Dal | johnaugust.com (2024)

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: Oh. Oh. My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And you’re listening to Episode 638 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. Today on the show, you can’t handle the truth.

Craig: You can’t handle the truth!

John: We’ll be talking about lawyer scenes in movies and television with an actual criminal defense attorney, to separate the tropes from the truth. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, beach vacations. Is there anything better or anything worse?

Craig: Everything is better. Literally everything.

John: I’m with you there. We’re going to have to find some other third party to argue for beach vacations.

Craig: I don’t know if we have the right guy for that, be honest with you.

John: We’ll see. First, Craig, we have some important follow-up here about a mistake that you made. The great Julia Turner herself wrote in to say:

Drew Marquardt: “As your self-appointed chief journalist correspondent, I am obligated to write in to tell you that Stephen Glass published his fabulism in The New Republic, not The New Yorker. That is how his articles made it through The New Yorker’s vaunted fact-checking process, which in fact, they didn’t.”

Craig: God, I feel terrible. Confession time. My entire life, I panic whenever I have to reference The New Republic, The New Yorker, or New York Magazine.

John: 100 percent.

Craig: New Yorker is special. New Republic is also quite special. New York Magazine is not that special. But I panic every time. And I blew it here. And I blew it in the dumbest way, because I made a mistake, a fact-checking mistake about a fact-checking story where a guy was making stuff up. So thank you, Julia, for correcting me. And my deepest apologies to the folks at New Yorker, who have always been very nice to me. And what did I do? I rewarded them by trying to hang Stephen Glass around their neck. I’m sorry about that. It was The New Republic. Craig is shamed.

John: Julia also sent through this link about this article that Hanna Rosin wrote. Hanna Rosin was a contemporary of Stephen Glass working at The New Republic. When the whole thing outbroke, she felt blindsided and betrayed. But in this follow-up article, she goes to Los Angeles to meet with him and see what he’s done with his life. And she finds him as he’s trying to get the California Bar to let him become a lawyer. And so it’s all the drama surrounding that. We’ll put a link in the show notes to this really good article by Hanna Rosin that also ties into our main theme here, which is what does it mean to be a lawyer and what does the law include.

Craig: We should probably get a lawyer to discuss that.

John: Yeah, we should. I have the perfect person for us.

Craig: Oh, do you?

John: Ken White is a defense attorney and a former federal prosecutor, whose expertise includes criminal justice, free speech rights, and the intricacies of the legal system. He’s got this knack for demystifying complex legal topics, which we can witness each week on his podcast, Serious Trouble, which you should definitely subscribe to. Craig, you and I and many people may already follow him on social media, because he’s @popehat, or read his blog posts at popehat.com.

Craig: And Ken and I have known each other I think before the existence of podcasts.

John: Wow.

Craig: It’s going on, what, 21 years or something like that now. Welcome, Ken White.

Ken White: Thank you very much, guys. I’m very happy to be here.

John: Ken, can you talk us through, what do you mostly do in your days? I see you on social media. You’re writing stuff. You’re doing your podcast. But what is your actual day job? Who are you representing?

Ken: I have a practice. It includes criminal defense, in both state and federal courts, and a lot of eclectic civil cases. I really love First Amendment stuff, but I take on all sorts of other civil cases. It’s everything from plaintiffs to defendants, all sorts of subject areas, a lot of stuff.

But to answer your question, what do I do, it’s mostly paperwork. The demystifying, there’s a whole lot of paperwork of various kinds, and then there’s supervising other people doing paperwork and editing their paperwork. Then there’s asking the client to give you paperwork and then saying, “No, that’s not right. Do it again.” Then there’s arguing about paperwork in front of the judge. It’s not a job for someone who really wants the outdoors. You can be a trial lawyer, but even trial lawyers spend a lot of time not actually in court doing exciting things.

Craig: I gotta be honest. You were mentioning just before we started that you’re about to go into a trial. I have lots of friends who are attorneys. Trials seem like these things that sometimes occasionally happen, but most of the time it’s like watching baseball. Every now and again, something happens, but it’s a lot of stuff in between. That is the athletic version of paperwork. Our understanding, in Hollywood at least, of how this all works, I don’t recall seeing a ton of paperwork scenes, John. Do you?

John: No. Actually, in Clueless, one of our favorite movies, there is a lot of paperwork. She comes in and she helps out with highlighting through the depositions or something.

Craig: Which is disturbing.

Ken: As a rule of thumb, for every minute that something dramatic is happening, you spent two hours, at least, preparing for it.

Craig: But at least those hours earn you money.

Ken: Sometimes, yes, that is true.

Craig: Sometimes.

John: Now, Ken, we’re gonna get into scenes in movies and television that involve lawyers and involve the law. But I’m curious, from your side, how much of your decision to become a lawyer was based on seeing it on screen? How much of your early impression of it and your interest in it came from seeing it on screen?

Ken: I think I started, I just wanted to be a lawyer because my dad was a lawyer and I admired him. He was a trust and estates lawyer for his whole career, and I definitely did not wind up doing that. That was my sense. Then yeah, stuff like LA Law, which was our era, and movies like To Kill A Mockingbird and things like that, those influenced it. But most of what I learned about what being a lawyer is actually like didn’t start happening until I had jobs in college or after law school.

John: One of the discussions that actually prompted having you come on this podcast was we were talking about Anatomy of a Fall this last year, which was such a great movie and is a French legal courtroom drama. Watching that movie as an American, you’re just going crazy, like, how are they allowed to do this? All these rules, things we’re expecting from the American system are just not happening there. As we get into lawyer scenes, I guess we should stress that we’re really talking about the realities of the U.S. legal system, because stuff’s gonna be different any place else. This is not necessarily gonna apply to our British listeners, our French listeners, our Australian listeners.

Craig: Noticeable lack of wigs. You don’t have to wear a wig, do you? It would be nice if you could, Ken.

Ken: No, I do not.

Craig: Dammit.

Ken: I’m going in bald these days. Here’s the thing though. Most dramatic presentations of the law are so far from reality that you might as well have them be commentary on law in France or Burkina Faso or whatever you want to choose, because the delta is not meaningful, because there’s such a huge difference between the way it really works and the way you make it work on screen.

Craig: It sounds like we’re nailing it over here in Hollywood is what Ken’s saying.

John: That’s what he’s saying is we’re being 100 percent accurate.

Ken: But I’m okay with that. The way I see it is, it’s an art form and it’s completely different than the medium it’s describing. It’s like if someone says, “How come the movie isn’t like my favorite book?” I understand, because it’s a different medium. The same thing is, if you’re gonna depict legal stuff, it’s a very different medium than a transcript, and so you’re gonna cut out all the horrible, soul-destroying parts.

John: But Ken, it must be somewhat frustrating when you encounter a new client who has an expectation of how this is all gonna go, having seen legal stuff from Hollywood all these years, and then you have to confront them with the reality of what it’s really gonna be like.

Ken: Yes, although often, the clients have a better sense by the time they get to me.

Craig: Because they’re recidivists or… ?

Ken: Sometimes, yeah. The people I represented when I was on the Indigent Defense Panel, people accused of drug crimes, violent crimes, immigration crimes in the federal system, who couldn’t afford a lawyer, they understood. They’d seen it before, and they didn’t have any illusions about it.

The way people tend to consume it based on what they’ve seen, it’s not so much they have these movie-style expectations about the way the case works. What you’ll find is privileged people, affluent people who went to college and grew up in a good neighborhood and have never been in the system before tend to experience the system as conspiratorial. They tend to think, “This criminal case they brought against me, someone must have it out for me. The DEA himself must have it out for me. There’s a conspiracy, because I cannot conceive of any other way that I would be treated like this,” whereas the guy I’m defending in his third bank robbery is, “Oh, this is exactly the way it works. I’m getting ground through the system again.”

It takes a while for people to realize that it’s not just that the courtroom isn’t exciting as it is on a 42-minute TV show, but that the process is a lot more Kafka-esque. And it’s hard to accept that this is the way they’re treating people all the time. In fact, they’re probably treating most people worse than you.

Craig: The lawyers that you run into, I’m guessing both working for the state or fellow defense attorneys, are probably nowhere near as interesting, flamboyant, explosive, tricky, articulate as the lawyers we’re seeing on television and movies, but perhaps are better served by their paperwork skills.

Ken: Let’s not leave attractive off that list.

Craig: Yes, of course.

Ken: Yeah, absolutely.

Craig: Just lots of Tom Cruises moving through the courtroom.

Ken: Exactly. Eight out of 10 criminal defense attorneys keep their court jacket in the trunk of their car and look like it. There are a lot of characters, actually. I find trial lawyers tend to be more character-ish than people who mostly do paperwork, just because you have to be, and the system guides you to be. There’s a lot more regular, “This is my job. Not every minute is on camera and funny or dramatic,” than you expect.

John: As you start talking through these tropes, I guess we’re gonna mostly focus on criminal stuff, but point out when there’s differences between how a criminal and civil case might work for these situations.

Let’s think about a classic start of any criminal trial or any criminal procedure is that this person has gotten arrested. One of the very first things we hear is the Miranda rights. “You have the right to remain silent.” Can you talk us through what the realities are of a person’s rights and what a person should be doing, what that person who is arrested should be doing versus what we see them doing in movies and television?

Craig: Can I make a prediction?

John: Please.

Craig: Ken is gonna say, “Don’t talk to the police.”

Ken: Yeah, but also don’t talk to the FBI.

Craig: Don’t talk to anyone, really.

Ken: A lot of my clients are white-collar accused people. They’re in a position where someone comes to the door, knocks, and says, “Hey, we’re from the FBI. We just have a few questions.” It’s not happening when they’re getting arrested. That’s true for most white-collar crime. You first find out there’s a problem when people start coming up to you and saying, “Hey,” the whole Columbo shtick, which is very accurate, by the way, the way Columbo would just be, “I just have this one question. You know this isn’t a big deal. Why would you be worried about me?” Totally law enforcement.

