimes you go on stage and you come off and people are like, “Tough one.” I’m like, “I wanted to try two new things. I tried eight new things. Four of them worked. One of them did really well, and that’s money in my pocket.” It’s hard to explain that to people.

I really found it when I was in London. I went on stage with material. I don’t remember it, but it couldn’t have been very good. This was 2012. I was studying abroad. It was my last year. I was invited to do this show by this woman, Josie Long, who’s a great, great, great British comedian who now lives in Glasgow but also directs movies and writes short story collections. Truly probably one of my biggest role models. Josie had me on her show, which was called Lost Treasures of the Black Heart. It was at the Black Heart in Camden. You talked about forgotten heroes. It was a themed night. No one had told me it was a themed night, or I had forgotten. I showed up and I just did my normal material. It got laughs.

Josie pulled me aside afterwards in a very gentle way, was like, “Hey, just so you know, I think you’re maybe capable of more than that, than the clubby New York act that you delivered. Maybe you want to go and write something and just come back and try it in front of the friendliest audience you’ll ever be in front of.” I went away and I wrote something, and I came back and did it. I don’t know that it was great, but it certainly was the first time I felt a little more like me on stage.

My career really started in the UK. It was because I saw comedians who were a little bit more of an aspectus for me. I think that you can divide most, not writing, but most written products, film, TV, stand-up, even music, to aesthetic and content. It was the first time I had ever seen an aesthetic that worked for me, which was a long-form, thoughtful thing that the British-type solo shows that you see at the Edinburgh Festival and at the Soho Theater in London, which is a sort of theater that puts on these hour-long or 90-minute solo shows. Of course, with the best things, the aesthetic and the content are married to each other or they inform each other. As soon as I started seeing those aesthetic offerings, those shows, it completely changed who I was as a comedian. It really opened me up.

John: I’m picturing our audience here. We have a lot of people who are aspiring writers who are looking to do stuff down the road. At this point, you’re in London. You’re a senior at NYU. You’re studying abroad. Did you identify primarily as a student studying abroad or a comedian who’s at the start of your career? They’re kind of two different people.

Alex: I don’t think I cared as much about writing as I should’ve, or I don’t think I cared as much about collegiate writing as I should’ve. John Baldessari, who’s a conceptual artist, says that every young artist needs to know that talent is cheap, you have to be possessed what you can’t will, and you have to be in the right place at the right time. I’d always grappled with the first two, but I had this sense in London that I was in the right place at the right time. I hate the word “scene” but there was a scene going on. It was 2012, and these solo shows were having a moment.

I think a month into being there, I was at a bar. Not to be crude on your podcast, but somebody at the bar grabbed my ass really hard. I turned to the woman standing next to me, like, “Hey, will you mind helping me out? This guy’s got a pretty firm grip on my ass.” Not to be like, “And that was,” but that was Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Phoebe and I became really close friends. Phoebe was just working at Fleabag. I went to 12 different previews of Fleabag.

Just being amongst all of these great, genius people who were making the most fulsome versions of stand-up comedy to me was really intoxicating. I was a student of that when I got there. I sat and watched them do it for years before I tried it myself. That was 2012. I didn’t put my first solo show up until summer of 2014. I really took my time, because I really could see that this was the best version of what you could do. What I was doing by comparison was like a printer running out of ink.

I guess if you had to force an answer to the question, I guess I was subconsciously leaning towards it being a career, the comedy thing, instead of being a college student. But if you had asked me then, I don’t think I would’ve given you that answer. It always felt like a pipe dream to me. It still feels like a pipe dream to me. It really does. Being a staffed TV writer, being a professional stand-up, they all feel like impossible dreams still.

John: I do want to get to TV staffing in a sec, but first I want to talk about this format that you’re seeing, so Fleabag and these other solo shows. The difference between a solo show and a stand-up special or one comedian as a headliner, what is the distinction there? Is it because it’s all revolving around one central narrative? How do you distinguish between the two? You see the two things, and there’s a lot of overlap, but they do feel distinct now.

Alex: I always offer this. I try not to say this too much in public. I feel like I’m weirdly gatekeeping this. But if you’re listening to this podcast, then you’re probably my people. I always give this formula whenever I’m asked to teach anything solo show-related, that every solo show has four things, which is who you are, who they are, what happened, what’s changed. I think that’s bazillion-dollar advice.

By the way, I think I saw a tweet from someone. Who’s the guy who writes the Walking Dead? I remember reading a tweet of his years ago. He was like, “Something should happen in your scripts.” He’s like, “I’m reading lots of scripts where not enough happens.” He’s like, “There should be a story, like guy walks into a bar. Someone should do something, and something should happen.” I remember thinking, “That’s really interesting.” I don’t think my four things are informed by that, but I think in a really great solo show, something happens and something changes. One of those things can be way bigger than the others. By the way, those four things can be deeply submerged in your narrative. They don’t need to be the exoskeleton.

But if you think of your show as an essay, a college essay, with your setup and then three things and then a thesis, the setup should be where you start, three things should be something that happens, and your thesis should be summing it all up, seeing what’s changed by the end. The really great solo shows that I’ve admired have had that. Birbiglia’s shows all have that. He doesn’t want a baby in the new one, and then his wife’s like, “Maybe we should get a baby,” and then they have baby. Then that’s what’s changed.

John: Then he’s a dad at the end. I want to get back to your four points though. I get the first one, who you are, because you’re introducing yourself to the audience and who the character is that you’re presenting there. That’s very classic. But what do you mean by who they are? Is it framing the audience?

Alex: They can be different. They can be the world at large. They can be the group of people you want to be a part of. They can be your marriage. They can be the desire that you feel. Sometimes I explain the four things with Walking in Memphis. You know the song by Marc Cohn?

John: Um-hmm.

Alex: It starts with, “Put on my blue suede shoes, boarded a plane, touched down in the land of the Delta Blues in the middle of the pouring rain.” This guy’s off on this journey. Something’s happening. He’s like walking into a bar. Then he has all of these experiences. They are the people of Memphis. What’s happening is he’s immersing himself and trying very hard to become in and amongst this. He goes to Graceland, and he walks down the street, and he goes to Al Green’s church, which is something he really did. Marc Cohn really did that. He’s painting a picture.

Then the last thing he does, which wouldn’t work if it was the first thing, he sings at that café with the lady. It ends with a pretty good joke. She’s like, “Tell me are you a Christian child.” And he says, “Ma’am, I am tonight,” which is really a pretty solid joke for a Jew. Then the last line is, “Put on my blue suede shoes, boarded the plane, touched down in the land of the Delta Blues in the middle of the pouring rain.” That thing is completely transformed by its contact with the they.

The genius of the song is, who he is is Marc Cohn, the they is the people of Memphis, what’s happened is he’s changed by that, and possibly, because of that last verse, they’re changed by that a little bit. This guy walks into this bar, and the woman is like, “Do you want to sing a song?” He sings a song, which in real life was Amazing Grace, the only song he knew that she also knew. Everyone’s changed a little by it. What a beautiful thing that’s happened. That makes it unique.

The you is the person narrating, or your main character. The they is whatever world they’ve gone into. Bonus points if the world that they’ve gone into is one that they’ve used a lot of agency to head towards, because that’ll give you a much better what happened. Then the what’s changed is… Sorry to nerd out on it.

John: It absolutely makes sense. What I’m hearing is obviously we have the classic things setting up who you are. The character goes on a journey. They are transformed throughout the course of the journey. It’s a very much hero’s journey thing.

One thing I think is different about watching your shows and Birbiglia shows and really all the solo shows I’ve seen is that they are dependent on framing who the audience is who’s watching this performer, and there’s a conversation there, but it’s not the classic stand-up conversation, where we’re just waiting for the laughs or we are doing crowd work. It’s a very specific kind of conspiratorial, like, “You’re gonna come with me on this journey.” You’re inviting them to step into this place, which is different than what we would do in a normal stage show or in a screenplay. Obviously, you’re trying to get the audience involved and invested, but they’re also right there. You’re having to engage with them in ways that are very specific and different. I’ve done a Broadway show. Yes, the audience is important. You want them to laugh. You want them to cry and feel things. But they’re not part of the show the way that I think these solo shows need to pull people on stage with you.

Alex: What do you mean in terms of defining the audience? Having to speak directly to the audience as a form of direct address and direct where they are?

John: I’m thinking to your show specifically. We’re in the Taper, and you’re putting up your expectations of who the people are who have bought this ticket. I think you are calling out what this crowd is in Los Angeles, who these people are, and what you’re expecting they’re expecting out of you, is a thing that I noticed in these shows.

Alex: I’m just telling a story. In some ways it’s the rawest form, the most minimalist form of telling a story. The delicacy of that collective experience, the fact that at any point someone could stand up and ruin it makes it really special. That recursiveness is really fun for me.

But also, I wrote something – I can’t remember, one of the umpteen things that I’ve been writing or talking about in order to promote the special. I said that that sort of direct and immediate feedback loop is very rare. It’s like if DiCaprio got to look into the camera and be like, “Hey, this is the part where we hit the iceberg, and people get really sad here.” There’s a really interesting thing where you get to comment immediately on what’s happening.

But also, my favorite thing about the show or the form itself may be people not being sure entirely of the context. Should I be allowed the leeway that people aren’t yelling? My favorite moments are the moments that are very silent, very confusing, or where I tell the audience that I’m only telling you stuff that I think you’ll enjoy, and so the audience gets to wonder what they’re not getting.

I think solo shows can offer audience as a kind of mystique that a lot of other art forms can’t. I think the questions around the context and around whether or not you’re bringing the audience with you and how much is you and how much is them I think are probably one of the most special things about it. But I don’t know that stand-up comedy doesn’t have that too.

I totally understand when people draw a distinction between my show and stand-up comedy, but the truth is my last preview of the show before I brought it to New York City was at Comedy on State in Madison, Wisconsin. I did a comedy club where people bought chicken fingers and had a two-drink minimum and got a check.

I’ve always been really fascinated by people that can blur the line a little bit between genres. I’ve always thought my show was both heavily rooted in stand-up comedy and also absolutely theater. There’s a comic who I think is criminally underappreciated in Christopher Titus who used to do this. Colin Quinn does it. Mike Birbiglia does it. I’ve always liked stand-up and theater, and I’ve always thought a more expansive definition of both services the art forms better.

John: I want to talk a little bit more specifically about your show, your special. What is the short version? How do you describe it to somebody who’s going in, that doesn’t spoil crucial things?

Alex: The short version is about a guy, a Jew, me, who goes to a meeting of White Nationalists in Queens, and he sits there for a little while, and eventually, one of them’s like, “Sorry, but this guy’s a Jew,” and I’m like, “Yeah, I’m a Jew.” That’s roughly what the show is about. This real-life experience was the basis for this show. Of course, along the way, there are tangents into autobiographical stuff that I think is related to the narrative or conversant with the major narrative that has an underlying theme and is full of laughs, because I’m an entertainer first, so the show is like joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke, joke. But yeah, is this one narrative with a bunch of tangents, but never tangents on a tangent.

John: We talked at the start about writing what you know, but this is a case where you are deliberately putting yourself in a place, a position that is somewhat perilous with the intention of there’s gonna be material here, there’s gonna be a story to tell. Correct, or is that not fair?

Alex: If I’m being honest, I thought it was slightly too specific to ever become content. I just thought it was a fun story that I would tell my friends. Then I told enough friends that I respect who were like, “You’re doing this as stand-up, right?” I told my friend Danny Jolles, who’s a great writer and comedian. I told Morgan Evans, another great writer and filmmaker, and my friend Chloe. I told a bunch of people, and then eventually Adam Brace, who was my director and a playwright himself. Adam was like, “This is your show.” Adam was the one who stewarded it along.

John: What were they seeing in the stories that you weren’t seeing? What were they pointing out like, “There’s a journey here. There’s material here.”

Alex: I don’t know. Danny and another comic named Nick – Nick said something that made me think maybe it was a show, because I told him a thing, and then he responded with a punchline. I told him a detail from the actual moment, and he responded with a punchline to it. I was like, “That’s really good.” I was like, “That’s a really good joke.” Then I thought, “Oh, I want that punchline.”

I think every joke I ever tell has one reason for it existing, and it’s one moment in the thing. It’s either a funny face that you pull or a funny word that you say or a particularly interesting thought that you can somehow boil down to one line. There’s always a reason. I think Nick pointing that out – Nick Callas, really talented comic – he gave it really good heft. But I think Adam saw a thing that could unfold. Birbiglia, by the way, saw it more.

Birbiglia is the producer of the show in New York. When I told Birbiglia about the solo show, it was already a solo show. But Birbiglia went and saw it and was like, “You can pull out more. This can accordion out to something that’s more interesting, more profound.” I think the smarter people saw folds in that story that might be good, but it was Mike and Adam who saw different aspects to it. Adam saw something that maybe was tangentially geopolitical. Mike saw something that could speak a little to me as a person.

And then little notes from folks along the way. Billy Crystal is the one who suggested we move from a handheld mic to a headset mic. He said there’s theatrical potential in the story. I had lots and lots and lots of help from people who saw things in the story and provoked me, who offered provocations.

John: But because we’re a very process podcast, I want to talk about the process of going from, okay, you’re telling us an incident that you’re talking about with your friends, to, “This is a thing that I’m putting up the first temporary version of the show.” What is the writing process of going from that? At what point did you figure out structure and things? How early did you start showing that to people?

Alex: I had done maybe a joke or two about it in a stand-up set. But it was literally two, three minutes. It got some laughs. Maybe I told it on a storytelling night or something. But very special experience with Adam Brace.

Adam and I met my last semester at NYU. He was a British person. He worked on Fleabag, which his partner at the time, Vicky Jones, co-wrote with Phoebe. He was one of the voices and also was there at all of these early previews and I’m sure gave notes. I don’t know how big or little his contribution was. But he worked on countless great things. We worked on three solo shows together. He was one of my closest friends, if not the closest friend, for 11 years. He passed away right before we starred on Broadway. It’s a shame for him not to see this show finish its run. To say it’s a bummer is a bit of an understatement.

But Adam and I would drink – I don’t drink much, but I do with Adam – at this one table in Soho, at this place called the Soho Hotel. Adam had this notebook. When I was trying to get work together for new material gigs, I would sit down with Adam, and I’d throw everything at him, because I lived in the United States. Adam lived in England. Sometimes it’d be months before we saw each other.

I’d just come out of a room and was trying to get staffed. I wasn’t getting staffed. I had some meetings. It was very multi-cammy. I sat down with Adam and I just threw all this stuff at him. So much stuff. When I started telling him this story, his provocations were great. He was like, “What happened there?” I was like, “This and that.” He was like, “What could happen here? Maybe this speaks to an element of your personality. Maybe that could tie in with this joke. What if you massage this for this joke?” That story came together as a narrative pretty quickly, and then it went on stage probably two nights later. But it was amongst like 20 other things.

John: But when you say it came together and you’re putting it on stage, what are you writing down, and how are you writing it down? Is this just a Word document?

Alex: I’m not even writing. I think I had bullet points. Maybe there’s a sheet of paper somewhere with bullet points. Some people write with Word documents. I do write with Word documents sometimes. Sometimes I write on my phone. Sometimes I write in notebooks. Sometimes I write in various notes. This process for me is always like, if it’s good enough, you remember, and if you’ve got an accountability partner, which I had in Adam, he’ll remember. Adam had a notebook.

This is horrifying to say. Once, we started a run somewhere, and we figured out that the show was running three minutes light. I was like, “Why is it running three minutes light? Is my tempo different?” I looked at him. I was like, “Oh my god, I forgot that joke.” He’s like, “What? Oh my god, the vaccine joke’s not in there.” I was like, “Yeah, I forgot to tell the vaccine joke.” He was like, “The last eight nights, you’ve just missed. You’ve just missed.” By the way, the show’s already been running. The show had run in New York for like a year and a half at that point. I was like, “Don’t tell anybody.” He’s like, “No, no, no, I’m not gonna.” But he was like, “You forgot a chunk of your show.” It wasn’t even the vaccine joke. I think maybe it was the joke about Prince Harry that’s in the special. But I had completely forgotten a thing.

When the show started off Broadway, the PR people were like, “Can we get a transcript for press?” I was like, “There’s no transcript.” They were like, “What do you mean there’s no transcript?” I was like, “I just tell the story with the offshoots.” They were like, “What do you mean you tell the story?” At some point, a review appeared, and Adam sent me a picture of it with something circled. I called someone who worked with me, and I was like, “Do you guys generate the transcript?” They were like, “Yes.” I was like, “Is it out of an audio recording from this date?” They were like, “How did you know?” I was like, “Because I said something one time in that one show, and it showed up in this review.” It’s a thing that has been completely excised from the show. The word choice I didn’t care for.

John: That’s wild.

Alex: I’d never wrote anything down, which isn’t to say there weren’t reams and reams of paper that were important for this, writing down little bits of things or trying to cut extra words out. Sometimes I’ll write down a sentence and try to examine if I can cut one or two words to trim the facts. If you do that cumulatively, you can wind up saving double-digit minutes over the course of 90. That’s super granular.

But I’m very anti writing stuff down, because as soon as you do, it starts to calcify in the brain, and I think it removes your potential for growth, unless you sit down consciously and write again. You need the synthesis of preparing off stage and writing on stage. That time that your brain is alive in the show is really important and valuable. Look. John, you know, and everyone who writes who’s listening knows that there are moments where you’re in the zone and you’re in the flow. When you’re on stage, you are by necessity in the flow. You are stress tested into that tightrope energy. Maybe I could write it down, and I just am operating from a very old data set.

John: As we’re recording this, is there a written script version of Just For Us?

Alex: Yes, but I’d probably take a look at it, because I don’t know that it’s accurate. Shows should be conversing with the moment that they’re in and also an escape from it. We recorded the special in August. Then October 7th happened. Not to get into anything too prickly, but October 7th happened. My show is about assimilation and whiteness and Judaism. I wrote a line to open every show that we did after October 7th, and then Israel as a weighty subject got called back towards the end of the show. It’s not right that it goes in the recorded version of the show, because hopefully there will be at some point a resolution to this horrific conflict, the one that is occurring right now in Gaza, but also the larger one. You’d like your special to be an evergreen one, so you don’t want to date it by putting in something temporal. But at the same time, a live experience is a very different one. You have to give people a live experience.

When we were editing the special, Alex Timbers, the director, and I, we cut out some of the things that happened in the room that night that were just there for the Broadway audience, because doing something for the audience at home is a completely different product.

There is a written version somewhere. In fact, I know there is, because it’s gonna be released as a play at some point. I just heard that someone’s gonna license it to do it, which I’m very interested in seeing. I’m really fascinated in seeing it. Any written version would be obsolete to me the next time I perform it. It’s a really weird, sedulous double bind, I guess.

John: Let’s wrap up by talking about the actual writing you’ve had to do for other folks and where there is actually a script that things have to be shot. In the midst of doing the solo shows along the way, you’ve staffed as a TV writer. Why did you want to do that? What was cool about it? What was challenging about it? Talk to us about you as a TV writer.

Alex: I have learned so much from my showrunners. I have had the best, best, best education, not just at NYU, but I worked on The Great Indoors, which did one season on CBS, so it’s not like it lit the world on fire, but my showrunner, Chris Harris, and my creator, Mike Gibbons. I worked with these great writers, like Liz Feldman, who did Dead to Me, and Tad Quill and Craig Doyle. Everyone on that writing staff has had a very fruitful career as a television writer. I learned so much about story and so much about structure in a way that helped me with my work.

There’s no way I could’ve written my solo show without the sort of guidance that structuring television could’ve provided me. I felt this really keenly during the strike, that if you nourish a TV writer, you’re nourishing a novelist and you’re nourishing a playwright and you’re nourishing a songwriter and you’re nourishing a performer. All of these talents cross over, and all these crafts cross over. I got a pretty good sense of that as soon as I started writing for television, even when it was non-union award show stuff. I was like, “Oh my god, I’m picking up stuff. I’m learning a lot.” I think that learning really helped. And then all the more so getting to work with Jenji Kohan on Teenage Bounty Hunters. We adapted something for Netflix that didn’t go, but we loved and are still trying to do. I’ve worked with the greatest people. I work with truly the most incredible folks.

There’s even a bit in the show, which is something that I do in life now, that I took from Chris Harris, the showrunner, who I think is running Frazier at the moment, actually. Chris would do this thing when another writer said something to him that I know Chris didn’t want to engage with or couldn’t engage with, he would just go, “Can you believe it?” In my show, I’m in this meeting, which happened after I had gotten out of the writers’ room, and someone says something to me, and I don’t know how to answer. I just went, “Can you believe it?” which is something I learned from Chris Harris. Chris is thanked, and the special thanks is, “Chris Harris for a very useful four-word phrase in the show.”

Look, man, you get paid a pretty good amount of money – not enough money, but a pretty good amount of money – to sit in a room with folks who have been professionally curated for how smart and funny they are, you’re gonna pick something up. I loved being in a room. I can’t wait for the chance to do it again. I’ve gotten to organize my own, occasionally, for little things that I’ve written for the BBC, or I was telling you about before this, I do this thing called Saturday Night Seder, which was a thing I put together with Benj Pasek, who’s a songwriter.

John: Yeah, composer, songwriter.

Alex: He did Dear Evan Hansen and La La Land and Greatest Showman in the beginning of the pandemic.

John: They did the song in my movie Aladdin.

Alex: That’s right, that’s right. I remember. Those guys are such, such geniuses. Benj and I were complaining to each other over the phone that we weren’t gonna be able to do anything for Passover, because everyone was locked inside of their homes. It was beginning of quarantine, 2020. Benj was like, “We should do an online version.” I was like, “Let’s put a writers’ room together.” We put together this writers’ room with Sas Goldberg and Michael Mitnick and Josh Harmon and a whole bunch of TV folks. Everyone was just sitting at home. Just even over Zoom, being in that room was so nourishing and fun. We would scream and argue and joke. We wrote all these sketches for Bette Midler and Idina Menzel and Josh Groban, and we raised $3 and a half million for COVID relief. It was the coolest thing I’ve ever gotten to be a part of. It didn’t enrich anyone except for those lucky goddamn nurses who got all that PPE.

John: Totally.

Alex: It didn’t enrich anyone. Those nurses have had it too good for too long. There’s nothing like the collective of a writers’ room, really, under any auspices. It’s just the best thing in the world.

John: I don’t miss almost anything about the pandemic, but I do miss the permission it gave you to do things that were wild and nuts. We had live shows on Zoom. We had Phoebe Waller-Bridge and Ryan Reynolds on for an episode. Those were reaches that we felt possible, because I was on a Zoom with Phoebe and Tina Fey earlier in the pandemic. Everything was possible in a way, and that was exciting.

Alex: I loved it.

John: Before we wrap up the wonder of writers’ rooms, what were your samples that got you The Great Indoors? What were they reading that said, “Oh, that’s who we should get.”

Alex: Oh my gosh. No one’s ever asked me, but I love this. I wrote a sample that I still love so much. It’s a little frustrating to me, because sometimes I will meet people in the wild, and they’re like, “Oh my god, I’ve read Celestials,” which is the name of the sample. They’re like, “What a great sample.” I was always like, “No, I wrote it as a TV show. It’s supposed to get made.”

It’s set in Heaven, but not like dead people Heaven, like Earth doesn’t exist yet Heaven. It’s cubicle farmy and a workspace. Because there’s no established rules to what it is, it’s a little bit surreal. This guy who’s essentially an intern comes up with a pitch for Planet Earth, and he shows it to a bunch of people in the architecture department. They’re all these Scandinavian figures. They’re like, “This is pretty stupid,” except for one guy who’s like, “It’s pretty interesting.” He’s discouraged, and he throws it away. But one of the other interns, who’s really ambitious and doesn’t like him, puts it in God’s suggestion box. God is a 12-year-old girl with an iPhone, because that was the scariest thing I could think of. God gets fixated on one detail, which turns out to be kittens. She’s like, “I love this. Just go do it. It won’t cost too much. Just go do it.” She demotes their boss to work with them and gives them the Scandinavian architect who thought it was a good idea.

It’s basically Genesis. Also, it was about millennial workplace dynamics, because everybody that I knew was in this sort of place in their live where they were just getting out of college or they were three, four years out of college, and they wanted all this responsibility, but they didn’t really know what to do once they got it, and they had no hope of getting it.

I wrote this thing. Thankfully, Chris Harris was like… The Great Indoors is about millennial workplace dynamics. He read it. I came in for the meeting. He went, “You really know this world.” But again, it’s that thing, write what you know. It’s very heightened, but it’s grounded in that, like, I know what it’s like to want more responsibility in a workplace and clearly not be ready for it. That was my sample. Again, no one’s asked me about that in five, six years. But I love it. I’m sure if I read it, I would cringe a little bit. Every so often, someone’s like, “I love Celestials.” I was like, “Oh my god! I can’t believe… ” That was my sample that got me staffed on The Great Indoors. God, they were so patient with me. It’s where I heard Who Jackie for the first time and “can the floor be wet” and all these other writer inside jokes. I love it and miss it so much. That probably was one of the best times of my life. It was fantastic.

John: Nice. We have two listener questions here that are related to this. Drew, can you help us out?

Drew Marquardt: Gordon in LA writes, “My writing partner and I submitted our comedy pilot to our new manager. Pilot’s been through many drafts and received very positive reviews from peers and fellow writers. We were anticipating more positive feedback from our new manager, who we both recently paired with. The feedback call with the manager went about as bad as possible. He totally misunderstood the comedic tone, going so far as to ask whether the pilot was meant to be a drama. Bottom line, he didn’t find it funny. The manager wants us to rewrite the pilot into a more digestible broad comedy, which are more sellable in the current TV market. He has no interest in sending this draft around town. We’d be happy to write a different script as a broad comedy, but the chief question is, if your manager doesn’t find your writing funny, is it time to find a new manager?”

John: Oy.

Alex: It’s a really tough question, isn’t it?

John: Yeah. My first agent, I shared the script for Go with, and he didn’t get it. I moved to a different agency that got it. That’s certainly possible. Alex, I wonder whether Gordon’s script is good or it’s not good. We can’t read it ourselves.

Alex: I’m trying to find the gentlest way to say this. This is from a stand-up comedian’s brain. Comedy should ideally communicate very clearly to as many people as possible. The challenge of threading the needle and making something that reflects who you are and your authentic voice comedically while also resonating with the audience that you’re intending it for, it’s the biggest craft challenge. It feels like for whatever reason, your manager has not been able to get there.

You can put it on your script, or you can put it on the manager, but your WiFi’s not working. Something is broken, and so you should try to figure out what that is. But if you sent in the pages and they’re not getting it from the page, and that’s a pretty good sample of what that is, and if it’s just bad luck of the draw, and out of 100 people, your manager is the one person that that’s not for, you need to figure out why that reason is. Gordon, I’m not saying that it’s your case, but usually the case is a craft failing. I wouldn’t take it as a super four-alarm fire that your manager, quote, “doesn’t get you,” but I’d take a look at the pages and I’d take a look at the manager and see if it’s all, I don’t know, copacetic.