Law enforcement loves to put you at ease, make you think there’s nothing wrong here, you should just talk. But you shouldn’t. Whether you’re the guy who’s just got arrested a block away from a bank robbery that just happened or you’re the CFO of a publicly traded company whose stock has taken a nosedive and the SEC shows up at your door and they want to ask you a few questions just over coffee, both times you should shut up and talk to a lawyer, because you don’t know what’s going on. You don’t know your known. Unknowns are unknown unknowns. You probably don’t know the law. You may not even know if you’ve committed a crime. You probably don’t remember all the details of the things, because you haven’t immersed yourself in them yet. You have not looked through the emails or the documents or that type of thing.

Very little good can happen from you saying, “I need to talk to my lawyer.” The trick here is people think, “But if I do that, then they’re gonna arrest me,” or, “If I do that, they’re gonna be suspicious of me.” Possibly true, but the truth is, that reminds me of the argument, “I don’t want to wear a seat belt, because if I drive into a lake, I want to be able to get out easily.” It’s that kind of thinking. You’re protecting against something that’s a lot less of a risk when you’re saying, “I don’t want to make them mad.” The big risk is that they are incredibly good at getting you to say things that are against your best interest. Overwhelmingly, the best thing to do is to shut up.

Craig: That’s something that I didn’t know as a kid until a television show came along: NYPD Blue. That was the first time I had seen cops complain about people lawyering up. They basically were giving you a cheat code. All the cops ever complained about was the idea that somebody would lawyer up. “We gotta get in there and get this guy to talk before he lawyers up.” All I concluded – what else could I conclude from that show other than lawyer up?

Ken: That’s right. Actually, that’s an area where Hollywood and movies or TV gets remarkably close to the way it really is. All those depictions in all those shows of the box and you’ve got the perp in the box, you’re gonna sweat him, that is actually pretty realistic, all of the different techniques you see. There’s probably not quite as much violence anymore as you see portrayed. But pretending to be their friend, conning them into talking, all of that is absolutely classic. That’s what they do.

John: Now, at some point, Ken, you are brought in, and you are their lawyer. Can you talk us through that first meeting? Because I think that’s a very classic scene we’re also seeing is that first time the lawyer is talking with their client. The questions of, are you meeting them in prison or in jail? What is the boundaries of attorney-client privilege? How much can they feel free to say to you during those moments, even if they haven’t specifically hired you at that moment? That first meeting, what are the crucial things that we’re seeing or not seeing in scenes?

Ken: Sure. I’ve done all of those circ*mstances. I’ve met them the first time in jail. I’ve met them by the phone or Zoom, in person, all those things. If they are consulting me to consider hiring me, then our communications are privilege. I can’t reveal them. There are very few exceptions, one being if they’re currently controlling a bomb that’s about to go off, something on that level, they’re imminently about to commit a violent crime. Other than that, it’s completely privileged.

You obviously have to be very careful about your location. You don’t want to be talking in a crowded restaurant. You have to be careful who’s in the room with you, because that can disrupt the privilege if there are other people in the room with you. You don’t want to be someplace where you can be overheard.

But generally, my message is always, “Okay. I need you to tell me everything that happened. I need you to tell me the whole truth. We’re gonna start slow.” But that’s absolutely key. That’s controversial. You see this all the time in TV and movies. They say, “Don’t tell me what happened,” the implication being, “I want to be able to lie for you.”

There is a rule that as an attorney you can’t put anyone on the stand to lie. You cannot knowingly solicit perjury. If the client tells me, “I was in France,” I can’t put them on and instruct them to testify, “I was in Mexico,” something like that. But that problem is vanishingly small compared to the problem of not knowing all the true facts. Most cases settle. Of the ones that go to trial, few criminal cases have defendants testify. I would say less than 20 percent. To be deliberately telling your client not to fully inform you of the full facts because of this tiny chance that someday you may want them to testify at trial and say something different is a complete misreading of the situation.

Craig: You’re gonna want your client to say, “Yeah, I absolutely murdered my wife.” You kind of need to know that.

Ken: Yeah, I do.

Craig: The other question I have in regards to this first meeting – it’s very typical in television and movies, if the defense attorney is either the hero or the villain, when they show up they have this attitude. They always have this attitude when they walk in, like, “Okay, stupid cops. Beat it. I’m here.” When you show up in jail, at the police station, wherever you may be, if you are interrupting that process, how do you deal with the police, knowing that they’re looking at you with either suspicion or frustration?

Ken: My favorite iteration of that is probably from Fish Called Wanda. But generally, when you meet with a client, you get put in a separate room. You get put someplace where you can consult in private. Generally, you can rely that those are not being recorded in there, although some types of crime, some types of things, I would not have the full conversation there.

There’s rarely that cinematic, the cops are glaring at you. Usually, you’re not dealing with the cops who investigated and arrested. You’re dealing with sheriff’s deputies who are working in the jail or something like that. That type of thing doesn’t often happen. The time when it sometimes happens is when you get a call and your client’s business is being searched by the FBI and they’re sitting out on the curb. Then you roll up and the agents are all around. Then it can be a little awkward. But it’s the job.

John: The other scene I can picture is this guy comes home, his wife is murdered on the floor, he calls his lawyer first and then calls the police. The lawyer’s there at the actual crime scene when the crime is first being investigated. Is that a thing that actually really happens, where someone would call the attorney before calling the police?

Ken: In a manner of speaking. I haven’t encountered that in a murder scenario. But all the time in white-collar cases you encounter, “Are we gonna go to the cops with this? Are we gonna self-disclose that we’ve just discovered that our COO has been cheating customers?” or something like that. That is a very common strategic question faced by attorneys: do you self-report and hope to get out the best?

I value clients who call me and let me know something is going badly at the first available opportunity. Unfortunately, all these good decisions I’m suggesting that people make are not the norm, even for really smart people. I had a client in here the other day who said, “They asked to talk to me, but I said I need to talk with my attorney. And they say, ‘Are you sure? We just want to clear some of the things up.’ I said, ‘Yes, I’m sure, but I’ll have my attorney talk to you.'” I said to him, “Would if offend you if I said I want to kiss you right on the lips?” because that is so rare and it just warms my heart. When clients do that, I’m thrilled. Too often, part of what you get when you get the case, in criminal cases or civil cases, is that the client has already run their mouth or tried to fix things or tried to make things better.

Craig: Now you’re in trouble.

Ken: And it’s made your job harder.

John: Another thing we see at this stage is sometimes a lawyer taking a case that’s outside of their area of expertise. You have known thing that you’re really good at, but if a difficult real estate deal came or if somebody who was normally a corporate attorney but they’re accepting a murder trial.

Craig: Let’s say you’re a guy from Brooklyn who happens to be in the South and your nephew gets pinched for murder.

John: For example.

Craig: What do you do then?

John: Are there rules about what kinds of attorneys can’t even do what kinds of jobs, or basically, if you pass the Bar, you can do that kind of case?

Ken: For the most part, yes. There are a few specialties where you have to be specially licensed, but generally, you can blunder in and screw up anybody’s life in any field of law. I am very careful about not taking on areas of law that I don’t know. I will tell clients, “If you want to do that, you’re gonna have to pay me to learn the law in this area. I don’t think you want to do that,” because I’ve seen how people going and not knowing what they’re doing can be dramatically bad. Having experience both in federal and state court, for instance, I’ve seen how competent, experienced state criminal defense attorneys wander into federal court and it’s a completely different world and they don’t know what they’re doing. They can just cause complete havoc, very bad for their client.

I had a client not that long ago who was in some skirmish with a neighbor. They got something from the city attorney’s office calling for them to come in for an office meeting to talk about it. They went to the real estate lawyer, who thought he was smart and says, “Ignore it. You would never talk to them.” Real estate lawyer doesn’t know that an office meeting is a city attorney thing where they basically mean, come in, we’re gonna have you shake hands, and we’re gonna send you off and dismiss it. And so instead, he got charged, because he didn’t go to the office meeting.

You gotta know what you’re doing. You have an ethical obligation to be reasonably competent at the area where you’re practicing. Criminal is one of the areas where you can make things much worse very quickly. I’m very much against people blundering where they do not belong.

John: No My Cousin Vinny for Ken. He’s ruining movies.

Craig: It sounds like, but also, he’s foreclosing the possibility of a great television show. Hear me out. Do you remember those wonderful shows where itinerant heroes would just wander peripatetically from place to place?

Ken: B.J. and the Bear. Kung Fu.

Craig: Highway to Heaven. Kung Fu. There’s tons. They would roam the earth like dinosaurs, Drew.

John: Reacher does the same thing today.

Craig: Actually, Reacher does, although it’s a season.

John: A little more limited.

Craig: It’s not week to week. Highway to Heaven, he would literally be like, “I’m done.” The Incredible Hulk.

John: Totally.

Craig: My idea is that kind of show but with a bumbling lawyer. Every week he wanders into a new town, encounters a new case that he’s completely unqualified for.

John: I love it.

Craig: Blows it completely and then is like, “Meh, did it again,” and just moves on. Ken, any chance that that would-

Ken: I could see it work as a farce. I love My Cousin Vinny. It’s a great legal movie, because it’s entertaining. It gets some things surprisingly right. Some of the expert cross-examination stuff they show law students. Was it a good idea for this dude who had never done a trial before to do a criminal trial? It was absolutely not a good idea.

Craig: Wow, except hold on a second, because his beautiful girlfriend understood about Positraction, so that part worked.

Ken: The other thing is you’re not gonna have Marisa Tomei with you when you’re looking to step in [crosstalk 00:23:11].

Craig: You probably won’t have Marisa Tomei. I guess that’s true.

John: Ken, you brought up ethical issues. Can we talk about conflict of interest? Because you taking on a certain client, you have to disclose your conflicts of interest there. What might those conflicts be?

Ken: A few of them are you can’t represent people in the same case, where their interests conflict, unless you have a knowing, intelligent written waiver from them. Typically, you’re not allowed to represent two defendants in the same trial, because they may want to point the finger at each other. It’s very rare for you to be able to do that. In civil cases, it’s much more common to represent multiple defendants in the same case. But you always have to get an elaborate waiver from them, saying, “I understand all these risks and downsides.”

There can be problems where someone wants me to sue a former client, which I won’t do. Generally, you can’t represent one client against another current or former client if you might have gotten relevant secret information from that former client. There are all sorts of rules like that. When you have a personal financial stake in what’s going on, you can’t do it. There are often ways to get waivers from clients. Sometimes there’s not. The judge gets to make the ultimate call about whether or not it’s right.

It’s something you really have to watch out for. When you have a harmonious group of people who want to hire you, and obviously they want to hire one lawyer and not pay for five lawyers for the five of them, things can go south very quickly when they stop being harmonious. When that group gets angry at each other, then all of a sudden you’re hoping that you did the conflict waivers right.

Craig: The collection of dingdongs around Donald Trump constantly backbiting at each other. What a wonderful clown party that is to watch. But the other conflict of interest that we tend to see in movies and television are lawyers sleeping with each other.

John: I was gonna say, is it a conflict of interest if you fell in love with your client?

Craig: Or a client. Oh, god.

Ken: First of all, ew. Second of all-

Craig: That’s just based on your client [crosstalk 00:25:18].

John: Absolutely. You don’t have Sharon Stone as your client?

Ken: Believe me. You could have the most attractive client in the world and spend an hour talking to them and you may not want to sleep with anyone ever again. Most State Bars have rules about carrying on romantic relationships with clients. It’s sometimes not classified as a conflict-of-interest issue, although it could be. But it’s generally, in most states now, considered unethical and improper, because it clouds your judgment. They can’t make the right decisions about whether or not to get a new lawyer. Their judgment is clouded. But of course, it’s a trope in fiction forever, and that’s because it does happen and you see it. And it quite often winds up very badly.

John: I want to circle back to this idea of representing multiple parties, because I think to Succession, and as the Roy family starts suing each other, one of the things that comes up again and again is, are you going to join this bigger group or have your own lawyer? The smart people seem to have their own lawyer.

Ken: Yeah, particularly if you’re the weakest person in the group. If the corporation is in the face of a criminal investigation and they hire one lawyer to represent the CEO, the CFO, and Jimmy the janitor, Jimmy may take it in the shorts, because most of the attention is not gonna be given to him. He has a reason to worry that they’re not gonna be looking out for his best interests or alerting him when a real conflict of interest comes up.

There are always problems in situations where there are all sorts of conflicting loyalties and things like that. That’s why you have to very carefully analyze who the clients are, what their relationship is, to what extent are they going to want to point the finger at each other to defend themselves in this case, and how can we deal with that. That comes with very frank early conversations with clients, which is difficult, because – and this is something we should talk about – clients lie.

John: Let’s get into that, because that’s also a trope of these stories is that the lawyer, very deep into how it all goes, realizes there’s a whole separate thing that they’ve not been told about.

Craig: Richard Gere shows up and he’s like, “What about the book and the videotape and all that?”

John: Or Edward Norton is actually a psychopath.

Craig: Edward Norton, he didn’t do anything wrong, and then he did.

John: Yeah, and then he did.

Craig: Then he didn’t, but then he did. Then he didn’t, he did. But you catch your client in a lie. What is that? Is that a confrontation? Does it get sparky?

Ken: It can. It depends on the nature of the lie. The thing is, clients lie, not because clients are bad or because these are evil people involved in crime and civil disputes. Clients lie because people lie. People particularly lie when they’re scared and under stress and upset. The people I meet are scared and under stress and upset. They’re often embarrassed and humiliated by what’s happened. They’re trying to figure out what’s going on. They’re trying to wrap their mind around it. It takes a while for them to get a comfort level with you so they’ll come completely clean.

Think about it. How many people do we all really be completely transparent and nakedly open with about things? Probably a lot of the time, not even our spouses or best friends or confessors or whoever. It’s not human nature. It can take a lot of work to get the point where the client is comfortable doing that. Some of them never get all the way comfortable. Some of them can’t admit out loud they’ve done something. Sometimes they lie, and it causes me problems.

I’ve had clients lie up and down after I’ve given them the whole speech for hours, and it’s had bad impact on the case. I’ve had clients lie in the first meeting and I found out an hour after I left. And I fired them, just because I didn’t want to deal with it. Every attorney knows this. I represent humans in bad positions. People like that take a while to get around to being able to tell me the truth.

John: Circling back to the article from The New Republic that Julia Turner sent through, one of the things interesting is Stephen Glass is working as a paralegal, and one of his jobs was, as new clients came in, he was the person who first talked them through this is how it’s all gonna go. He fully disclosed, “I was fired for doing this terrible thing where I made up all this stuff and I lied.” He spends a lot of time explaining how he lied and how it was a bad thing, and in the belief it actually got the clients to be more open and transparent about what stuff was actually happening. That’s also his point of view on the whole thing, so he may be doing some fabulism right there.

Craig: Possibly.

John: But your ideal client would just sit down with you from the first meeting and say, “Here is everything. I am holding nothing back,” correct?

Ken: My idea is that anything that’s remotely complicated, that it’s gonna take a lot of meetings. I’m gonna set the table with the first meeting by explaining how important this is and going through some stuff. Then we’re gonna go through it in more detail. I’m gonna take the measure of the client. This is something you learn over the course of this career over decades. Take a sense of them, how long it’s gonna take to romance the truth out of them. Sometimes that gets right; sometimes that gets wrong.

The things you see in movies and TV, it’s very classic, it’s almost a cliché, I think, where the defendant has told them some of it, but then there’s one aspect they haven’t told them. They say, “I was embarrassed. I thought you wouldn’t believe me.” That’s very real. That happens frequently, where they’ve told me 80 percent of it but not the other 20 percent or something like that. That’s again just human nature.

John: In these initial setup things, and before we get to any trial or any sort of settlement, talk through some possible escape hatches. Spousal privilege, like the idea that you cannot be forced to testify against your spouse, is that a real thing? What are the edges of that? Because you see this in movies and TV.

Ken: This is a great Bar Exam question. There are two spousal related privileges. One is a spousal communications privilege. That means I can prevent my wife from testifying about a confidential communication we had during the course of our marriage. The other is testimonial privilege. That’s my wife can’t be compelled to testify against me while we’re married, not that she would need to be.

Craig: She could choose it though.

Ken: Exactly. She could [crosstalk 00:31:58].

Craig: Certainly, your wife would.

Ken: Yeah. They would have to say, “No, you’ve testified enough, Ms. Harbers. That’s enough.”

Craig: “Please sit down.”

Ken: Those are real things. They actually do come up all the time. They come up in context like taking the deposition of a husband or wife and asking them about something that their spouse said to them. That can be under the privilege. Things like that. Those are real things. Those come up. Those are usually evidentiary issues that come up at trial or during the discovery process.

John: You bring up evidentiary issues. One of the things we also see in movies and TV is where the attorney or Matlock’s assistant goes out and does some digging around and finds out the truth and does some investigation. How much investigation, discovery, and evidence gathering is actually typical and allowed and commonplace in the kinds of cases that you’re taking?

Ken: My types of cases, quite a lot. Now, in criminal cases, you’re supposed to be getting discovery from the government. They’re supposed to be turning over stuff. But you will definitely do your own supplemental investigation, whether it’s having people interviewed or researching records or whatever it is, depending on the nature of the case.

I learned very early on how important that was. A very early case I had when I got out of the government was a young guy who had been arrested while doing a summer at a prestigious college. He gets arrested for having meth and a gun in a drawer in his bureau in the college dorm room. He says, “It’s not mine. Someone must’ve put it there.” I’m like, “Yeah, sure, kid.” I hire an investigator to investigate the roommate, because the parents have the money to do this. Come to find out the roommate just got out of jail for stealing things from other people at this prestigious college and blaming it on other people, trying to frame other people for the crimes.

Craig: Wait a second. Hold on.

Ken: I went and I used that information, because this guy who did that was the one who turned my client in to the police, said, “Look what I found in the drawer of the bureau.” I brought that to the DA. I said, “Your witness is probably gonna be taking offense, but I’m gonna make mincemeat out of him.” They wound up giving my client a deal, a diversion program, stay out of trouble for a year and no charges.

That’s an example of why you have to learn to investigate things, even if you’re dubious, because the thing about these cases and this system is you can get so worn down and so into a rut that you can stop seeing people as individuals, stop believing their stories, just see them as a statistic. I’ve seen this case a million times before. It always plays out like this. Lose your edge that way. You’ve gotta keep your edge. You’ve got to always make the inquiries and put in the work to do that job for your client.

John: Let’s talk about who’s doing that work. You said you hadana investigator. Is that a private investigator, or is that classically a person who’s licensed to do that, or is it someone else who’s working for the firm? Who does that?

Ken: It depends on the case and the type of law. Typically, criminal cases, we have private investigators we have relationships with. A lot of them are ex-journalists or ex-federal agents, things like that. They’re good at wheedling information out of people, that type of thing. There’s not a lot of gunplay with them, but there’s a lot of tracking people down and talking to them, getting them to talk. We have different investigators for different types. Sometimes they’re in-house; sometimes they’re not. It really depends on the occasion.

Civil is often very different, because civil discovery is a lot more active. You’re sending formal demands to the other side. You’re entitled to do things like demand they produce particular documents or answer questions or sit for a deposition. You have a lot more leeway of how you investigate in a civil case.