John: I don’t think you should rewrite this thing to make it funnier, because that’s not gonna be satisfying to anybody. If he doesn’t want to send this out, it’s because he doesn’t think it’s gonna help. You have to trust him that he has some sense of whether he could send it to people that would actually respond to it. If you’re gonna write something new that’s a more broadly funny thing, if there’s something you can do that is more clearly broadly funny that actually does work in your voice, I would go for that, but you may also need to look for a different place.

Alex: Also, the one question I’d also ask is if you want to be broadly funny. Not everybody wants that. Everyone’s comedy tone is different.

John: Drew, next question.

Drew: Tom in Warwickshire writes, “I lost my voice this weekend, and whilst trying to remain silent to help myself recover, I became very aware of how often I talk to myself, as in literally talking aloud, not just an inner monologue, albeit in a hush tone. While I know a lot of people talk to themselves, it made me wonder if I’m in part influenced to do this because I’ve seen characters in movies do it. We’ll often see characters vocalize what the audience is thinking, for example, someone following another person whilst trying to remain unseen and saying, ‘Where are you going?’ I’m interested in what you think about this technique and when it’s used to best effect.”

John: Tom we know is British because he says “whilst.” “Whilst” is just such a specific shibboleth word. Alex, do you talk to yourself a lot?

Alex: In the shower, like, “Oh, water is everywhere.” No, I’m just kidding. I think I talk to myself a lot. I more often sing to myself out loud, because I badly want to sing but don’t want anyone else to hear it. When I’m alone is the perfect time to do Baby Shark.

If a character monologues to themselves, I’m like, “What are you doing?” But also, it may be a conceit of film that I’m just comfortable with. But maybe subconsciously I’m like, it’s a little bit cheesy, because when you hang on a lantern on it, I’m like, oh yeah, that is annoying when someone’s like, “Where is he going?”

John: When it’s convenient, it doesn’t feel earned. People do talk to themselves in real life. You do experience it. I’m sure there’s some psychological study where they actually documented what percentage of people do speak out loud to themselves, their inner monologue is expressed outward. Sometimes it can be a compulsion. There was some producer of Matt Damon or Ben Affleck’s who was notorious for, if they were riding down a road, he had to read aloud all the signs he saw. That’s a thing that happens too. I wouldn’t worry about it for Tom. It’s nice that you’re recognizing that that’s a thing you do. But I will say recognize when you do it, when you don’t do it, and if you’re gonna have characters do it, make sure it feels authentic and real.

Alex: A thing that I do that I’m embarrassed to admit, but I will, I will have a side of an argument that I will never actually have in real life.

John: Oh, 100 percent. You gotta rehearse it.

Alex: It’s the first cousin of l’esprit de l’escalier, the spirit of the staircase, the thing that you figure out what you should’ve said when you’re at the top of the stairs in the party instead of the bottom of the stairs getting into the Uber, so the, “You know what? I’ve worked hard for this, and you don’t know.” You’re talking to someone who may or may not even be aware of the fact that you exist, but you’re having a big argument. The thing that I would question in shows is whether or not that advances character or story. I don’t know sometimes.

John: To some degree, it’s doing the function of a song in a musical, that it’s exposing the person’s inner life and what’s actually happening behind their eyes. I don’t see people rehearsing that one half of an argument on film that much, but lord knows I do it constantly. I’ve had so many arguments with folks that have no idea that I was ever actually angry. It’s a thing I’ll talk about in therapy.

It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is a book by Jordan Mechner. He and I did Prince of Persia together and other shows. He created the video game Prince of Persia, but he’s now actually mostly a writer and an artist. He created this graphic novel that he drew himself as well. The story tells three intersecting timelines of different generations of his family. It’s 1914 with his grandfather in the Austria-Hungarian Empire during World World I, 1938 with his father who was fleeing the Nazis into France and trying to get his family all back together, and then 2015 when Jordan moves to France, the same time that I was there living in Paris, as his marriage is falling apart and he’s trying to get his family to move to this new place. Really brilliantly done. I’m reading it now in English. It was out in French last year. I tried reading it in French, and it was just over my head. But it’s really great. Jordan Mechner, really wonderful storyteller and actually a really good artist now too. We can be very jealous of everything Jordan Mechner does. It’s called Replay-

Alex: What?

John: … by Jordan Mechner. It’s in bookstores everywhere now.

Alex: Seriously? Are you serious? It’s called Replay?

John: Replay.

Alex: I swear to god this is not planned. The thing that I want to suggest is called Replay. It’s a book that I reread recently. It’s so cool. It’s by a guy named Ken Grimwood. It’s a science fiction novel or a speculative fiction novel. It’s about a guy who dies on the fourth page of the book and then wakes up in his dorm room at 18.

John: Oh, love it.

Alex: Then it’s this time loop thing. I don’t think I’m giving too much away to say that he gets to the same age in his second incarnation and then he dies again and he wakes up again. Now he’s stuck in this loop. It asks these more interesting questions about what it means to live your life when you have a chance to do it again and again and again. The book is very entertaining and is very cool and is very fun. I feel a little weird suggesting – I know that people when they come on and they suggest a cool thing, they usually suggest a thing that is contemporary, but I really like the book. I think it’s brimming with ideas. Occasionally, I have brought it up with someone else, and they also like it. It’s one of those books that has a secret fan club. I think it’s really cool. When I reread it, I was kind of riveted. I can’t believe that.

John: They’re both books called Replay.

Alex: I’m just blown away.

John: They get to the replay mechanics in different ways. One is a time loopy kind of thing. One is the generational cycles that you go through in terms of moving and trying to reestablish your family, coupled with video games are meant to be replayed. That’s wild.

Alex: Can I just say for the listenership that is listening, John’s face showed zero surprise, zero, when I said Replay. It was so cool. I was almost really disconcerted by it. I was like, “Did I reach out to tell them that this is my… ” I definitely didn’t. But you were one cool customer when I was like – because that was me, when I’m like, “Huh? What?”

John: What? That’s impossible.

Alex: Replay by Ken Grimwood. Wow, I am gob-smacked by that coincidence. Wow. I’m really, really blown away by that. I have to read Jordan’s book now.

John: This is where Craig would remind us that we’re in a simulation and sometimes there are just blips in the simulation and this is just one of those little things.

Alex: By the way, the Prince of Persia video game is very good.

John: It’s so good. It’s so good. It was a classic. He’s great. The Prince of Persia movie is not so good. But the script Jordan wrote for it originally, before it got changed, was actually terrific. You should read his book and see what a good writer he really is.

Alex: One of my favorite things is to read scripts for movies that seem a little high-concept and don’t quite work. Sometimes you read the script and you’re like, “Oh my god.” Liz Meriwether’s script for a romantic comedy – I think it was with Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman – it was called Friends With Benefits, but the script originally is called Fuckbuddies. The movie still has great moments, but the script is hysterical. The script is laugh out loud. Every moment on the page is so good. Reading scripts for movies that don’t always come together is such a beautiful-

John: A delightful thing. That is our show this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Ali Clifton. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@dev.johnaugust.com. That’s also a place where you can send questions. You will find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You can find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on dating funny people. Alex Edelman, it is an absolute pleasure to talk with you about your show and all things.

Alex: This is so much fun. This is such a blast for me. I love this podcast, so to be on it is… Sometimes I’ve had chats with other people who listen to this podcast, so I really look forward to hearing from the folks that I know who do. This is so cool.

John: The people who text you to let you know that you’re on Scriptnotes this week.

Alex: I genuinely will get text messages from a bunch of writer friends or people who are aspiring writers, and I love them all. These craft conversations are my absolute favorite thing. I hope I didn’t get too granular for the folks listening. If I did, I apologize.

John: Not even possible.

[Bonus Segment]

John: You are writing about stuff that is happening in your real life. You are performing. You’re on stage. You’re talking about things. You are also sometimes dating people who are in that same space of comedy. Are there issues that come up with like, “Okay, don’t talk about this. Do talk about this,” “I want to talk about this,” you’re talking about the same things? How often does that come up in a conversation?

Alex: I’ve always liked the idea of talking about my relationships and things like that, but it’s never really been a huge part of my stand-up. Maybe it’s because I started stand-up so young that no one actually wanted to hear me talk about dating, that people would rather hear me tell stories from my life that don’t make them think too hard about whether or not they’re additional characters or something like that. I don’t know why.

In the pandemic, I would do this Zoom show called UnCabaret, which in real life is also a beloved storytelling show in Los Angeles, and tell stories about my partner and how dumb I was in front of my partner. They liked that.

But my first partner was a comedian in England who would constantly make jokes about fictional boyfriend or an ex-boyfriend or something. I was always very comfortable with her fictionalizing me. I was very comfortable with her taking real things and spinning them. I like when stand-up comedy has a degree of mystique to it or a degree of embellishment to it. I think that’s where the artistry oftentimes lies.

But with that said, I’ve also dated someone or people who don’t want to be talked about in my stand-up. I’ve been very clear about that from the get-go. I have respected it even when it’s something I really want to say on stage. Obviously, your primary partner is gonna be a huge, huge fountain of material, and especially how you relate to them is gonna be a huge fountain of material. But I always try to err on the side of not embarrassing my partner, especially the ones who have tried to draw a clear boundary there. But something funny happens to both of us, and you’re like, “Who owns it? Who owns it?”

John: That happens with other folks who are writers. I know many two-writer couples, and so there’s issues of who’s gonna do the thing with that stuff. The difference is though if I’m writing a script with other characters and I’m using this moment that happened and I’m putting it in a character’s mouth or creating that situation, there is a distance there. But if you are doing a one-man solo show as Alex Edelman, and you’re talking about this person you’re dating, a very natural sense of, like, oh, that’s the real person.

I feel like I know Mike Birbiglia’s wife, Jen, just because she’s been a presence in all the stuff he’s been doing for the last 10 years. I feel like she’s a live character there on stage, even though I’ve never met her in person. You have to have a conversation clearly with people about the edges of that.

Alex: I’m sure there’s an edge for Jen, and I’m sure there’s an edge for Mike. I think it’s a very scalloped edge. It’s really hard to tell sometimes what people are gonna be upset about or what they’re gonna be thrilled by. But also, Mike figures generously in Jen’s poetry, I imagine. In fact, I know he does, because sometimes he reads it on stage. With two-writer couples, what they should do is… When Michael Green and his wife, Amber, had that samurai attack on their home, they were able to together create Blue Eye Samurai.

John: Absolutely. Together, they were able to make Blue Eye Samurai, and really what a moment that was. But like you, it wasn’t their home. They moved to Japan specifically so that it would happen, and it changed everything.

Alex: Although sometimes, by the way, you get differing perspectives. I’m sure there are many examples of a schismatic marriage, and you wind up with the Nora Ephron side and the Carl Bernstein side. By the way, sometimes you only end up with one side and are tasked with remembering yourself that there’s another.

Also, sometimes people are like – even though I don’t talk about my partners – “How does your family feel about your depictions of them in the show?” It’s like, first of all, they’re mostly fine with it. Second of all, there’s artistic license taken and exaggeration that you should assume for the grace of the people being depicted. You should always assume a curatorial bias.

One of my partners and I, we were living below a five-month-old baby, and I wrote a joke about it. My partner was like, “You know what? That’s happening to me more. You’re on the road mostly. I’m stuck at home. The baby crying and waking you up, it’s happening to me tenfold times over.” I don’t know if she ever did anything with it.

John: Did you agree that you didn’t get to use the joke or that you’d have separate versions of the joke?

Alex: I don’t think we ever came to a consensus on it, but I also don’t think it was a huge argument. But it is definitely a problem. There were other instances of that where I think we did have a conversation. Something happened on a hike, and I was like, “That’s really funny.” It happened to the partner, and the partner was like, “That’s not your story. That’s a thing that happened to me.” I was like, “But I watched it happen, and my take on it is I think the funnier thing.” Of course that was a whole different argument. They were like, “How dare you.” Ultimately, I was like, “Right, you have the story about the hike yourself, and that’ll be your thing.” I genuinely tried to argue, like an idiot. I was like, “Look, that traumatic experience that you went through, I also – because I subjected you to the trauma and made you go on the hike, I should be able to do that.” The chutzpah of that argument I think was really like – I wouldn’t make it now.

John: Let’s say the partner gets the actual story of the incident that happened, but you do own your reaction to what the thing was. Do you feel that’s fair to fictionalize what the inciting incident was, so you can get to the point of how you felt about the thing?

Alex: I think it’s fair to fictionalize everything, so yes. I am very adamant about what’s best for the material is what’s best for the material. Usually it’s the truth. But it’s very interesting to me. I’m not even Jewish, so me going to that meeting is really-

John: Wow, it really was a brave choice.

Alex: Yeah, a brave choice.

John: I think the fact checkers are gonna come after you for that.

Alex: Of course. The funny thing is that I think fictionalizing an inciting incident is always what an audience should kind of assume. Things are streamlined. I think fictionalizing an inciting incident to differentiate from the version that your partner, also a creator, may depict is a really interesting thing to do, and in fact, might be a good creative exercise.

John: I see Alex is jotting down notes as he’s doing this, like, “Save the hike story.”

Alex: But by the way, if the funny thing is the reaction, like I said in the main body of the episode, every joke that I tell has a reason for existing, and the reason is usually off-story. The reason is usually aesthetic-related or craft-related or performance-related.