John: Let’s say that you’ve talked to the client. You see what the case is laid out before you. Before you would go to trial, there’s some discussion of reaching a settlement. Are you the person who reaches out with, “Hey, let’s sit down and talk this through.” When something comes to a settlement before trial, what’s tended to happen?

Ken: It very much depends on the type of case and how serious it is. Your run-of-the-mill misdemeanor or petty felony, probably at arraignment they’re gonna tell you the offer. If you show up on a DUI, they’re probably gonna tell you this is the standard offer for first-offense DUIs. They’ll tell you that at the first appearance. Other cases, either you approach the prosecutor, or the prosecutor approaches you, say, “Are you interested?” There’s the dance of pretending, “No. I’m taking this to trial, but just for the sake of argument, what are you offering?” It’s a lot more formal and complex in federal court. A federal plea agreement is just monstrosity, 20 pages long. It’s a lot more informal in state court.

But the bottom line is usually one side or the other suggests, “Can we talk about it?” That’s really just a matter of schedule management. If you’re the prosecutor and you have 20 cases set for trial, you want to figure out which one of them is gonna go, and so they’re gonna want to make inquiries. If you’re a defense lawyer, you know that if someone’s gonna plead, the earlier they plead and possibly cooperate with the government, the more credit they’re gonna get, the more lenient sentence they’re gonna get.

John: A thing we saw out of Georgia was the use of racketeering laws, and so where you’re rounding up a bunch of people and you’re putting them all together on trial as one big thing.

Craig: Ken loves RICO, by the way.

John: Yeah, loves it. I listen to your podcast, so I know RICO is one of your favorite things on earth.

Craig: I like when he says he did a RICO.

John: In those situations, there could be a real benefit to being the first person to turn on the rest of the group. As the attorney representing that individual person, you’re looking at everybody else around you, and it feels like there’s a prisoner’s dilemma aspect to that as well.

Ken: Sure, there is. It’s not just RICO or really complicated cases. Any multi-defendant case or any case that’s connected to a larger investigation, if you can say, “My guy’s gonna come in and tell you everything,” and you’re the first in the door, then you’re gonna get the very best deal. In state court, that means allowed to plead to the most lenient thing with the most lenient recommendation. In federal court, it means allowed to plead to a lesser set of charges with a better sentencing recommendation in a more complex way.

The thing is that, yeah, it’s always a prisoner’s dilemma. You know that everyone in this situation is trying to find the least terrible way out of it. You always decide who’s gonna jump. A lot of the time, cases like the one we see in Georgia with Donald Trump and in similar cases, you have what’s called joint defense agreements. Those are agreements among the lawyers for the defendants. What they agree is that, “I’m gonna share information about what I learned from my client about this case and this situation. You’re gonna share yours. And we all agree to keep it confidential among ourselves and not disclose it.” And if anyone starts to cooperate, then they have to leave the group.

The point of this is to preserve the attorney-client privilege. The idea is that normally the attorney-client privilege only applies to a confidential communication. But the idea is if you talk to a group of people that has equal obligation to keep it secret, then you haven’t taken it outside the circle of privilege. That’s very common. In there, someone will say, “We’re leaving the group,” and then you know, okay, they’re about to cooperate, something like that.

But yeah, all the time. And usually in white-collar cases, it’s a lot more friendly, collegial. A lot more information is exchanged. Less of that in drug cases, violence cases, things like that. It’s a little more cutthroat. But yeah, that type of thing, that type of maneuvering is absolutely real.

John: Despite your best efforts, there’s no ability to reach a negotiated settlement. Talk us through what are the steps before we get to trial, what kind of things we would see before we get to trial.

Ken: Usually, when you’re getting ready for a trial, you have to put together all the exhibits that you’re gonna use. You have to have a witness list. Often, you’re required to propose jury instructions ahead of time. Those are crucial, because that’s where the judge tells the jury what the relevant law is. You’re gonna file a trial brief pointing out the legal issues that are gonna come up at trial.

Probably most crucially, you’re gonna be filing something called a motion in limine, meaning a limiting motion. That’s a motion saying, “Judge, this piece of evidence is illegal. You should keep it out. This piece of evidence is too inflammatory. You should keep it out. You should let me bring in this piece of evidence.” The motions in limine are incredibly important, because they can completely shape how the trial goes by what evidence is allowed to come in and what evidence isn’t allowed to come in. Before you’re picking that jury, we’ve alighted tons of work that’s very paperwork-intensive, very boring to show on film, but actually has a huge influence on how the case comes out.

John: Now let’s talk about – you’ve gone through all the evidentiary hearings. You’ve figured out what stuff is gonna get eliminated. Can you talk us through the jury selection process? What is that actually like? What do we see on film versus what the reality is?

Ken: It can go anywhere from super simple to super complicated. There are judges, particularly in simple cases, who do it lightning fast. The judges do all the questioning themselves, don’t let the lawyers talk to the jurors. I’ve known judges where you can have a jury picked in half a day. There are other cases, particularly cases that are gonna be super long or complicated, where you might have to do preliminary work. You might have to do something called qualify the jury. This RICO case against Trump and his pals in Georgia is such a one. Jurors are gonna get questionnaires saying, “Hey, would you be available for the next 9 to 12 months to sit in the uncomfortable chairs?”

Craig: Totally available. Wait, is it for RICO? Then yes.

Ken: Also, “Have you ever heard of Donald Trump? Do you have opinions about him?” That type of thing.

Craig: Who?

Ken: Bigger, more complicated cases, there will be screening of the jurors. Then there’s disputes over who gets to ask questions of the jurors. Some judges want to do it all themselves, because when we lawyers do it, then it’s called voir dire. We’re really doing two things. One is we are questioning the juror to find out whether we think they’re a good juror or not, but another is we’re developing a rapport with them and showing them themes of our case, like, “Ma’am, would you agree that if someone is standing there and a guy runs up with a knife that you might think he’s danger and might have to defend himself?” That type of thing. You’re trotting out your themes. You’re starting to get them thinking about who the people in the cases are. You’re making yourself hopefully entertaining or at least palatable to the jury.

Then you just go through, and different courtrooms have different ways of doing it, but generally there are jurors that you ask the judge to get rid of for cause, meaning that the judge strikes them because there’s some legal cause they shouldn’t be a juror, like they really can’t speak English well or they said that, “My dad’s a cop. I couldn’t be fair,” something like that.

Then you generally have what are called peremptory challenges, which are challenges that you get to use in your discretion to knock people out. You’re not allowed to use them based on race or gender or prohibited characteristics like that, notwithstanding that of course it happens all the time, particularly from the government. You’re using your sensibility. Who’s gonna be a good juror for me, who’s not. If you’re a prosecutor or if you’re the defendant in a case where the plaintiff’s asking for a lot of money, you want a solid citizen, someone who doesn’t believe in handing out money, someone who works for their money, someone who’s respectable, somewhat conservative, that type of thing. If you’re the defendant in the criminal case or the plaintiff in the case, it’s the other way around. You’re looking for people.

It’s totally an art and not a science. There are all sorts of shows about how it’s a science and you can attach electrodes to them and stuff like that and do it scientifically. My wife watches some of those, and I’m not allowed to be in the same room, because it agitates me almost as much as NCIS. I’m not allowed to be in the same room because of the comments I make.

John: Because what you’re seeing is that it does not reflect reality at all in terms of the ability to micro-slice who these people are?

Ken: No. There are people who make tons of money doing it, but I am super skeptical of that. I think it’s dousing, basically. I think it’s [unintelligible 00:44:56].

Craig: There was an entire movie about – was it Rainmaker or something like that? It was the Coppola movie where it was an expert to figure out exactly who should be on the jury using their mind powers. Basically, you’re just getting people that said that they would be available for nine months. There are certain things we can all conclude.

John: Maybe a speed round here. I want to talk a little bit about courtroom etiquette, because there’s things we see a lot in movies and television.

Craig: I object.

John: Talk to us about “I object.” Talk to us about objections and talking over objections. What does object mean and what are the edges of the reality of objection?

Ken: There’s a sliding scale of the formality of objections. The low end is a local, state court, and the high end is federal court. I always do it as if I’m in federal court, because then I can’t screw up. To do it properly, you stand up, you say, “Objection,” and then briefly the basis, “Hearsay.” The judge rules. What you’re not supposed to do is say it from a seated position. You’re not supposed to go off on a speech.

Craig: Objection.

Ken: “Objection. He knows he can’t do that. Since the beginning of time, the laws… ” That’s a speaking objection. You’re supposed to do it briefly. It’s a rule often broken. You’re not supposed to make a lot of bogus objections just to throw somebody off. Judges will eventually call you on that, and the jury will see it.

Craig: Has a judge ever said to you, “I’ll allow it, but watch yourself, counselor.” That seems to be in literally every – judges are constantly allowing objections but saying, “But I’ve got my eye on you.” Is that a thing?

Ken: If they were gonna say something like that, it would probably be at a sidebar, outside the hearing of the jury. That’s something that does happen. But no, they don’t put it like that in front of the jury. They might say, “I’ll let you ask a couple of questions, but get to the point quickly.” Something like that.

Craig: “Where are you going with this?”

John: Something that frustrates Craig and I – is begging the question actually a legitimate objection? If someone says, “Objection; begging the question.”

Ken: It is not a legal objection. I think actually-

Craig: It’s a mistake of thought.

Ken: … “states facts not in evidence” might be the right… Let’s face it; 90 percent of people use “begging the question” wrong anyway.

Craig: 90 percent is a very low estimate.

Ken: I discovered, to my dismay, having been married for nearly 30 years now, that being able to use “begging the question” correctly drives literary people wild. If I had known this in my early 20s, it would’ve been a completely different social scene for me.

Craig: Absolutely. No question. It’s a very narrow group of people, very curious group of people. Peter Sagal over there at NPR I think is the king of the movement.

John: Here’s a question for you. I see in movies and TV where the attorney seems to be addressing the jury rather than addressing whoever is on the stand. That’s a no-no, correct?

Ken: Unless it’s an opening or closing statement, correct, you’re not supposed to address the jury. And the judge will yell at you if you do that sort of thing.

Craig: What about that sly look over to the jury? Are you allowed to do that?

Ken: The thing is you want to be careful about that, because you might not be as irresistible to the jury as you think you are. One of my partners did a trial against the SEC. About midway through the trial, the jury sends out a note saying, “Can you ask the lawyer from the SEC to stop looking at us? He’s creeping us out.”

Craig: Oh, man.

Ken: Kind of sunk in his chair for the rest of the trial. It’s a bit of a blow to his ego. You want to be careful with that. If I’m cross-examining something and they’re being really argumentative or not answering the question, I will mug a little bit for the jury. I’ll roll my eyes and look in their direction, make eye contact, that type of thing. But you want to do it sparingly.

John: A thing we see in movies and TV is forceful gavel banging, where the judge is banging to get people to shut up or stuff. Is that a thing that you’ve encountered in your real life?

Ken: The only time I’ve seen gavels used is to open a session. I’ve had judges pound on the bench, one memorable occasion, to punctuate, “Mr. White, no, you may not.” But it’s pretty rare. Judges will yell, but banging on things, that type of theatrics, not so much anymore.

John: You brought up sidebar. Tell us, what conversations should be happening in sidebar that probably too often in our scenes are happening in front of the jury and everybody else?

Ken: Stuff that is not clear whether it’s admissible or not, and it might be prejudicial. Let’s say that we’re in a trial and the attorney questioning the witness starts getting into an issue of whether they’re having an affair, and it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the case. You would ask to speak at sidebar, because you don’t want to spell out to the jury, oh yeah, we don’t want you guys to know about the client having an affair, because you might treat them badly. Things like that where the judge may decide the jury shouldn’t hear about this are typically done at sidebar. All sidebar really is is a mechanism to keep things going, because it takes forever to troop the jury in and out of the jury box, and so you don’t want to send them all back into the room, because then you waste 15 minutes.

Craig: Maybe you should try directing a scene with 100 extras, my friend.

Ken: I’m sure. They’re probably better behaved than jurors.

Craig: Possibly.

Ken: It’s a way to do things. And it frustrates jurors, I think. Again, you don’t want to be constantly going up to sidebar, because the judge will start just telling you no. You gotta use it sparingly.

John: Great. We’re in trial. One of the cliches we see is people who decide to represent themselves at trial, which I’m sure for you is terrifying. What are the realities? If I got accused of a crime, I’m allowed to do that, right, even if I don’t have any background in law?

Ken: You are. Actually, it’s kind of tricky, because the judge has to give you sufficiently full explanation of why it’s really stupid to do that. If the judge doesn’t, you might have an appeal later. “I didn’t realize how stupid it was.” But the judge can’t prevent you from doing it, unless the judge finds basically that you don’t understand what you’re doing or not competent or something like that. It’s threading the needle for the judge.

It’s almost always horrific for the person. I’ve heard it described as a slow plea. This isn’t rocket science, what I do, but there’s a lot of things to it. You gotta know how to do it. You gotta have learned how to do it. If you’re just throwing it in, you don’t know the jargon, and there’s lots of jargon. You don’t know the rules. Just getting something into evidence, understanding what it means to lay a foundation for a piece of evidence so it can be admitted into evidence is something that you have to learn. It’s generally terrible. Usually, people wind up making things much worse.

John: Let’s say we’re in trial now. You’re gonna have witnesses up on the stand. You might have your own client, which for good reasons you probably won’t put your client on the stand, but you might. There are gonna be other witnesses that you’re gonna be putting up there. What kind of preparation can you do with a witness, are you allowed to do with a witness, if it’s your client, versus if it’s somebody else? What are the edges of what you’re allowed to do there in terms of getting them ready for it? There’s limits to how much you can coach them.

Ken: Let’s take non-clients first. You can absolutely talk to non-clients, unless they’re represented by a different attorney. You can ask them questions. You can say, “Do you mind if we go through the questions I’m gonna ask you?” You might even use the word “practice,” depending on how friendly they are. You can go through. You can ask them.

I’m careful. I don’t tell them, “It’d be better if you didn’t say that. It would be better if you said this instead.” I try to be more subtle and say, “Let me ask you about that answer. My impression was X, but you’re saying Y. Can you explain how I have it wrong?” They eventually get to maybe they were wrong. When they realize they were wrong, they clarify it. Whatever.

You can’t tell them what to say, and you absolutely can’t tell them to lie. But there’s a fair amount of leeway in going through their testimony in advance. And everyone does it. You can believe that federal prosecutors, before they put someone on the stand in Sam Bankman-Fried’s case, have gone through the questions with that person two to five times.

Craig: Debate prep.

Ken: Exactly, exactly. With a client, it’s different, because it’s protected by the attorney-client privilege. You cannot put the client on the stand to lie. You cannot knowingly elicit perjured testimony. That’s why that thing we discussed before, this trend where some lawyers say, “That’s why you’d never ask the client what happened and you’d tell them not to tell you yet, so it doesn’t prevent you from putting any story on they want,” to me, that’s absolutely lunatic, because you can’t defend them. You can’t know what the defense is. You can’t organize the case, know where the pitfalls are, unless you know what happened and what they know.

Craig: That does seem like a terrible strategy, like, “Look, the deal is we’re just gonna black box this thing. I’m gonna put you on the stand. You’re gonna say some stuff. That’ll probably work.” What do I need a lawyer for?

Ken: The thing is, this is a real thing that some lawyers do.

Craig: It’s crazy.

Ken: I watched a debate that turned into basically a screaming match between Alan Dershowitz and a different professor 30 years ago in the trial skills class I took, where they were arguing over this very thing, whether or not you stop the client from blurting out stuff, prevent them from locking themselves in. This is one of the few times you’re on Alan Dershowitz’s side. It’s lunacy not to get every piece of information you can get out of the client. The downside of not being able to get them to lie is comparatively extremely minor.

John: Let’s talk about witnesses. Prosecution and defense are both going to, I guess, provide a list of the witnesses they’re going to bring, so that both sides can prepare. But in movies and TV, we’re constantly seeing surprise witnesses, like, oh my god, this person we thought was dead is now coming to sit on the stand. What are the rules around witnesses who were not previously announced and scheduled?

Ken: Generally, that doesn’t happen. It’s rare for it to happen. It’s rare to find out that someone you didn’t know before – especially civil cases. In civil cases, you’ve had years of written discovery, where each side has been telling the other, “Name every person in the universe who has knowledge about this case and that you’ve decided to depose them or not,” and then you’ve made a witness list for trial and all those sort of things. Showing up and saying, “Oh, I’ve got a new guy,” usually is not gonna go over well. There’s gonna have to be some pretty convincing reason that you could not have found them before for the judge to let that happen. The more important they are, the more that is the case. The same with evidence. Unless you can really show you couldn’t have found it without due diligence earlier, then it’s gonna be very hard to get it in at trial.

Now, one way that can happen is if the other side reveals something for the first time. Then you’re allowed to rebut. The things about disclosing evidence generally don’t prevent you from keeping a few things back for your rebuttal case. If the other side has lied, as they often do, calling them out as liars. That’s tricky, and you might not get the opportunity to do it. But that is not common.

John: We’re talking about witnesses and evidence, but sometimes in films and TV, the lawyer themselves is demonstrating something to the jury. It could be as part of the closing argument or something else that happens. You mentioned To Kill A Mockingbird. Atticus Finch throws a glass at Tom to prove that he’s left-handed. Is that a thing that could actually happen in real life?

Craig: You’re gonna throw glasses in the courtroom?

Ken: It could happen, but the judge would blow their stack.

Craig: You’re saying even if you asked your client to put on some gloves in front of the jury and they didn’t fit-

Ken: That’s different. When Atticus Finch throws that cup, the client catching it in one hand is not testimonial, and the client’s not under oath. There’s an implicit, “Here’s how I do things,” but it’s not under oath and it’s not subject to cross-examination. That’s why it’s inappropriate. You could get a client who is on the stand to demonstrate something, with the judge’s permission there, and you can get them to say, “Yes, I’m lefthanded.” The judge probably is not gonna let you surprise them in the middle and throw something to them. Generally, anything that looks super cute or gimmicky probably is gonna get you yelled at by the judge.

John: But what is the actual impact of being yelled at by the judge? Is it causing a mistrial? Is he then giving jury instructions? What actually happens? What is the consequence?

Ken: I love this question, because it’s so much of what you learn over the course of the practice. You don’t want the judge to yell at you in front of the jury, because the jury’s gonna become convinced that you’re a bad person and you’re doing bad lawyer things, unless the judge is kind of an asshole and the jury is sympathetic with you.

Once upon a time I tried a case as a prosecutor where the judge was being super mean to the rookie defense lawyer and yelling at her and beating her up and generally being a bully, and the jury was looking sympathetic to her. I was thinking, okay, this could go badly. They could “not guilty” just out of sympathy. I was pretty young. I thought, “I have an idea. I’ll make the judge yell at me too.” This was a judge who was famous for yelling. I wandered into the well in the center of the courtroom. I spoke from a seated position. I called them “Judge” instead of “Your Honor.” Before long, he was yelling at both of us. Then the young public defender comes over and says to me, “I know what you’re doing,” and she steps in. Arguably, this is where it went off the rails a bit. But by the end of the day, the guy is bright purple. Usually, you don’t want to do that sort of thing.

Here’s the thing about judges yelling. If it’s not in front of the jury and if it’s not impacting actual rulings, you’ve gotta learn to deal with it. Judges yell. Judges are human. They deal with a lot of stress. Some of them have personalities. You want to learn more about the bite than the bark.