I had a thing I was excited about. Someone said to me, “I don’t think you should do that. It’s too similar to this Doug Stanhope bit.” I don’t really know Doug Stanhope’s material, but I went, “Okay, what if I found a more circuitous route to delivering that line? Maybe I’d wind up with something better.” And it did.

You can always differentiate the account from your partner’s. I also think that’s really interesting for a couple to do. But again, I have very different comfort levels and boundaries than most people, so sometimes I try to account for how my partner will feel or how an audience member will feel or how someone who may have been in a similar situation at a point in their life will feel.

John: Cool. Alex, thank you again for this conversation.

Alex: Thanks so much for having me, John. I hope I didn’t talk too much.

John: No, it was awesome. Thank you.

Links:

  • Alex Edelman
  • Just For Us on HBO
  • Replay by Jordan Mechner
  • Replay by Ken Grimwood
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Ali Clifton (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

Scriptnotes, Episode 639: Intrinsic Motivation, Transcript

June 3, 2024 Scriptnotes Transcript

The oringinal 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 639 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, why are you or your characters doing what you’re doing? We’ll look at intrinsic motivation, both on screen and in the brain, because Craig loves neurobiology.

Craig: Love it. I love it.

John: Love it. It’s good stuff. We’ll also answer a bunch of listener questions. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, will human beings ever leave the solar system?

Craig: I have an answer for that. We’ll save it for the people that paid for it.

John: Absolutely. Craig, happy birthday.

Craig: Aw, thank you, John. 53 years old.

John: Nicely done.

Craig: Prime number. Always like that. Always enjoy a prime number. Still in my early 50s.

John: Exactly.

Craig: Still in my early 50s. Hanging onto the early 50s. I know that for people in their 20s, early 50s is hysterical. Oh, congrats on your early 50s, grandpa. Back in the day, John, you were in your early 50s, you were on a glide path to the golden watch-

John: Absolutely.

Craig: … and retirement on the golf course and then rapidly ensuing death, I think. Now it feels like you’re just getting started.

John: You are. You’re literally just warming up.

Craig: Just warming up. The mere presence of statins to control your cholesterol, that alone-

John: That alone, it’s a lot.

Craig: My goodness.

John: I’m sure you’ve seen all these memes about the cast of Cheers and the actual age of the cast of Cheers when that show started. You realize Kelsey Grammer is 29 or something.

Craig: Coach is the one that always rattles, because Coach is 56 or something, and he looks like he’s 80, and died shortly thereafter, by the way. He didn’t live long. I don’t think he made it past the second season.

John: Which is how we got Woody Harrelson.

Craig: Woody Harrelson. But yeah, Cliff is 35. I don’t know what was going on. I don’t know what was going on.

John: I’ve seen explanations that basically, a lot of how we perceive people in older photos and stuff is because people set their clothing style and their hairstyles when they’re young, and they carry those forward, and we associate those hairstyles and ways of dressing as being an older person. That’s why when you look at photos of your parents when they’re in high school, they look old for their age.

Craig: People wanted to be old. When you look at the people on Norm, for instance. I don’t even know what Norm did for a living. Did they ever even say?

John: Yeah, they did establish it at some point. Cliff was the mailman.

Craig: He was an accountant. Norm was an accountant, and then he loses his job and wackiness ensues. But if you were a 34-year-old accountant, you wore a shirt and a tie and a rumpled jacket and that was it. People wanted to be grown up. Remember how much you wanted to be grown up?

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: Now I feel like no one wants to grow up.

John: I’m thinking about my kid. She does, but I don’t know, there’s also a celebration of youth. I get that.

Craig: And being current. I think they felt older. I think they wanted to be older. But now, here we are in our early 50s and 20s, still wearing sneakers and jeans. People just didn’t do that. I don’t know, maybe we should go for the more rumpled-

John: That’s what we should do.

Craig: … middle-aged guy look.

John: We’ve established on the show I intend to live a very, very long life. I don’t want to jinx that by saying-

Craig: You do.

John: Yeah, but I’m fine living to 100 or 110.

Craig: I’ll tell you what. You’re gonna live as long as you live. That’s the best part. You just keep going, and then it stops.

John: We’ve talked about this also on the show. You have no intention of retirement, or does that hold any appeal to you, or is that like a beach vacation, where it doesn’t?

Craig: It doesn’t hold appeal to me currently. In my mind currently, retirement means failure, like you failed so bad at what you were doing that an entire industry said, “We’re done with you. After all this time, we’ve collectively decided you should eff off.”

John: It’s a soft cancellation.

Craig: Yeah, a soft cancellation, exactly. I could. Then the question is what would I do?

John: You’d play a lot of D&D.

Craig: I would play a ton of D&D and solve a lot of puzzles, not go to the beach, hellscape. I have a purpose. It keeps me going. Man, there are days. I love it so much that even when I absolutely loathe it, what else am I gonna do?

John: You do your thing.

Craig: It’s a hard job.

John: It is a hard job running a show, keeping a universe going. Let’s do some follow-up. Many times on the podcast we’ve talked about AI, including this experiment we did a year ago, feeding the Scriptnotes transcripts into a model. We found the results that came out of that really disappointing. Ben wrote in with some feedback on that.

Drew Marquardt: He says, “I’ve spent the last decade at Google working on creative and AI, machine learning, then generative AI for video. The models like ChatGPT and Gemini are amazing, but as you’ve found, relatively generic for specific tasks like story analysis, and are missing things like discernment or taste. You’ve also found that narrow models, like those trained on your show transcripts, are only mediocre. What this perspective is missing is human in the loop training, or HILT,” I’m gonna say hilt, “where someone tells the model that this output is good and this one is bad, on and on and on as the model gets better. The world models won’t do this for script analysis, because the use case is not important enough. You probably won’t do it for the show because it’s too time-intensive. But if you did, or someone did, the models would get better quickly and could even be trained on a director’s taste or an executive’s taste. You could input Denis Velleneuve’s body of work and find projects he would like. If you trained it well enough, it could help steer and shape them based in ways he would or might, and these patterns on top of patterns are opening up whole new ways of interrogating storytelling and taste.”

Craig: Ben is basically collaborating with the Borg. That’s what’s happening. I understand that it’s been difficult for you guys to assimilate into the Borg collective. However, I’ve been working hard, and there is a method where we can assimilate you much faster, and then you can assimilate your loved ones much faster. And eventually, we’ll all live in a cube in space.

John: It’ll be fantastic and great. I want to talk about a few things here. First off, this idea of training on taste. It’s actually been happening in Hollywood forever. Development executives are trained on their boss’s taste. It’s not just what do we think is gonna make a good movie, but what do I think my boss will actually like, and what do I know my boss will not like? There are specific red flags, and you never show those things to your boss. Sure. That may not be a great way to model what’s actually gonna be a successful movie, what’s gonna win the Academy Award, but it’s what’s going to get it through the next step of the process.

Craig: It’s funny, when Ben used the example Denis Velleneuve, in my mind at first I imagined Denis going, “No, it’s not possible. No one can understand what I want to do.” And then I thought about Denis, because he is the most humble man. I could actually see him going, “This makes sense. I believe actually computer could tell me what to do next, maybe better than I could do,” because he’s lovely. That’s my bad attempt at a Canadian French accent. I understand what Ben’s saying. All I know is that it’s all horrifying, and I kind of wish it would stop. I really do. I don’t like this at all.

John: Some of what Ben is describing we actually see in daily practice at Netflix. The Netflix algorithm, which is showing you, this is a thing you might like, it has that human-reinforced training, because it’s saying, oh, did you actually watch this whole thing? It’s taking you having finished watching a thing as a marker that you liked it, even if you’re not clicking the thumbs up, thumbs down, like, oh you must like this. We’re gonna feed you more of this. It has all the patterns for figuring out, this is other things you’re probably going to enjoy. But on the creator side, it’s a little bit more frustrating, because they will tell you, oh, if you don’t show this plot point within the first 10 minutes, people are unlikely to finish the show. Those can be frustrating notes to get from that.

Craig: It will be regressive. There was a time before the world of television, for instance, as we know it, where everything was driven by this research nonsense. Every show started to look the same. Everybody needed a dog or a funny next-door neighbor. Then it was a big challenge for shows that didn’t fit that model to even get on the air, much less get watched. But then some of them did and were huge hits, of course, because it turns out just because we say we like something doesn’t mean that’s all we like. Everybody likes fried chicken. If a restaurant that was famous for 17 different things decided to only do fried chicken, you’d be like, “Okay, I guess [unintelligible 00:09:09],” but otherwise, no.

Then television just opened up into this glorious – we’ll make anything, no matter how weird or bizarre. I don’t think AI would’ve done a very good job of that. Movies have now regressed, so it sort of flip-flopped. So many movies became cookie cutter nonsense, based on research and so forth. But maybe the success of some outliers might be getting us away from this.

But nonetheless, my sister of all people emailed me the other day, and she was saying there was somebody that was talking to her about this AI predictive platform that will tell you what shows and movies will be a hit. It just never ends. They just keep trying. I don’t think that’ll ever work.

John: It won’t work. We lived through a time of classic testing of movies and TV shows. We’d have test screenings. You’d get numbers, like, how did you do on your top two boxes, and that was a big predictor of your success. There you were actually showing it to a real audience. The experience as writers and creators was, I can hear it with an audience. We can actually see and feel how the audience is responding. Sometimes those were useful, much more useful than the numbers were useful. I’ve also done TV shows back when they actually had dials.

Craig: Turning the dial.

John: They were turning the dial. The problem is, the dial is not really showing whether you’re gonna watch that next episode. It’s just how did I feel in this moment. Turning those dials is not a good marker. The other big problem with classic research and some of these AI model research is that it can only account for what’s inside their realm of measurability. They can see, oh, did this person complete the show. But did they actually like the show, or did they hate-watch the end of the show? You don’t know.

Craig: You don’t know. Did they think about the show a week later and change their mind? You don’t know.

John: You don’t know. All the other outside factors, like what’s happening in popular opinion about it, is there water cooler talk, what are the critics saying, that’s not factored in. And that’s a big factor in whether somebody really enjoyed that program and wants to keep watching that show or wants to watch another season. You don’t know.

Craig: Also, what we do in part is designed to surprise. If the system is designed to provide you something different, the most exciting thing is something that is excellent and different. How is a machine supposed to predict excellent and different? It’s hard to account for surprise. Gödel’s incompleteness theorem.

John: Please.

Craig: Gödel. Kurt Gödel, wonderful mathematician, proved that within any closed set of mathematical rules, like our math, there will always be some things that are true that cannot be proven, which is a bit of a mind-bender. He actually proved that. I don’t know how. These mathematicians are operating on levels that I simply don’t understand.

John: And thus you need postulates and axioms and other things that are just fundamental givens.

Craig: They prove all of them, actually. It’s quite remarkable. But you can’t create a system that accounts for everything that is true within the system. There will be some things that are true that cannot be proved, which is why, for instance, there are things that we know that are true that take years and decades and centuries to prove, like Fermi’s paradox and so on. This I think is true for entertainment. There will always be things that will delight people that you cannot account for, given the known set of what delights people.

John: It’s true.

Craig: Good luck. Why am I taunting AI? I should stop taunting AI.

John: Let’s move on to some more follow-up here. We talked about blueprints and whether blueprints are a good way to describe what we write.

Drew: David G writes, “I used to work in construction management, and I would say that it is probably the most similar field to filmmaking than any other. By the time we finished building a building, most of the time, the building ended up looking exactly like the blueprint had shown. However, during the building process, we would request something called an RFI, or request for information, to the architect when we got into the field and something didn’t work, either because something unforeseen was in the way or for any other reason we couldn’t make it work. While by the end of the project the structure and idea of the building is like the blueprint was showing, lots of little changes were made to keep the project moving. Sounds like a movie, right?”

John: It does.

Craig: Kind of does, yeah. I get RFIs all day long. Every prep meeting I have. Sometimes I get an RFI that I’ve already gotten 12 times, but someone new texts me the RFI. I’m like, “Oh my god, if one more person asks me this question.” Yes, I think as much as we want to metaphorize filmmaking to construction, it’s still not great. It’s a tough one. I think sometimes the best metaphor for turning a screenplay into a show or movie is turning a screenplay into a show or movie. That’s what we should be linking back to. It is very within itself.

John: We talked about important movies two episodes ago. We had a lot of feedback on that. Let’s start with Brandon, who’s talking about games.

Drew: Brandon wrote, “I work in games, and this is a question that often comes up in that medium, particularly from younger writers and narrative designers, not just, do I need to have played whatever game, but do I need to play this entire genre.”

Craig: Oh my god.

Drew: “It’s even worse in games than movies, because games are such a comparatively huge time suck. It naturally leads to a lot of people with imposter syndrome quietly wondering whether they need to go drop $40 and 60 hours of their personal time or risk being laughed at out of the room.

“The answer I always give regarding this question is, there’s no single game you have to play to make a great game of your own. Many of your favorite games were made by people totally ignorant of the genres they wound up defining. However, playing those canon games everyone gushes about can help in two very specific ways. One, it prevents you from reinventing the wheel during that early, high-level pre-production phase when you’re trying to figure out what stuff you’ll need to figure out from scratch versus what someone else has already figured out 20 years ago. And two, it gives you a handy box of touchpoints and easily communicated shorthand when you’re up against a weird problem and need to find a clever solution in a hurry. Writing a 1,500-word design document for a dialog system takes a lot longer than saying, ‘You know, like Mass Effect,’ and dropping a YouTube link.”