When I have young associates I supervise and a judge is getting mean or they’ll worry the judge is gonna get mean, I refer them in the end of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, where Brad Pitt’s character shoots the Nazis’ aid, because he’s so mad that the Nazis-

Craig: You’ll be shot [crosstalk 00:59:24]. More like chewed out.

Ken: I’ve been chewed out before.

Craig: I’ve been chewed out before.

Ken: I’ve been chewed out before.

Craig: Chewed out before.

Ken: I’ve been yelled at by judges before, and I’ll be yelled at by judges again. You just deal with it.

John: A trial happens. We’ve gone through all – it could be months. It could be short. But ultimately, there’s a verdict. That verdict becomes the title of many movies. That is the moment of closure for this whole experience. What do you see in movies and TV that get it right and what are the things that frustrate you about how they get it wrong about verdicts?

Ken: They get it right in terms of dramatically. They make it a good close to the story. In real life, you have appeals. You’ve got post-trial motions. Most times if you win a big civil jury award, the other side is gonna file a motion-

Craig: To reduce it.

Ken: … for a new trial, a motion to reduce it, a motion for judgment notwithstanding, blah blah blah blah blah.

Craig: Paperwork.

Ken: Yeah, there’s always a lot of paperwork. We see this with all the stuff in the news right now that Trump is going through, where there are these big judgments and now he’s posting bond so that he can appeal them without being collected on. Sentencing can often be quite dramatic. Usually, that does not happen at the time of the verdict. It’s another time. That could be a good moment for drama.

It’s certainly stomach-wrenching when you’re the defense attorney standing next to your client who’s gonna find out how long they’re gonna be in jail, and when you worry about what your client’s about to say, because one dramatic part about sentencing is that they always ask the client – the client has a right to allocate, to say something. This is an absolutely terrifying, piss in your pants moment for the defense attorney, because clients, no matter what, if they’ve been convicted, they feel it’s unfair. And if they express that, it goes badly.

I’ve seen clients, even though they were exquisitely prepared, go from probably they were gonna do community service to jail, by talking about what a victim they are in all of this. Client in that moment can make it much worse. You really have to sit on them and make them not express how they’re feeling, because how they’re feeling is a victim.

John: But I want to be clear here. If they were to confess to the crime or admit guilt in that moment, that is evidence that can be used against them in any sort of future appeal. They obviously don’t want to say, “I did it, but just be merciful on me.”

Ken: It wouldn’t be used against them in an appeal. The problem is more if they demonstrate lack of contrition or if they make their image in the judge’s eyes worse. If you’ve pled guilty in particular, you don’t want to get up there and suggest you don’t think you really did anything wrong, because you pled guilty. Like we saw recently, Sam Bankman-Fried’s sentencing, the judge found him very not remorseful, because of his personality and the way he talks, and that probably contributed somewhat to the sentence.

John: Ken, as we wrap up here, are there any other aspects of law as portrayed on film and television that we haven’t talked, that you want to make sure that our listeners, who are mostly writers, are aware of?

Ken: Sure. Entertainment gets some things right. Trial lawyers, criminal lawyers, terrible divorce rates, lots of alcoholism, lots of drug abuse, lots of mental health problems, suicide rate that looks like a Latvian phone number, it’s all really terrible, and it’s a high-stress job. So when entertainment portrays people as suffering through it, that’s actually fairly accurate. They are. There are people out there who are just unflappable and seem to have no problems getting through it. I always suspect they’re just in their office sucking off some huge bong to be that mellow going through this, because-

Craig: Or killing cats.

Ken: … it’s incredibly stressful. That part gets right. Gets wrong” objections. Objections are a big part of most legal TV shows and some movies. I would be almost happier if you didn’t even try, unless you have a lawyer actually tell you what a real objection is or not, because that’s another thing that takes me way out is when it’s a completely stupid nonsense objection and the response is completely nonsense. I would say it would be worth it to ask a lawyer about the objections. You could still make them dramatic. You could make good ones. But some ones, every lawyer watching is gonna go, “Oh, Jesus Christ.” And then my wife says, “Shut up. Shut up.”

Craig: I’ve heard her say that.

John: Ken, thank you so much for all this legal stuff. Let’s get to our One Cool Things. Craig, you have a One Cool Thing here I see in the Workflowy.

Craig: Yeah, this is really in honor of you, Ken. There is a category of videos that every now and then, when I’m feeling a little sad, I turn on and watch, because, god, it makes me feel great. There’s hundreds of them compiled all for your enjoyment. Just google “sovereign citizens getting owned.” It is so much fun. Are you familiar with this, John?

John: I have no idea what this is.

Craig: Sovereign citizens are dipsh*ts who subscribe to a theory that they aren’t really people under the law, that the United States as currently constituted is some sort of admiralty or maritime law thing, that they aren’t really a person but a corporation. It’s endless reams of nonsense. Inevitably, they will get pulled over for speeding or their tags are expired or they’re in court for a misdemeanor, a traffic problem, or something more serious, and they begin this nonsense talk. It goes so bad for them so quick every single time. There are people who sovereign citizened their way into like, this cop was gonna give you a $25 parking ticket and now you’re tazed and you’re going to jail. They’re so stupid. Apparently, the one thing about sovereign citizens is they don’t watch these videos, because if they did, they would stop it. Anyway, if you want to see people representing themselves pro se, being idiots, saying nonsense, having judges roll their eyes and go, “I literally don’t know what you’re talking about,” just go ahead and google “sovereign citizens getting owned.” It’s a joy.

Ken: I’ll echo that.

John: Excellent.

Ken: Sovereign citizens, you have to think of them as really, really committed legal furries. They’ve got this persona. They’ve got the costume. They’ve got the lingo. They’re super into it, no matter what consequence it has on living their lives.

Craig: They’re so into it. They think they know the law. You’re seeing somebody reading this, and you’re like, “What?” They like Latin.

John: Of course.

Craig: They love Latin, but they don’t know why. It’s wonderful.

John: It’s excellent stuff. My One Cool Thing is something that was very useful for me this past week. It’s called LibreOffice. It’s a multi-platform app you can find for Windows, for Mac, for everything else, that I would never actually use as a word processor. You could use it as a word processor. But it could just open anything. You can throw any old file type at it, and it seems to be able to open it. I have these old, right now, files for pitches that I did in the ’90s, and it’s the only thing I could find that could open it, but it opens it beautifully. I discovered like, “Oh, that’s right, this is one I was pitching on Highlander in the ’90s.” I can now pull up that old Highlander pitch.

Craig: You can finally read that thing. Can we do some research? I feel like LibreOffice was one of my One Cool Things at some point a while ago.

John: It totally could be.

Craig: Dig it up. I’m so rarely ahead of the curve. It’s almost always that I say something, John’s like, “That was my One Cool Thing two years ago and you said it was stupid.”

Ken: Craig, my cohost doesn’t listen to me either, so this is-

Craig: Good company.

John: The book Less, you had recommended it, and then three years later I recommended it, and we found out it was great.

Craig: There you go. Every now and again.

John: LibreOffice, I would never actually use it as my main word processor.

Craig: I do remember something like that being an open-source thing, just because Microsoft Word is so goddamn annoying. I do have a bunch of old files. I don’t even know what they are at this point.

John: Exactly. I throw it on and see if it happens. The thing I’m probably most frustrated, I used to use Movie Magic Screenwriter, and that’s actually a binary format.

Craig: It’s dead.

John: It’s dead, hard to open.

Craig: Gone.

John: Ken, do you have a One Cool Thing to share with us?

Ken: I do. Obviously, your listeners are podcast fans. I’m a huge history podcast buff. I love them, particularly when I’m commuting or on trips or things like that. I’ve just been having a blast with a podcast The Rest is History. It’s two British historians, one of them named Tom Holland, not the Spider-Man one, the other one, and the other one named Dominic Sandbrook. They have a real great rapport and chemistry. They are really knowledgeable of a wide variety of things. They delve into a huge range of different historical things. Each podcast is maybe a half an hour, 40 minutes long, perfect for a commute. Sometimes they do deep dives that are multiple episodes about something, like the background of the Titanic or JFK assassination or whatever. But they have a real love for the subject. They have a great way of conveying the similarities between these people in history and us and seeing the common threads.

They’re great at conveying how the values of historians that have told us about this stuff, how those impact how the story gets told and why you have to discount some things, because you can’t listen to the Greeks talk about the Persians, because they have all these stereotypes and that overrides everything. Stuff like that. I find it endlessly entertaining. They’ve got a huge back catalog. I’ve been listening to this nonstop on commutes for six months and enjoyed every minute of it.

John: Absolutely. While our listeners are adding podcasts to their players, they should also be adding Serious Trouble, the podcast you do with Josh Barro. Is it every week?

Ken: It’s 45 weeks a year, roughly.

John: That sounds good. I find it just terrific. It’s Ken talking through the cases of the day, which has been phenomenal. I’ve learned so much on your podcast.

Ken: Thank you.

John: Everyone take a listen to that.

Ken: Thank you.

John: That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Outro this week is by Lou Stone Borenstein. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send questions. You will find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. Also 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’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net to get all the back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on beach vacations. Ken White, an absolute pleasure having you on the show.

Ken: It was a joy to come. Thank you so much.

Craig: Thanks, Ken.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, so let’s pretend that you’ve finished delivering Season 2 of The Last of Us, and now you can take a vacation. You can go to Mexico and sit on a beach for a week. Is that something you’re aspiring to?

Craig: Absolutely not. Let me count the reasons why. First of all, sitting outside under the sun, which some people really seem to like to do, is simply getting radiated. That’s what you’re doing. Everyone’s terrified of radiation. f*ckushima happened. People in California were like, “Don’t eat fish anymore. It’s coming.” I’m like, the ocean is swallowing up this amount of radiation. It will never reach you. But you are gonna get radiated when you get in a plane and fly to San Francisco, and you will absolutely get radiated if you sit outside. That’s what sunburning and suntanning is. It’s a response to radiation. A, no.

B, sand. Much like Anakin and whatever, I hate sand. It’s coarse. It gets everywhere. It’s annoying. The ocean is disgusting. It stinks.

John: It’s a fish toilet.

Craig: It’s a fish toilet. I’ve been scuba diving in the ocean ocean. That’s wonderful. But where the ocean hits the land, gross. Sewage. A lot of just garbage and plants. There’s little tiny crabs that pinch at you. It’s nasty.

D, four, the other people who are at the beach are horrible, because they’re beach people. They’re all like, “I gotta get there and I gotta put my blanket down,” a blanket which turns into a weird loincloth within seconds on the sand, so there’s no reason to be there at all. Everyone smells like that gross suntan lotion, which is just offensive. People are drinking for some reason at the beach, so now they’re being radiated while they’re getting drunk. Beach food is gross. Beach music is awful. That stupid fricking country/Caribbean Bahama Jimmy Buffett nonsense, horrible. Other than that, great day.

Ken: John, are you with me that that’s pretty much exactly what you expected if someone asked you what is Craig Mazin gonna say about whether he likes the beach?

John: Will Craig have a prepared rant about beach vacations?

Craig: Oh, no, it was not prepared.

John: But we can predict it.

Craig: I assure you that was entirely off the cuff. I just went through my mental library and put myself on the beach and then started to complain.

John: Absolutely. Ken White, a beach vacation or let’s say any sort of poolside vacation, so we can get rid of the sand and some of the other objects.

Craig: Oh, pools.

John: Ken, talk us through that. Appealing or not appealing?

Ken: It’s appealing to me, mixed with other things. I like vacations where we’re doing some stuff but there is at least some lounging and drinking and relaxing. My wife increasingly is not happy unless she has climbed at least one mountain a day. This is a point of contention with us.

Craig: Huge problem.

Ken: It’s true that I’ve gotten to the point where I can’t just lie around for seven days. I go crazy. I like a good vacation with a mix, some of which is drinking things I shouldn’t, eating things I shouldn’t, while lying on a hammock and reading or watching terrible things.

Craig: Now, a hammock, that’s not at the beach. I get the idea of being in the shade or being in a hotel room or a spa even. Look, I have a lot of core shame issues, so if I’m not working, I feel like I’ve done something terribly wrong. Also, I think HBO needs me to keep working, so they think I’m doing something terribly wrong. But I get the concept of vacations. Don’t get me wrong. It’s just the beach. You don’t like the beach?

John: I don’t like the beach at all. I’m the palest person on earth. All of the objections you’ve raised, I have raised as well. One of my actual biggest phobias is being trapped somewhere like in the beach or in Santa Monica without a hat.

Craig: Oh, god. You know and I know and Ken knows, but Drew don’t know. Maybe one day, Drew, if you’re lucky, you’ll know. It’s the worst. My head will start burning. I also get this thing. Do you guys get this when you go to a restaurant and they’re like, “Let’s go outside.”

John: The heat lamp.

Craig: The heat lamp. No, you’re not, because my head will burn.

John: Sizzle.

Craig: They don’t get it.

John: They don’t get it.

Craig: A lovely woman with this beautiful head of hair is like, “What’s the problem?”

Ken: I think the hair issues are a whole other episode.

Craig: We need to talk about being bald.

John: I think we’ve talked about it some.

Craig: More.

John: More.

Craig: More.

John: More bald. I’m not good with just the chill-out vacation, where you go to a place and you sit, you don’t do anything. I do need a certain minimum number of activities. That’s why sitting poolside, even if I’m in the shade, I can only read my book for so long. At a certain point, if I’m just reading a book or playing Hearthstone on my iPad, why am I not at home?

Craig: Why are you spending all this money? If I could go to a place where there’s a beautiful resort, lovely room – we’re married. We’ve all been married for a long time. Not you, Drew, but one day. Just having sex in a different place is nice, for a change. There are great dinners and things. But then also you could go play D&D or you could go solve puzzles or you could go do the things that other people like to do. I don’t know what those things are. But if I could just do the things I like to do while also on vacation and getting all these lovely services around me, that would be great. But I can’t. Instead, what happens is you go on vacation and you have to walk around, go to a museum, take picture and take picture.

John: Gotta prove you were there.

Craig: So many goddamn pictures. For what?

Ken: Then there’s the whole issue of traveling with kids, which is a very different experience.

Craig: Thank god ours are grown.

Ken: Kids are assholes. Depending on what age they are, different types of assholes.

Craig: I love them, but yes.

John: The closest I came to enjoying a chill-out vacation I would say actually was in Hawaii at the Aulani, the Disney resort there, because if you go there with a young kid, you can drop them off at the kid play area and just like, “Bye. I’ll see you in six hours.” That was actually [crosstalk 01:16:39].

Craig: Very expensive, very effective babysitter.

Ken: See, that is the only thing that would ever get me on a cruise, the concept that you can just leave them with some-

Craig: Oh, god.

Ken: … group of ne’er-do-wells who like-

Craig: I would send them on the cruise. I finally got – and this is a hard thing for Melissa, but she got there with me. We would go on vacation with the kids. Especially if we went somewhere where the time zone shifted dramatically, let’s say it’s Europe, they’re tired, they’re cranky. They don’t want to do the list of – because Melissa’s very much a guidebook, do the list of the things. I’m more like a, let’s just randomly walk around and see what happens. The kids were like, “I don’t want to leave my room,” or, “I just want to be on my computer, my iPad,” whatever. It would drive her nuts. My whole thing was, fine. If you want to stay in your room and do nothing, I would gladly pay for that, for the privilege of being able to walk around with my wife somewhere and not listen to your nonsense. I’d pay double.

Finally, we went on a vacation, the last time we went on a vacation, all four of us, to Europe – it was a couple of Christmases ago – I was just like, “Just leave them in the room.” And it worked great. It was awesome. It was amazing. Leave them in the room. That’s my advice.

John: I’ve never taken a cruise, but I’m considering taking, because as we’ve established, I’m bad on boats, and I have the same motion sickness problems you have, so I’m gonna be testing out the motion sickness stuff, because my extended family is talking about doing an Alaska cruise. That’s actually an exceptional make, because it’s difficult to visit some of those places in Alaska by land. On a boat there, that makes sense.

Craig: Those boats aren’t gonna rock you too hard, but the patch.

John: The patch.

Craig: Problem solved. You will not have the sickness problem.

John: Ken, a cruise, yes or no? Thumbs up, thumbs down?

Ken: There has been talk about doing an Alaska cruise, and seeing something that amazing might get me on the boat. I’m not a fan of legionnaire’s disease, but I might risk it for those purposes. The problem is, again, we’re at the point where my lovely wife, Katrina, is such a hiking badass that probably is gonna be – we’re gonna cruise to this new location, and when I wake up, she says, “Okay, we’re walking 12 miles straight up a peak called Hiker’s Doom.” “Okay. That sounds like fun.” I’d be a little worried about surviving it.

Craig: I think you’ll be too busy having diarrhea in a cabin that’s eight feet by four feet.

John: Yes, that.

Craig: That’s what cruises are to me. I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever go on a cruise. Ever.

Ken: Oh, but I have just the one for you, Craig, because there’s this Australian billionaire who just announced that he’s doing a complete replica of the Titanic.

Craig: Oh, great.

Ken: It’s gonna be an anti-woke Titanic. No vaccinated people.

Craig: Wait. Sorry.

Ken: No vaccinated people.

Craig: Sorry. I love this anti-woke Titanic. First of all, I love the idea that the original Titanic was kind of woke, because it allowed, what, the Irish on board. But I like that you compare the inevitable rotavirus with a total lack of vaccination and proximity to people who would be attracted to something called the anti-woke Titanic, a boat that sank.

Ken: I think you have a real shot at getting smallpox to come back with one of those, so I think it’s worth a try.

Craig: If anything were to ever get me on Team Iceberg, I think we’ve found it.

John: Craig and Ken, thank you so much for a fun episode. I will see you both and D&D tonight.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Ken: See you later. Bye.

John: Bye.

Links:

• Ken White on BlueSky, Facebook and Threads
• Serious Trouble podcast
• The Popehat Report by Ken White
• Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I’m Sorry by Hanna Rosin for The New Republic
• LibreOffice
• Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned
• The Rest is History podcast
• 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 Lou Stone Borenstein (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 637 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Today on the show, Cowboy Carter is the new album by Beyonce. 27 tracks. Craig, I thought we might take a moment go through track-by-track listings.

Craig: Great.

John: I know you had some real thoughts about Jolene, which is her reinterpretation of Dolly Parton’s classic song Jolene. What is your take on Beyonce’s spin?

Craig: Beyonce did Jolene?

John: Beyonce did Jolene.

Craig: Oh.

John: Yeah, so it’s a reversal of the central don’t take my man. It’s like, don’t even think about taking my man.

Craig: That’s not what Jolene’s about though. But she changed the lyrics?

John: She did change the lyrics, with Dolly Parton’s permission and blessing.

Craig: Okay. That’s something else then.

John: It is something else then. Maybe we’ll save that for a future episode. Instead, today, let’s take a look at what movies you actually need to have seen in order to work in this business and how much is that a factor of your generation. We’ll consult the lists of the best movies of the ‘80s, ‘90s, and beyond. Then it’s another round of How Would This Be a Movie, where we take a look at the stories in the news and turn them into sellable properties.

Craig: And they do sell.

John: They do sell. They do sell. In fact, one of the stories we were going to talk through I had to take off the list because a mutual friend of ours is out pitching it right now.

Craig: Wowzers.

John: Wowzers. Plus, we’ll answer listener questions, because it’s been a minute since we’ve been together to do this.

Craig: Been a minute.

John: In our Bonus Segment for Premium Members, Craig, let’s take a look at our thoughts on AI as of spring 2024, including how AI helped put together this episode.

Craig: Oh, no.