Craig: Those are all great points, Brandon. I’ll add a third thing. It keeps you from coming up with a genius idea that then everybody turns, looks at you, and says, “You mean like the ending of blah-dee blah?” The point is, no, you don’t have to do everything, and also there are other people. It’s okay if someone raises their hand, says, “I’m so sorry, but that was in blankedy blank.” You’re like, “Oh, okay. Damn. Back to the drawing board for me.” Among the group, hopefully, people have seen the important things. Also, wait 20 years and people forget the things that everybody knows.

John: Some pros and cons here. I’m thinking of examples of outsider art where people who came completely outside of a system ended up making amazing things, because they just did not know any of the conventions of the genre or what had come before them. That can be really exciting. But you also have hysterical examples where people just didn’t understand what music was. I can’t think of the name of the band.

Craig: The Shags.

John: The Shags, exactly. The Shags.

Craig: They’re incredible. Frank Zappa called The Shags the best band there ever was.

John: They had just no sense of what-

Craig: None.

John: … rock-and-roll music was.

Craig: They had no sense of tempo, rhythm, lyrics, melody, instrumentation, or arrangement, coherence. It is a remarkable to listen to, and that’s why Frank Zappa said if you presumed that what they did, they did intentionally, they would be the most brilliant musicians of all time, because no musician could do that naturally. But of course, it was also terrible.

I think people maybe get a little too obsessed with watching everything, playing everything. What happens is you turn into more of a critic or a repository than you do a creator. And the more stuff that’s banging around in your head, the more likely it is that you’re gonna play this weird, “I have to do something no one else has done before” game, which will send you down some weird, artificial, over-engineered pathways.

John: An argument for sampling, and sampling broadly, is it helps you figure out what your taste is, what do you actually enjoy, what do you love. I would say don’t just play these games, but actually figure out what is it about this that’s working for you, what is not working for you, why is this a good experience for you, and so not even being so mechanical about what I’m gonna take from this, but basically how is this making me feel. That applies to games and to movies and to TV shows. What is it about this that you love? You can carry that forward, rather than this specific stuff, like this plot or this mechanic.

Craig: You get a chance maybe to play a game that you enjoy on one level. Let’s say I love the gameplay, don’t like the story. This game, love the story; game is so boring. What if I took the stuff I liked from this and stuff I liked from this, put my own spin on it? Because when Neil was working on The Last of Us – it’s a zombie game. There have been a billion zombie games. It’s a third-person shooter. Been a billion third-person shooters. But there had also been games where there were these interesting two-person relationships that weren’t really AAA video games and there wasn’t a lot of action. Fusing these things together is really interesting. Jonathan Blow, who has made some incredible indie games-

John: Braid and other things.

Craig: Braid is a great example of somebody saying, what if you took a very simple platformer, added a little quirky backwards time unroll element, but then tell a story that is so bizarre and deep and rich and weird and kind of Vonnegut-ish, and you get something remarkable like Braid.

John: In the case of Blow and Braid, you have to have played enough of those games to understand how platformers work and what the conventions are in order to be able to subvert that.

Craig: You follow your love. If you have this real deep love for a certain genre, what do you do now to do your own weird spin on it? Rian Johnson made Brick. He loves noir films. I’m sure he watched a gazillion of them and then thought, “I also love John Hughes movies. Now, let me see about smushing my loves together.” But he understands the rules.

Kevin Williamson, clearly so deeply immersed in the world of classic ’80s VHS slasher movies. How do you take all that knowledge and remix it into something that feels current and interesting? I think follow your nose and you’ll find your genre. But you don’t have to play everything. That’d be crazy.

John: That actually ties very well into our next question, our next follow-up here.

Drew: Paris writes, “Looking through your list of important movies, I realized I’m totally screwed. I’m 24 years old. I was born in 2000, and I wasn’t exposed to many films growing up. I began trying to catch up in my 20s, but there’s so much I haven’t seen. It’s overwhelming. I looked through the list and made a highlighted version of my own films, and I’ve seen 85 out of the 400. If the 1970s were on there, I’d be toast. Any advice where to start? I don’t want my lack of cinema knowledge to affect my writing.”

John: Paris sent through their highlighted list of things that they’d missed, and there’s really great films on their list of what they’ve missed. My advice to Paris would be to start in the 2010s, pick three movies you’re curious about, watch them, and then go back a decade, and then go back a decade. Let it be fun homework. Don’t feel like this is a thing you have to do. Just really follow your curiosity down this rabbit hole and see what it is that you like. I don’t think if Paris were to say, “I’m going to spend the next two years and every day, watch a movie off this list,” I don’t know that’s necessarily the best use of their time.

Craig: No. It will also, again, turn you into a movie critic. You’ll become a culture hoarder, as opposed to somebody that’s watching things that they love, because the entire exercise will feel forced and artificial. One method, Paris, may be to pick a movie from a director that has a bunch of movies on this list. Scorsese probably has a bunch on this list, Soderbergh, Coppola. Watch one of their movies. See if you like it. If you like it, keep watching their movies. A little bit like playing every track on an album. If you started with Do the Right Thing, for instance, if you loved Do the Right Thing, check out some more Spike Lee movies. If you watch Raging Bull and you love it, it’s time to switch over to Goodfellas or Mean Streets or King of Comedy. Same with the Cohen brothers. It might be better to just find the filmmakers you love and follow them. And then every now and then, just stick in a random one.

The other option is you can just say, “I’m gonna watch one of these dramas. Every month I’m gonna watch four movies. I don’t care. Just four. Each week I pick a different genre.” Drama, comedy, thriller, horror, whatever it is. Just mix it up. Keep it light. It’s not homework. You’ll be fine.

John: I would also say movies can be social experiences. See if you have friends or somebody else who wants to get in this movie club with you. Then you can have a discussion about what you saw.

Craig: Absolutely. One of my great joys now that I’m old-

John: 53.

Craig: … 53 is I get to show movies, especially from the ’90s, which ’90s were great for movies-

John: Great years.

Craig: … to Allie, who’s in her 20s, or to Bella, who’s just in her 20s. I showed Bella Matrix for the first time. I showed Allie Godfather for the first time. That’s so much fun. The other thing is, find somebody older who is like, okay, I think you will love this. Let them be your AI, who knows you, thinks of your taste, and goes, “I think you’ll love this.” And most importantly, I always say to anybody I’m showing a movie to, “You get to pull the rip cord whenever you want.” If you’re bored, I don’t care if it’s The Godfather, whatever, if you’re bored – give it 30 minutes. You’re bored after 30 minutes, next movie, or we’ll go have a sandwich. That’s fine. It shouldn’t feel like you’re eating gravel.

John: 100 percent. Last little bit of follow-up on here from Willy.

Drew: Willy in Dublin writes, “I want to push back on the idea of movies that you absolutely need to see or ones that you can ignore. For sure, you can be at a disadvantage in a professional situation if you haven’t seen canonical works, but I think that people who have different experiences can make valuable contributions to the creative process, as long as there is a lingua franca for collaboration. What’s the point if everyone thinks the same?”

Craig: Multiple logical leaps inside of Willy’s comment there.

John: Yeah, I would say.

Craig: So many.

John: Yeah, a little straw manning.

Craig: Yeah, just goalpost shifting. First of all, you say, “I want to push back on the idea of movies that you absolutely need to see or ones that you can ignore.” So you mean to say you want to push back on the idea that – you contradict yourself within that first statement. Which one are you pushing back against? Because if they’re movies that you can’t ignore, that means you absolutely need to see them, and if they’re movies that you don’t absolutely need to see, then there are movies that you can ignore.

John: I think Willy’s pushing back against this idea of canonical lists. These are really arbitrary lists of-

Craig: Of course.

John: … 100 movies that a lot of people seem to like and a lot of people talk about as the movies of that decade.

Craig: Nobody is suggesting that if you don’t see those things, you have, quote, “no valuable contribution to the creative process,” nor do these movies contribute to a “lingua franca for collaboration.” Collaboration is an entirely different thing. If everybody sits down and is forced as an entry point to watch the same 100 movies, there is no chance that that means that they will now, quote, “think the same.” No. They’ll argue about them all.

John: But to go the other illogical extremes, you have the example of The Shags. If you are the screenwriter who is The Shags, who has basically seen no other movies and has no understanding of how movies work, you’re gonna write something that’s gonna be perhaps fascinating on a textual level, but it’s not going to be a movie.

Craig: I’m not sure that you would be writing a movie. The Shags are such an incredible outlier, because they didn’t want to do it either. Their dad made them do it. They didn’t know. They had neither the desire – I guess we’re gonna be talking about motivations shortly. They had no motivation to do what they were doing, other than their father being like, “You can become the next Partridge Family.” And they just tried their best.

John: Good stuff. Let’s get into our main topic here. On April 6th, the New York Times Connections puzzle had the words “desire,” “drive,” “resolve,” and “will,” which were the four that lined up. And the category put for that was “intrinsic motivators,” which is nice, a good way of looping those together.

Craig: Interesting way [crosstalk 00:25:51].

John: We talked a lot on the podcast about motivation, about goals and needs and wants. Episode 569 we talked about inspiration versus motivation and touched on some of this. But I thought we’d dig in a little bit deeper on intrinsic motivation, which is basically what is driving a person internally to do a thing versus the situation. It’s not about external forces like deadlines or ticking clocks or circumstances. It’s about something inside them that’s driving the character to do a thing.

Craig: They have a list of things that they require something to meet to be considered alive. It needs to reproduce. It needs to ingest and possibly excrete. But my favorite one is it needs to show irritability.

John: Interesting.

Craig: Irritability is reaction to stimulus. We have, as living creatures, an innate irritability. Things bother us and create a want. But the interesting thing about humans, and certainly when we’re writing characters, these irritabilities can sometimes be physical in nature. People have been asking forever, what’s the whole point of this? That makes you irritable, not knowing things. Curiosity is a great one. So what is the intrinsic motivator for Hercule Poirot? He wants to know. Somebody could say he’s really committed to justice. I don’t think so. In his spare time, it’s not like he’s working down at the courts as a prosecutor. He’s just curious. Curiosity alone is a spectacular intrinsic motivator.

John: That’s a thing they can actually study in animals. You think animals are just responding to stimulus, so they’re trying to seek pleasure and avoid pain, but they will actually go into an electrified area, because there’s curious ones in there. Certain animals will do these kinds of things.

We talk on the show sometimes about negative intrinsic motivators, so fear, shame, jealousy, self-doubt. But I’d like to talk a little bit more about the positive version of those, the actual drives, because I’ve been watching shows and movies recently where I feel like after two hours or eight hours, I still couldn’t really tell you what is motivating them internally, what the positive intrinsic motivators are, what’s their desire, drive, resolve. If it was a musical, I couldn’t sketch out their “I want” song. There isn’t one in there. They can feel a little bit lifeless, because as humans, I know they should have something like that driving them.

Craig: When this happens, we tend to refer to the characters as flat or thin, two-dimensional. And it’s because the characters are only apparently motivated by circumstance. But ideally, circumstance is the second thing that happens. The first thing that happens before the show or movie even starts is they already are irritable about something. Something is missing. Something must be known. Something must be uncovered. Are you a BBC Sherlock fan, by any chance?

John: I watched all that.

Craig: Loved that show. One of the things that I love about it is when Sherlock Holmes doesn’t have a case, he starts to go insane. He wants to smoke. He wants to shoot heroin. He loses it, becomes violent and irritable. That precedes any circumstance that comes along. Sometimes we end up with these characters who are defined simply by their job, their present circumstance. Then a new circumstance happens, and they have a new job to do. But who are they? What happens when this job ends? If I’m supposed to stop caring about them when the job ends, why would I care about them now, while the job’s still going on?

John: That is the real frustration. It could be that the story really is the writer and how the story is being structured. It’s just not given any opportunity to actually explore those things. That character may actually have those things, but we as an audience aren’t getting to see any chance of that, because they’re generally not musicals so there’s not a chance for them to fully articulate what it is they’re doing or having some other character they can talk to about the thing. We need to find ways to structure and expose what is that internal drive that’s pushing them to a thing.

Craig: Now, there may be moments where you show a circumstance, and that circumstance becomes the internal drive. But it’s soon. You don’t want to wait around forever. And that circumstance that creates the internal drive must be clearly separate from the new circumstance that is the main body of the plot.

John: Exactly.

Craig: I can’t tell you much about the character Joel in The Last of Us leading up to his daughter’s death. He works in construction. He’s a contractor. He seems all right. I don’t know his internal states. I don’t know what his intrinsic motivation would be. She dies. Twenty years later, now I understand what his intrinsic motivation is in general, whether it’s to avoid or whatever. Then the new circumstance begins. But it is within the context of that prior irritability. As much as possible, when you’re thinking about – you at home, when you’re thinking about writing the story and the characters, you need to know what the problem is before the problem shows up.

John: There’s generally either a lack or some other object goal that’s out there that’s a little bit more vague, but a thing that they’re trying to do. There was a New York Times story this last week about a guy who was really good at quiz shows and quiz competitions and how he went from little, small ones to bigger ones and ultimately ended up applying to a specific university in the UK so he’d get into the university quiz challenge system, but then got there and found his teammates actually weren’t any good. He pulled out, because he only has one shot to do this. They had to reframe everything around him. He was really driven. It’s the kind of character who if we were doing a How Would This Be a Movie, you love, because you can definitely see why he’s trying to do what he’s trying to do. It’s not some external thing that’s pushing him. He clearly has a drive to enter this challenge and succeed and to win. He needs this thing.

Craig: But of course, I want to know why. What is the thing that I can connect to that is universal? Even though his expression of that thing is unique, I want what’s underlying it to be anything but unique.

John: Absolutely. That goes back to where we first meet this character and how he first gets introduced to this world of quiz competitions. It was probably that moment which he first said, “Oh, I know all the answers to this thing,” and suddenly, he was better than everyone else around him. It’s that desire to excel, to be seen as being better than everyone else, but also there’s an internal state where he needs to see himself as being so good at this.

Craig: I love those things. I, like just about everybody, love Queen’s Gambit. Scott Frank is as good as anybody at this. My favorite episode of Queen’s Gambit was the first one. First episodes are notoriously difficult. But what was so beautiful about the first episode was that he took the time, lots of time to tell us all about this person before the obsession began and before the plot began, to create irritability. She was lonely. She was abandoned. She was in pain. She was self-medicating. She was desperate for something to be good at, something that made her feel good. And there were two things that made her feel good: drugs and chess. Watching her begin to fall deeply into both of those was such a gorgeous way of showing how sometimes these things that we think of as just awesome, like being the best quiz solver or being a chess master, are in themselves forms of self-management for conditions that are common to us all.

John: A movie I loved this last year was Nyad. It’s the story of Diana Nyad and her quest to be able to swim from Cuba to the United States. In that, there are external things that she could gain by doing this, but clearly it’s an internal drive. She has this unique obsession with being able to do this and being able to prove to herself that she can do this thing, and that’s what’s pushing you through the whole movies. We see the consequences on everybody else around her, and yet we’re still rooting for her, because we can see – we don’t want to be in the water there with her, but we can see why she wants to do it.

Craig: We understand the underpinning. If all Moby Dick were about was whale hunting, no one would care. It’s really important to create that essential irritability, to find the grain of sand under someone’s skin. It’s usually something that they are not born with, but it is the result of some circumstance. If it’s innate from birth, that means there was nothing to create there. You want to have something and the environment that causes a disruption that is specific to somebody before you then cause a really big disruption to them.

John: I’m gonna put a link in the show notes to this article, this review in the National Library of Medicine, that’s really talking through intrinsic versus extrinsic motivators. They actually did scientific studies on how these drives actually function in the brain and in actual human beings and talks through the different theories that built up over time for how this all worked. When you actually put people in labs and MRIs and you’re monitoring how they’re doing things, you get this sense that what is happening internally versus externally are related, but there are distinct things that you can see there.

What it really comes down to is the importance of agency, the ability of a person to say, “I am choosing to do this thing.” We see that in real life where you have a kid who loves to do a thing, and then the minute you talk to them about the thing they love to do, they don’t love to do it anymore, because it’s no longer their unique thing. Also, it’s the ability to envision an outcome and plan the steps towards it are crucial for intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation.

Craig: That’s a really interesting point, the idea that you need to see an outcome. Your characters must – we talk about a goal. I think a lot of times, people think too much in terms of the external nature of that goal. But part of what we all do as humans is envision success. Envisioning success is rarely about the circumstance. It’s about the feeling. We don’t want to win because winning is good. We want to win because winning feels good. Why? What is it doing for you? What negative feeling is it taking away? What negative thought is it replacing or contradicting? What is it proving? How is it going to remove your irritability and make you feel good? To me, envisioning an outcome is entirely about envisioning a feeling that you desperately want.

John: It’s not just about where you’re gonna get to, but how it’s gonna feel when you get to that place.

Craig: All about feeling.

John: They outline what they call a Rubicon model, which is five steps, which is whenever a character’s facing or a real person’s facing a thing, there is a pre-decisional deliberation, which is basically where you’re sitting and you’re thinking about what your options are. You have intention formation, which is your planning. It’s the anticipation. It’s thinking about how you’re gonna do this thing. Volitional action, which means agency. You’re making a choice. You’re doing a thing because you want to do it. You are achieving that outcome. You’re consuming it. And crucially, then you’re also evaluating it. We’ve talked about this on the podcast. It’s not scoring the touchdown. It’s getting the kiss from your wife afterwards. That’s the real achievement.

Craig: It’s the relationship at the end. When you look at these five things, what they remind me of most immediately is Dungeons and Dragons. Right now, you’re DMing a campaign; I’m playing. Woo! Inevitably, there’s a circumstance where it’s like, “There’s a room in there, and we know there’s a bad guy and we know there’s another bad guy. Let’s come up with a plan.” Notoriously, plans go awry in D&D. It’s designed that way, because if your plans always worked, what fun would that be? It would just be like, “Oh, we’re the dream team in the Olympics. Ha ha, we win.” But we do all these things. There’s so much deliberation, prediction, planning. Then we do the actions according to the things we want to achieve. There is an outcome achievement, which hopefully is a victory. And then there’s a postmortem about how we did it, how we could’ve done better, how we did better than we thought.

But here’s the crazy part. It’s not even real, and it’s so satisfying, because as humans, we can model real outcomes and get the same hit off of them. That’s why we like movies and TV. They are modeled outcomes, where we watch other people achieving a feeling we want to feel. And we get a little whiff of their crack hit. And that’s worth the subscription to Max or whatever. That’s what all of these things are.

That’s what I love about what we do. We are creating situations for people where they can sit back and watch somebody else go through all this hard work and suffering and then get the win. In real life, suffering sucks. A lot of times, the win when you get there does not feel at all like you thought it would feel. In fact, there is a shocking emptiness that can occur sometimes when you get there and you think, “I was meant to feel all of this, and I don’t feel any of it. Now what do I do?” That’s always fun.

John: I would say part of what was leading to this segment was some recent movies and some TV shows I was watching I felt like weren’t working on these levels because it was just like, you were killing the monsters. You did all the step threes. You took all the actions. But I didn’t have that lead-in to the options, so it just felt like you were on rails the whole time you were doing this thing. And I didn’t get the reward afterwards, because I couldn’t see that, did we actually do the thing we wanted to do. I didn’t feel a sense of victory.

Craig: You didn’t feel a sense of victory because probably in this circumstance, the characters couldn’t have really felt the sense of victory. They could’ve just realized it. If you don’t have that preexisting irritability, that thing that we can connect to, and you’re put into a situation where you have to do this impossible thing or else a lot of people will die, okay, I’ll do it. I did it. Good. That’s what you end up with. Good work, you. Roll credits. But that’s not what we’re there for. We’re there for understanding something deeper was satisfied. And if we don’t have that in place before the person shows up with the job offer, then we’re just not gonna be as engaged.

John: This outlines intrinsic rewards versus extrinsic rewards. Whatever you do and whatever you achieve should have a mix of the two of them. Intrinsic rewards: agency and autonomy, so a sense of control, a sense of achievement, enjoyment, and interest, that you actually enjoy, the characters inside this world enjoy doing this thing, these interests; and novelty, which basically this was a new thing for them they were able to conquer. The extrinsic rewards are things we’re always used to, so food, social status, money, a sense of safety. Those things we can expect. But it’s those intrinsic rewards I think so often we are not rewarding enough in our characters. We’re not giving them a sense of this. They’ll survive this thing, but they haven’t had a good time. We haven’t seen them enjoy it.

Craig: Have you seen Game Night?

John: I love Game Night. It’s so good.

Craig: Game Night’s wonderful. It’s a great example of this. They do such a good job of setting these characters up as people that love games. They love winning. It excites them. It excites them and it also brings them together. It’s the thing that makes them love each other is that they’re really good at unraveling puzzles, answering questions, and winning a game. That’s enough irritability for us, because when you jump into the future, that’s a little wobbly now, and then this new thing happens, and we get to watch their enjoyment of it, and they fall back in love with each other again. The characters need to get a hit off of this stuff. If it’s just a grim slog, then how am I supposed to enjoy this? If you can’t enjoy any of this – and it’s gauged in subtleties. If you have a very grumpy character – and I’ve been writing one of those for a while now – sometimes just the tiniest smile tells us a million things. But we need to know it’s happening, or else it just doesn’t matter what you do, Grumpy’s gonna be grumpy. That’s not gonna make us happy.

John: Last little takeaways here. I would say if you’re looking at your story and you’re worried that we’re not getting a sense of what their intrinsic motivations are, are they curious, are they out there, are they looking through various options, are they foraging, or are they doing what you’re telling them they need to do? They’re being forced into a situation by your plot?

Craig: That would be bad.

John: That’d be bad.

Craig: Passive characters, which generally no one likes, are not merely passive because they don’t do stuff and stuff happens to them. Sometimes they’re passive because they’re doing stuff, but they only have one choice. If there’s no choosing, their actions feel passive, because what else are they gonna do?

John: I guarantee you could say this story, the characters, it has no choice but be passive. They don’t have any choice. They don’t have any options. They’re in prison, literally. There are great prison stories. The reason why those great prison stories are great prison stories is, within their narrow set of options, they are making real choices and they’re taking agency.

Craig: That’s right. If you end up in a situation where someone’s like, “We need you to do the following impossible thing. There’s one way to do it. This is how you do it,” and you say, “Got it,” and then you do it – now, even this little thing in Star Wars, like, there’s only one way to blow this thing up. You gotta shoot this thing down a hole, and that’s the only way to do it. That is what he does, but before he does it, he turns off his targeting computer and uses the force. He makes a choice. And that choice is why that works. Otherwise, think of how terrible that would’ve been.

John: Bad sequence.

Craig: You have to do this thing. We showed it to you on a computer graphic. “I did it.” Great.

John: All the other complications you’ve thrown at them, it’s like, “Oh, but now this thing is in your way. This thing is in your way.”

Craig: Who cares?

John: Doesn’t matter.

Craig: Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter. The only way to win this is to hit a hole in one. Okay, I hit a hole in one. Yay. Meh. Whatever. Whereas Tin Cup – have you seen Tin Cup?

John: I’ve seen Tin Cup.

Craig: Oh my god, one of my favorite endings. Have you seen Tin Cup?

Drew: No.

John: Ron Shelton.

Craig: Ron Shelton. Great movie. He’s got this thing where he’s stubborn, he’s very good, but he’s his own worst enemy as a golfer. He tries to hit too hard. He hits too long. People keep telling him, “You gotta lay up,” meaning instead of going for 200 par, just hit the ball short and then hit it again and you get 100 par. It’s better for you. It’s smart. He ends up in this situation where he’s gonna win this tournament, he’s bounced back. Everyone can’t believe it. And he has a chance though to just make the most awesome shot ever over this water trap. He has to hit the ball super far to do it. They’re like, “Don’t do it. Just lay up or it’ll cost you the tournament.” He’s like, “No, I’m going for it.” You’re like, “It’s gonna happen.” He hits that ball, and it goes right in the water. Then he’s like, “I’m doing it again.” He hits the ball again, and it goes in the water. He hits the ball again, and it goes in the water.

People are like, “He’s blown up his career, the tournament, his life. He’s stubborn. He’s learned nothing.” He does it again. He hits the ball, and it goes all the way over the water, and I think it gets in the hole. I can’t remember. But the point is it gets over the water. It’s an impossible thing. People go crazy, like, “He did it.” You understood then, just doing the thing you were supposed to do, you always have a choice. That’s why Ron Shelton’s just brilliant at that.

John: Excellent. As we wrap this up, I’ll put a link in the show notes to this NIH study. Also the story of Brandon Blackwell, who was the quiz bowl champ, which is a great story. All the UK listeners are saying, “Of course Brandon Blackwell. Everyone knows that.”

Craig: “Everyone knows Brandon Blackwell.”

John: But not here in the U.S.

Craig: Brandon.

John: Brandon.

Craig: Brandon Blackwell.

John: An American.

Craig: Bloody American.

John: Bloody American.

Craig: Coming over here winning our pub quizzes.

John: Let’s do some listener questions.

Drew: Proud Dad writes, “My daughter is a high school senior, and she was accepted to both the USC screenwriting program and Princeton. In our 30-minute morning drives to her high school, we listen to Scriptnotes faithfully, and it’s still one of our favorite memories. So thank you for being in our carpool for so many mornings. This might not be a fair question, because we know Craig doesn’t think school has anything to do with being a screenwriter.”

Craig: Correct.

Drew: “And we know that John did the MFA program at USC. But we would love your thoughts as if you were weighing the pros and cons with your daughters. Long-term, my daughter would love to work in television, but she’s very passionate about playwriting and is torn between either USC, where industry contacts and writers’ room opportunities are common, and Princeton, where she can learn from Pulitzer Prize-winning authors and playwrights. We’d love to hear your thoughts.”

Craig: It might be too late here, huh?

John: It could be.

Craig: Complicated also is that I went to Princeton, so now you’re dealing with both of our alma maters. First of all, congrats.

John: Congrats.

Craig: Thanks for listening.

John: Both good schools.

Craig: What do you think, John?

John: Obviously, it’s whatever she wants. She has to make the decision between these two places. If she really believes that she wants to work in television, then USC will be great for that, because she’ll get that television experience. But all that said, I think undergrad is really about learning how to learn and learning how to do all the other stuff that’s interesting and exciting to you. It’s all the classes that are not about film and television and playwriting. And that’s gonna matter a lot more. She’s not gonna go wrong either place.

Craig: I agree. I don’t know how this ended here, but my guess is that she should go to the place that she feels the most excited about going to. She should go to the place that makes her feel good. She should envision her goals and see where they fit better. Princeton does have a remarkable creative writing program, and they’ve always had remarkable teachers there. The late, great Toni Morrison taught there, John McPhee, Joyce Carol Oates. You certainly would learn from remarkable people. That said, I’m not sure that makes you a good writer. I think that just makes you somebody that sat in a room listening to great writers talk.

There’s only one person that can make her succeed at what she wants, if what she wants continues to be what she currently wants – because that changes – and that’s her. It doesn’t matter where she goes. It truly does not matter where she goes. If she’s good at doing this, she’ll be fine coming out of Princeton, she’ll be fine coming out of USC. There are loads of people who graduate from USC, Stark, the whole thing, who just don’t really make it. There are loads of people who do what you and I do who didn’t go to any film school or went to schools that weren’t known for going to film schools. It’s a real chaotic mess out there. It comes down to the individual, to the outlier.

She should just go to the place she actually wants to be. And you know what? Maybe you meet a future spouse. You never know. Do people even do spouses anymore? Are we just old because we’re married?

John: You met your wife at Princeton.

Craig: I did. I met my wife at Princeton. That’s the thing that I got out of Princeton, to be honest. It didn’t help me with my career. It certainly wasn’t a great freshman year experience. We all know that. A lot of people that go to Princeton are super into being alums and everything, and I’m not. I don’t care. I went there, but it was a school. But I did meet my wife. I also learned things there that I carried through. The classes that I took that I was not expecting to take were the best ones. Best class I ever took in my life, Princeton University, Animal Behavior. Learned more about humanity in Animal Behavior class than anywhere else. That’s the fun part. Throw your plans out the door. Open yourself up to new experiences and see what happens, because you might walk out of there wanting to be a doctor.

John: I was a journalism major at Drake University undergrad, and then I applied to and got into USC for film school. I will say that graduate film school is nice, because you get people there who actually have some – they’re not all just random freshmen doing stuff. USC, if she got into the film program as a freshman, she’d be around people who want to make films and television, which is great, but they’re also a ways away from doing that. The nice thing about a grad program is you’re closer to doing the real things. You’re able to get internships and really be out there in the world doing stuff.

Craig: There is that, no question. There’s also, though, a very strange thing about the culture of aspirants. There’s a weird thing in the air, this choking ambition and striving and wanting and people jockeying. Sometimes you can get dismayed by who’s getting rewarded and who isn’t. And you just think, “This is not fair. That person’s bad. They’re pretentious. They’re a fraud. No one can see it except for me.” Eventually, people figure it out. But when you’re around a lot of people trying to do the same thing, it can be kind of gross.

I do remember that feeling early on in my career, where it just seemed like everybody was like rats clawing through a maze to find one small piece of cheese. Occasionally, there was a rat on top of you. If you heard about a rat getting a piece of cheese, you felt despair, like, “I thought the cheese was a lie. Oh my god.”

John: I also felt a fair amount of imposter syndrome, like I did not belong in the Stark program when I got there. That’s a thing you need to get through too. The nice thing about going to someplace outside of one of those film programs is you’re not gonna be surrounded by quite that much of the culture.

Craig: I think allowing yourself to develop as an individual and being a little more pure about it is probably a good thing. On the other hand, there are opportunities that you can get going to places that have these connections. But I don’t know. That’s the thing. You and I are pretty good examples, because you did one of those choices. I did the other choice. We’re both doing the same job. We’re on the same podcast.

John: Crazy, that.

Craig: In our 50s.

John: We’re both 53 years old.

Craig: Fifty-fricking-three.

John: Let’s answer one more question here, one from Jonathan.

Drew: Jonathan writes, “How much should the writer consider the trailer when writing the script? I’m thinking in terms of early reveals that tie into the premise and would likely be shown in the trailer to advertise the film, but could still be a surprise to the reader or anyone who sees it without having seen a previous. I’m reminded of taking my friend to see The Sixth Sense and how shocked he was at the ‘I see dead people’ line, not just the ending.”

John: I argue that you should consider the trailer as you’re writing, think about how would you actually present this movie to an audience, while knowing that you have zero control over that as the screenwriter. For movies I’ve done, I’ve written trailers and sometimes those are shot, or teasers and sometimes those are shot. But rarely have I had real direct control over that, including when certain crucial story pieces are revealed.

Craig: A nice thing is that I do get quite a bit of influence on the TV side over the marketing materials. I do work closely with them on that. I agree with you. I think, Jonathan, we’re both saying yeah, you should consider the trailer. There are really two moments in the trailer that I try and think about. One is how does it start and one is how does it end. What is my last shot of the trailer? What is my last moment of the trailer? Is there a mic drop? Is there a holy crap? Is there a single beautiful line? Is there a question? But the opening of the trailer is just as important. What do I see? What do I hear? What sets the tone?

The middle stuff of the trailer you can imagine will be some simple storytelling and some cool shots and some laughs and some action, surprise. But it doesn’t mean you should sit down and try to write one of those moments. More like if you put yourself in the mindset, it might help you get there, or as you’re weighing possibilities, if one of them pops out and you think, “That’ll actually be great in a trailer. I don’t know if it’d be super great in the show or the movie, but in a trailer, it’d be great,” write it in so you have it. You could even say, “This is for marketing.” I’ve done this before, although I do try to avoid doing the thing where you – I don’t think I have – where you put stuff in a trailer that you don’t put in the show. I don’t think I’ve done that. You know sometimes they’ll do that?

John: Yeah.

Craig: I think if it’s worth going in the trailer, it should be in the show is my feeling, or the movie.

John: I would agree. The reason why you need to think of the trailer is that the trailer is essentially your elevator pitch. Why does this movie exist is really the trailer. If you cannot tell your story somehow visually in that little bit, there’s probably something that’s not quite working with your story. That said, Go was an impossible thing to cut a trailer for. It’s hard to sell the premise of Go, at least the story premise, but you could show what it felt like, either communicating story or communicating a vibe or feel.

Craig: If you watch trailers for Cohen Brothers films, that’s almost always what you get, which is this absurdist, weird feeling that’s more than story. It’s more a sense of the madness that’s inside of the movies they make, which are pretty much always beautiful and brilliant.

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing is actually two episodes of Search Engine, this podcast by PJ Vogt, and it’s looking at why there are so many illegal weed stores in New York City, because all these storefronts are selling weed illegally. He’s going into what the history was there and why it got to be this way. He has to go back to California’s pot legalization system and what went wrong in California and all the things they were trying to fix when they legalized weed in New York and how it all kind of didn’t turn out the way they wanted it to turn out. In attempting to fix the mistake with California, they made new mistakes, which has led to this proliferation of illegal weed stores and made it very hard to open legal ones.

Craig: John, how many weed stores do you think there are in Vancouver? Just take a guess.

John: The answer’s either gonna be zero or-

Craig: It’s definitely not zero. It’s legal to sell.

John: Hundreds.

Craig: 93 million. There are 93 million weed stores. There are weed stores inside of weed stores in Vancouver. Vancouver smells like rain and weed. It is insane. Also, just side note, I’m not answering this question as much as I’m just now rambling about weed, have we talked about the drivers in Los Angeles lately? When I moved to Los Angeles, I remember thinking, oh my god, everyone’s insane, because I think they were on coke. I think all the drivers on the road were on coke. People were switching lanes constantly for no reason, which feels very cocainey to me. Now, I think everyone’s just edibled up. They are slow. They are slow. The light changes green, and it’s like, all right, sure, I guess I’ll go now. I preferred the cocaine drivers. I really did.

John: The other thing I have noticed over the course of my 30 years driving in Los Angeles is when you moved to Los Angeles you had to learn that in order to take that left-hand turn, you are going to need to go into the intersection and then when the light turns-

Craig: And turn left on the red.

John: Left on red, yeah, which sounds impossible, but-

Craig: Three cars get to go. That’s the deal.

John: That’s the deal. I think decade by decade, people have gotten more nervous and more nervous about doing that.

Craig: They’re not nervous.

John: They’re stoned.

Craig: They’re stoned. They’re just like, “Oh man, I missed the light. No worries. Hey, guess what? Light’s gonna come around again, man. It’s all good. I just had five peach strawberry gummies.” This is me being this 53-year-old guy going on about goddamn stoners. I just want them to be on cocaine so that they’ll go through the light. I need to go places.

Anyway, I will [unintelligible 00:58:30]. It’s so silly. This weed thing is so silly that New York has illegal weed stores. It’s like hearing, I don’t know, 20 years ago someone’s like, “Oh my god, did you hear that in, I don’t know, whatever, Toledo they have illegal cheese stores?” You’re like, “Why do they need… What? Sell cheese. It’s fine. Everybody else is.” It’s over. It’s over, New York. Just let them sell it. Have we talked about Shogun?

John: We have not talked about Shogun.

Craig: That’s my One Cool Thing this week. Shogun, the mini series on FX, Hulu, Disney Plus. It’s FX. I want to give the mayor of television, John Landgraf, credit here. It is FX, which is also Hulu and also Disney Plus. I watch it through Disney Plus. Anyway, I’m really enjoying it.

Shogun is one of my favorite novels of all time. I have read that novel multiple times, and I rarely do that. I was deeply influenced by the 1980 miniseries. I learned a lot about storytelling from that. I watched the miniseries. I was 9 or 10. Absolutely blew me away. For 1980, it was remarkable. It was on ABC, I want to say. I would say half of the dialog was in Japanese, subtitled, which just didn’t happen. The Japanese people were played by Japanese people, which also often didn’t happen. Toshiro Mifune, the Laurence Olivier of Japan who starred in all those wonderful Kurosawa movies, played Lord Toranaga, which was remarkable. And Richard Chamberlain played the love interest, because he loved the ladies. LOL. And I was obsessed. And so then I went and read the book, and I got even more obsessed, because the book was just full of all these other details, and you also realize what they mushed to put in a miniseries on network television. Here comes Shogun, written, created by Justin Marks and Rachel Kondo. Have we ever had Justin on the show?

John: I think Justin’s been on the show. Justin’s a friend.

Craig: He and Rachel, who is his wife, or rather, I should say he is her husband – they belong to each other – they’ve created the show. And it’s excellent. It is doing a much better job than the 1980 miniseries of being authentic to the time period. And I love the attention to detail. You know I’m a detail nut. It’s so clear how they’ve gone into every little corner and made sure everything looked right. They’re telling the story in a really interesting and beautiful way. But also – maybe this is the coolest part of my One Cool Thing this week – it releases an episode every week. It comes out on Tuesdays. I look forward to Tuesdays. It’s almost over. But each Tuesday, I’m like, “It’s coming, it’s coming.” That’s how you’re supposed to do it. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why anyone would make a – like 3 Body Problem on Netflix.

John: I wondered what was going on with 3 Body Problem.

Craig: Massive show, and they’re like, “Here’s all of it.”

John: It makes the footprint so much smaller.

Craig: I just don’t know. Game of Thrones worked great. They all want to have their next Game of Thrones. They got the Game of Thrones guys and just forgot the one thing about the Game of Thrones, which is you put out one episode a week. People look forward to it. They watch it together. They talk about it together. People write recap essays. Anyway, so congrats to Justin and Rachel, but also congrats to FX for doing it correctly. This is the way to do it and they’re gonna win everything.

John: They will. It’s also a strange Emmy season this year, because so many things were not – you’re not eligible for an Emmy this year.

Craig: No, because we’re not on the Emmy cycle.

John: You’re not on the air.

Craig: The awards cycle got so thrown off by the strikes. Next week I’m going to the WGA Awards for a show that aired over a year ago.

John: I’ll see you there.

Craig: Fantastic. What will you be wearing, John?

John: I’m debating between-

Craig: Who will you be wearing?

John: It’s black tie, but not everyone actually wears black tie. Are you wearing a suit or a tux?

Craig: I’m gonna go tux.

John: Great.

Craig: I’m gonna go tux, because how often do you get to wear a tux? I’ve got it. Why not wear it?

John: It’s also in the afternoon, which I think is great.

Craig: Yeah, so you can leave and go about your day. You’re going suit or tux?

John: I think I’m gonna go tux. I’m gonna go tux.

Craig: You’re gonna go tux? Why not? Go tux. Go tux. It’s at the Palladium. Great. I’ll see you there. The WGA Awards show is particularly amusing for the following reasons: one, not on television. No one cares. Even fewer people care than normal. Two, this is my favorite part, because the WGA is, and I will say this forever, stupidly divided into two unions, the WGA West and the WGA East, and because the WGA East really is like, “We’re also gonna have our own at the same time,” stupid, like we don’t have planes, they run a separate awards show for the same categories simultaneously. Not with different nominees. Same nominees. But they need to have their own award show running at the same time. But because they can’t exactly run at the same time, because it’s not televised, it starts to wobble out of sync a bit, which means inevitably you get a text.

John: “Congratulations” or “sorry.”

Craig: “That sucks.” You’re like, “Wait. Oh. They haven’t even said my category. I’m leaving.” That’s the other thing about the WGA Awards, because it’s not televised. People just start leaving. By the time you get to the last award, there’s the janitor. It’s like, “You guys got five minutes. We got a wedding coming in.” I think this will actually be quite nice because it’s the first post-strike award.

John: It’s also outside of the award season, which I think is actually kind of great.

Craig: It means nothing. It predicts nothing.

John: It predicts nothing.

Craig: It’s great.

John: It’s already a very loose awards show, so I think it should be a loosened vibe.

Craig: It will be pretty relaxed.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro this week is by Ben Singer. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@dev.johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That’s where you’ll find transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. We have T-shirts and hoodies. They’re great. You’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all the back-episodes and bonus segments, like the one we’re about to record on humans leaving the solar system. Craig, happy birthday once again.

Craig: Thank you, John.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, so we talked about the 3 Body Problem, just very briefly. 3 Body Problem involves an alien civilization that is coming towards us. But my question is, do you think our human form bodies will ever leave the solar system?

Craig: Yours and mine?

John: Not yours and mine, but humans like us, flesh and blood humans, will we travel the stars? Because it’s a staple of science fiction.

Craig: It is a staple of science fiction. I’m gonna say something that a lot of people disagree with. My answer is no.

John: My answer is no also, but maybe for different reasons.

Craig: Maybe for different reasons. My answer is no because I think this is a simulation. I think the solar system is probably the limit of the high-res work that’s been done in our simulation. Beyond that, it’s the distant mountains in a video game, which is why the universe keeps expanding the more we look at it.

John: Wow. Craig, you’re not a Flat Earther, but you’re sort of like a Flat Solar.

Craig: I feel like everything beyond the solar system is real, but no more real than what’s in the solar system. It’s just not as fully ressed out, and there is in fact nothing to get to. If the simulation wanted it, then yeah, they would probably be like, “Okay, we’re gonna actually fill in this other galaxy so they can go to that place in fast travel and land on a thing there.” But I don’t think so.

John: I want to put a pin in the simulation thing, because I want to go back to the show The Boys, which I’m convinced is in a simulation as well. But my argument for why flesh and blood human beings will never leave the solar system is we’re just so incredibly fragile. We’re just not designed to do these things at all. And by the time we have the technology to really get us out of those places, it’s gonna make much more sense to put our synthetic versions, our digital versions on a thing and ship us out.

Craig: I agree with you, and I also feel like the designers of the simulation put so much space in between us and even the rest of the solar system. Mars is the next planet over. It still takes like eight months to get there.

John: I do think we’ll put some physical human beings on Mars, maybe not in my lifetime, but not too long after.

Craig: There’s not a huge reward for it, I gotta be honest with you, other than, “We did it. We made it to Mars.” I don’t know if you saw the brilliant Disney film Rocket Man.

John: I’m sorry, I missed it.

Craig: 1997’s Rocket Man.

John: It’s on the list of 100, but…

Craig: We really got into [unintelligible 01:08:00]. You got to Mars, and guess what? It’s red. Anyway, you want to go home now? It’s not great. Melissa, many years ago, she was like, “They’ve opened a new shopping outlet in Ontario. We should go see it.” I’m like, “Okay.” Ontario, not Canada, but east of Los Angeles. It was Christmas. We went there. I walked in and I said, “We’re going home now.” To me, Mars may be the Ontario shopping outlet. But to get to even as far as let’s say Pluto, the demoted non-planet, would take god knows – how many years would it take to get to Pluto?

John: It depends on how fast were you able to get our rockets up to.

Craig: This is a whole thing. You can’t go the speed of – all these things, you can’t do it. You can’t. As it turns out, you can’t.

John: I saw this movie called The Martian. It turned out it was actually really hard to get a person onto Mars, but especially off Mars.

Craig: Really hard.

John: Really tough. Really tough.

Craig: How long to go to Pluto? How long do you think it would take you to get to Pluto? You have to go very, very quickly.

John: It takes a while for light to get there, so getting a human being there, it’s tough.

Craig: About 12 years.

John: That’s also why I say the digital version. Time is useless to that. It doesn’t mean anything to you. Then you don’t have to do all this stuff like putting Ripley in her cryo bed.

Craig: That’s the other thing. Everybody comes up with the same solution, including 1997’s Rocket Man and 3 Body Problem and everybody else that sends somebody really, really far. Freeze them.

John: Freeze them.

Craig: You can’t freeze people. That whole thing, you just can’t.

John: [Crosstalk 01:09:52].

Craig: Everyone just wants to freeze everybody. The only way to get there is to-

John: Captain America.

Craig: If you can suspend somebody like that, we should be investing in that now, here. Our whole thing is freeze yourself and we’ll wake you up when we have a cure for your disease, which is why some people have actually done that. As it turns out, their body is completely damaged, a cracked ice cube. It doesn’t work. That’s always been the thing. I just think it’s too difficult. If we have the technology to actually be able to escape our own galaxy and make it to another one – and by the way, the space between galaxies is vast.

John: Yeah, it’s big.

Craig: Then we probably have the technology to solve every problem that currently exists on this planet.

John: Drew, what’s your opinion on leaving the solar system?

Drew: I am optimistic. I think eventually, I feel like we’re bugs that’ll hop and maybe pop out eventually. I think your point about us being fragile is fairly true right now. I’m stuck on you think that we live in a simulation, because you’ve mentioned it a few times. I never thought you were actually serious.

Craig: We absolutely live in a simulation.

Drew: Why? I don’t know why. It bothers me. Maybe it’s a personal thing.

Craig: Of course it bothers you. You wanted this to be real.

Drew: What about microbiology? What about the little tiny things? That’s not just waiting for the resolution to come through on how all that works?

Craig: I think that stuff’s been coded in and engineered quite beautifully.

Drew: But wouldn’t you need a supercomputer of-

Craig: Yes, you would need a very powerful computer to do this, one that is far more powerful than the computers we have. But they have it. Look at this way. We’re making simulations. They’re not great. They’re okay. But think of the simulations we can make now versus the ones we could make 50 years ago, meaning none. 50 years ago, there was the Game of Life, where it was little blobs going bleep bloop bleep. Now we have sims. We have artificial environments where people are running around and doing things. We have AI, all the rest of this. Can you imagine a world where we could create a simulation where the people inside the simulation were fully artificially intelligent?

Drew: Yes, but wouldn’t there theoretically be – because every piece of code has problems. It screws up and it needs to be defragged or – I’m using the wrong words. But we’ve never experienced that. We’ve never had really glitches or anything like that. All of it seems to be working right.

John: Or we may have had glitches, but then our memory was fixed.

Craig: Also, time does not move the normal way. For instance, our lifetimes may be processed through in a nanosecond of some higher versions. Think of how many simulations we can run with a battle simulator. We could run the battle of, I don’t know, the Battle of Sekigahara, to refer to Shogun. We can simulate that and run that probably three million times in a second. Now, do you see where I’m going here?

Drew: Yeah.

Craig: We don’t have any sense of actual time lapsing. My point is – and this is not my plan, just that others have come up with this – that if you give us 300 years from where we are now, 300 years, think of how far we’ve come in 10, 300 years, could we design a simulation where the people inside the simulation felt like they were real and independent and alive and intelligent?

Drew: Limitedly, but you wouldn’t be able to have 8 billion people feel like they were alive.

Craig: Okay. Then what, in 1,000 years maybe we can have that?

Drew: Sure. I guess by the same logic that I’m like, eventually we’ll hop planets and get on the solar system, eventually we would have this.

Craig: The only way, and if we do that, and that simulation is up to the level that our reality is, wouldn’t they start making simulations? The problem is the only way we’re not in a simulation is if we are the first ones in a chain of simulations. That’s why I think – it explains a lot.

John: It does explain a lot. I want to get back to The Boys and Gen V, two shows I genuinely enjoy, but I get a little bit frustrated by the characters in those worlds feel realish. Same could be said for the Marvel Universe too, where you can do all these supernatural things. You can fly and all this stuff. But that actually breaks all of our laws of physics.

Craig: Correct.

John: Someone I want to be in that world to say, “Oh, no, this must be a simulation where you’re changing these parameters, because these are not possible things.”

Craig: I am obsessed with this one moment – it’s in one of the Avengers – where Tony Stark gets thrown out of his own building. I think it’s the first Avengers movie. He’s falling from his skyscraper, and then Jarvis sends out the Iron Man stuff, which-

John: Assembles around, yeah.

Craig: … lands and assembles around him. And he almost hits the ground and then he puts his repulsors on to stop himself from falling.

John: They’re liquefied.

Craig: There are people right under it who should be vaporized. Also, the G-force of falling that hard and stopping like that is akin to hitting pavement. The Marvel characters follow no physics. Their arms should be ripping out of their sockets based on the things that they’re doing. It’s okay. It’s Marvel.

John: It’s Marvel, absolutely, so I’m willing to forgive it, just like I don’t believe in ghosts, but if I’m writing a story with ghosts in it, I’m gonna follow all the-

Craig: I love Ghostbusters.

John: I want to follow that thread down, so great.

Craig: Once you say, okay, we’re gonna throw some physics out the window, literally, for everybody, then yeah, go for it.

John: But circling back to a conclusion, I think the actual physics of traveling outside the solar system are not going to make sense for physical human beings.

Craig: I agree. It will not make sense for physical human beings. I think we’re here to be here. I think this is where we are, and this is where we shall stay until they reboot.

Drew: We’re real.

Craig: Yes, we are real. We’re as real as anything.

John: Just because I think we’re gonna get emails about this-

Craig: Oh, really?

John: You believe we’re in a simulation, but you’re not nihilistic about it. You don’t believe that nothing matters. You actually do believe that things matter.

Craig: I don’t think anything matters ultimately. I think that existence is absurd. But I feel like there’s a way to behave. There are values that I think are important, that are programmed into us or you could say are part of our shared genetic code and the expression of bio-evolutionary instincts to be pro-social. It feels good to help people. It feels good to do the right thing. It feels good to contribute. It feels good to fulfill a purpose. Look what we do for a living. If we die today, it’s not like everyone goes, “That’s it. Pack it up, everyone. Mass suicide. Those guys aren’t around anymore.” But we do it anyway, because we’ve found purpose for our lives. And then that’s that. Look at Drew. He’s gonna cry.

Drew: I’m sticking to my guns.

Craig: Nothing wrong with that. By the way, I’m way out of line with almost everybody. Most people believe in God and angels. I’ve gone past the atheists now into some whole other dimension of stupidity. And here’s the best part. It doesn’t even matter. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter, unless I get thrown in Hell and burn in a lake of fire forever, in which case that will be very annoying and confusing. Time’s sure spinning for me. We stood outside and watched the eclipse. We took a pause in the middle of this to watch the eclipse. It looked beautiful.

John: Yeah, it looked beautiful.

Craig: It looked so vivid and real.

Drew: That’s because the moon is real.

Craig: It’s as real as my eyeball.

John: Thanks, guys.

Craig: Thank you.

Links:

  • My Pal Foot Foot by The Shaggs
  • Braid by Jonathan Blow
  • Connections from the New York Times
  • Q: Who Found a Way to Crack the U.K.’s Premier Quiz Show? by David Segal for The New York Times
  • On what motivates us: a detailed review of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation by Laurel S. Morris, Mora M. Grehl, Sarah B. Rutter, Marishka Mehta, and Margaret L. Westwater
  • Why are there so many illegal weed stores in New York City? by PJ Vogt
  • Shōgun on FX
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Ben Singer (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The Power of the Cold Open

Episode - 644

Go to Archive

May 28, 2024 Scriptnotes, Transcribed

John and Craig explore one of the most powerful and versatile tools in episodic television: the cold open. But how does it work? What kind of scenes does it showcase best? How can it play with point of view, perspective and time? What makes it memorable? And how do you make it work for your story?

We also discuss new requirements for loan-out corporations, follow up on streaming ads and AI-generated coverage, and answer listener questions on titles, exposition and disabled representation.

In our bonus segment for premium members, John and Craig check out OpenAI’s flirty new chat capabilities and ask, do they have any love for talking to human-like AI’s?

Links:

  • Scriptnotes hats and drinkware!
  • John jumps out of a plane on Instagram
  • Corporate Transparency Act: An Overview of Impending Reporting Obligations
  • MoviePass, MovieCrash | Official Trailer from HBO
  • The Film Fund and the Reddit thread
  • LOST – Desmond in the Hatch
  • Suwada Nail Clippers
  • Song Exploder – Madonna’s “Hung Up”
  • The Ladder by Hatch Escapes
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter
  • John on Mastodon
  • Outro by Eric Pearson (send us yours!)
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

UPDATE 7-12-24: The transcript for this episode can be found here.

Working It Out: Screenwriting Advice You’ll Actually Use

May 21, 2024 Scriptnotes

John joins Mike Birbiglia on his podcast Working It Out to share direct, practical screenwriting advice that you’ll actually use, whether you’re an aspiring screenwriter or you want to pursue creative work of any kind.

They explore John’s screenwriting process, from defining his expression “breaking the back of the script,” through the different forms of conflict and navigating the murky middle of the story. John shares the best writing advice he’s ever received, the screenplays everyone should read, what he appreciates in standup specials and why cool people aren’t funny. They also revisit the gains made on AI as a result of the writers strike.

Links:

  • Mike Birbiglia’s Working It Out
  • Watch this episode of Working It Out on YouTube
  • See Mike Birbiglia Live
  • The Old Man & the Pool on Netflix
  • Scriptnotes, Ep 179: The Conflict Episode
  • Aliens screenplay by James Cameron
  • Sex, lies and videotape screenplay by Steven Soderbergh
  • Miry’s List
  • Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt!
  • Check out the Inneresting Newsletter
  • Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription!
  • Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram
  • John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter
  • John on Mastodon
  • Working It Out is produced by Mike Birbiglia, Peter Salomone, Joseph Birbiglia and Mabel Lewis. Associate producer: Gary Simons. Consulting producer: Seth Barrish. Video consultant: Graham Willoughby.
  • Special Thanks to Marissa Hurwitz, Josh Upfal, David Raphael, Nina Cwik, J. Hope Stein, and Oona. Music by Jack Antonoff and Bleachers
  • Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@dev.johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Newsletter

Inneresting Logo A Quote-Unquote Newsletter about Writing
Read Now

Explore

Projects

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

Apps

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

Recommended Reading

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

Screenwriting Q&A

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

More screenwriting Q&A at screenwriting.io

© 2026 John August — All Rights Reserved.