Drew Marquardt: I’m out of a job.

Craig: We’re all out of a job.

John: Spoiler for folks for aren’t Premium Members. Basically, compiling the lists of 100 top movies, you can think, oh, you go to a webpage for that, but it’s actually a giant hassle to reformat that into a way that you could put this into our Workflowy. But AI did it for us.

Craig: You’ve joined the evil empire.

John: Yes. But first, we have some actual news. Every week on Weekend Read, the app we make for reading scripts on your phone, it is our own Drew Marquardt who’s picking the themes and the scripts that we’re gonna be featuring this week. I thought your theme this week was genius. It is bad vacations.

Craig: I like that.

Drew: Thank you. I did steal the premise a little bit from the Criterion channel. They had a version of that. But they are bound by what they can get distribution for. I’ve got every script you can find online.

John: Talk us through the scripts in bad vacations.

Drew: We have Jurassic Park, Midsommar, The White Lotus, we got Seasons 1 and 2, Little Miss Sunshine, The Hangover, Us, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, The Descent, Funny Games, and National Lampoon’s Vacation, the remake.

Craig: How is it possible that you left off the single best bad vacations movie of all time?

John: Which is?

Craig: Deliverance.

Drew: I wanted Deliverance.

Craig: Oh, you just didn’t have it.

Drew: A lot of the scripts pre-2005, the copies we have are photocopied six times, so they’re really hard to get a-

Craig: Just get AI to…

Drew: Deliverance. I wanted Thelma and Louise really bad too.

Craig: That sort of counts.

John: It feels like these themes are almost like connections. How do these things all fit together? Is it a blue? Is it a green? Is it a yellow? Is it a hard thing to fit those titles together?

Drew: It’s kind of like making mixtapes is the same itch it scratches, where you’re trying to get all the little flavors.

John: Good stuff. We have some follow-up. I see first here we have follow-up on D&D for kids. Back in 635 we talked about that. We had listeners write in with a ton of great suggestions.

Drew: So many people wrote in.

John: I think maybe, rather than read through them, because they’re URLs, we’ll put those links in the show notes so people can click through them. But I loved what Ed said here at the top.

Drew: Ed wrote, “I love my kids’ after-school program. This year, I love it even more after the addition of a new staff member, Chris. Imagine my surprise when my eight-year-old daughter came home the second week of school with a complete character sheet for Truce, the elf sorcerer. We play a lot of tabletop games with her, but I never considered breaking out D&D. I honestly have no idea how Chris does it, but the games he leads are very popular with the kids in the after-school program. Even my six-year-old twins like to play his Pokémon-themed D&D sessions. I gather it’s a lot of jumping off waterfalls and riding giant boars and other silliness, but I absolutely adore hearing about their adventures.”

Craig: Doesn’t sound silly at all.

John: That sounds awesome.

Craig: Those important encounters.

John: Craig and friends killed a giant boar just last night in our session.

Craig: Wereboar.

John: Wereboar.

Craig: Otherwise, it’s just plain old hunting, isn’t it?

John: Yeah, it is hunting. They had to have a special aspect to it. Thank you to everybody who wrote in with these great suggestions. We’ll put a link in the show notes to all these great alternatives and ways to do things. Craig, a term I saw a couple times in these mentions was OSR.

Craig: OSR?

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: OSR, original something rules?

John: Yeah, old-school role-playing.

Craig: Old-school role-playing, okay. Not familiar with that acronym.

John: Not familiar, but I bet now that we’ve seen it, we will see it all the time, I suspect. We have some follow-up on English as a second language and characters who are speaking a language that is not their own in scripts.

Drew: Harry wrote, “Listening to your latest episode about different dialects trying to communicate, I couldn’t help but think of slang as a concept. I’m Australian, and I swear, we don’t just struggle communicating with foreigners, but we struggle with talking with other English speakers. But if someone knows the slang terms, it does make the person seem more confident at communicating.” He offers some examples, which I can try an Australian accent.

John: You can try it. Go for it.

Drew: “Yeah nah” is no. “Nah yeah” is yes. “Bloody oath” is “so true.” “Cactus” is dead or broken. “Eff me dead” is “no way, that’s unfortunate.”

Craig: Oh, nar.

John: Oh, nar.

Craig: Oh, nar.

John: “Yeah nah” and “nah yeah,” it’s interesting, because we often in American English say, “No, yeah, I understand that,” or, “Yes, no, I get what you’re saying.”

Craig: We do that too. “Yeah, no” is “I agree, no.” “No, yeah,” I don’t know what that no is for exactly.

Drew: Like, “Unfortunately, yes.”

Craig: Probably. “No, yeah.” We certainly don’t say “bloody oath.”

John: No, we don’t say “bloody oath.”

Craig: Bloody oath, a cactus.

John: I think the yeah comes in because it’s like, “I hear what you’re saying and I’m agreeing with you, no.” That “yeah, nah” is really important.

Craig: Nar. Nar.

John: He goes down to the phrase “that has mayo on it,” which means “you’re exaggerating, mate.”

Craig: If someone said, “That has mayo on it,” to me, all my response is, “Get it the bloody oath away from me,” which is not what bloody oath means, but regardless.

John: Regardless, Craig is not a fan of mayonnaise.

Craig: Eff me dead.

John: Any white sauce and Craig, no.

Craig: Pretty much. I just don’t like-

John: Hey, do you like the whipped garlic foamy stuff that comes with Mediterranean food sometimes?

Craig: I don’t trust it, because they won’t tell you what’s in it, and I think it’s probably mayonnaise.

John: No, it’s just garlic and oil.

Craig: I don’t know if that’s true. They won’t say what it is. Until they say, I’m suspicious.

Drew: Did you have a bad experience? Did it make you sick?

Craig: No. I just don’t like mayonnaise. Absolutely hate it. Hate it. Hate the sight of it. Hate the name of it. The consistency is horrible. The fact that you can pick up a jar and it weighs nothing is terrifying to me. I don’t understand it.

John: Have we discussed marshmallows? Are you a fan of marshmallows?

Craig: Marshmallows are fine, but that’s not a sauce. That’s a gelatin colloidal suspension. What do you call it? But I don’t sit eating marshmallows now, certainly not anymore. But they were never a food that I was like, “Yay, marshmallows.”

John: I’m fine with them in hot chocolate, but I don’t need them in other places. As a binding agent in rice crispy squares, sure.

Craig: Toasting marshmallows, that carbon is fun. You know what?

John: Tell me.

Craig: This isn’t gonna be a One Cool Thing, because it applies to almost no one. But we were doing some work in Alberta a week ago, and we were staying at a place called the Kananaskis Mountain Lodge.

John: I think I saw that inside of a Zoom there, because we played some D&D.

Craig: You did. You saw me. You saw the lodge when we were D&D-ing. At the bar, you know I’m an old-fashioned fan. I like to enjoy an old-fashioned, my favorite co*cktail. They had something called a s’mores old-fashioned. Now I am notorious for ordering the old-fashioned old-fashioned whenever I see some sort of goofy twist. They had put it up on signs. You know when you go to Vegas, in the elevator it’s like, “Come enjoy the prime rib.” That was their thing was the s’mores old-fashioned. So I’m like, “I’ll do it.” Delicious.

Their deal was they gave you an old-fashioned neat, and then they had a marshmallow that they had adhered to a graham cracker, probably by melting the bottom of it. They bring it to you. They light the marshmallow on fire. As it’s flaming, they carefully turn it over, with the graham cracker as a lid, and invert it over the glass. Then you let it sit and fill with marshmallow smoke for about 30 seconds. Then you remove it and you drink it. It was spectacularly good. It was the kind of thing where I thought, oh, these folks have come up with this cool thing, and now a bunch of LA people are gonna come back, talk about it on a podcast, and it’s gonna show up in bars in LA.

John: The clock has started ticking.

Craig: It has started ticking on the s’mores old-fashioned.

John: I will drink an old-fashioned, but sweet drinks, any drink that feels like dessert is not my go-to. But this case it also feels like it’s just dessert that actually has alcohol in it.

Craig: An old-fashioned shouldn’t be too sweet. If it’s too sweet, boo. I like it more when it’s really bourbon and just a little bit of a hint. The marshmallow smoke itself has no sweetness. It’s carbon. That was the only part of toasting marshmallows I liked was when you would just incinerate it and then eat the crackly charcoal skin.

John: Yeah, but there’s at least a 33 percent chance that you’re going to burn your fingers trying to do the thing, and you got the hot marshmallow on your fingers.

Craig: You just gotta wait five seconds, John. This is a real problem.

John: Like children here.

Craig: There’s literally an experiment about this.

John: I was doing this as a child. You’re doing this as an adult.

Craig: Just put it on a stick, man. Just wait. You’re an Eagle Scout, for god’s sake.

John: More follow-up on Tiffany problems. Tiffany, of course, is a situation where you have a historically accurate name that sounds too modern so people don’t believe it. This is a case where Josh is writing in with a spoken word that people believed was anachronistic.

Drew: He calls it the “Tiffany tiff on Twitter related to Manhunt on Apple TV.” Someone objected to the use of “creep” in the mid-19th century, and many, including Keith Olbermann, weighed in to inform it’s actually not the anachronistic error, or Tiffany problem, that the poster believed it to be.

John: I like that this features Patton Oswalt, a former guest, who apparently said the word, referred to John Wilkes Booth as a creep, and whether creep would exist in the language of 1865, and apparently it did.

Craig: Did it? Keith Olbermann is citing the – I assume this is in Merriam Webster – etymology. It looks like meaning despicable person is by 1886. That would still be 20-some-odd years after.

John: Yeah, but it’s a question of when did it make it into print. But “creeper,” which is a gilded rascal, is recorded from circa 1600.

Craig: That seems like a different thing. That’s more of a sneak thief as opposed to a… It says robbed customers in brothels, which by the way, still goes on, from what I understand. It probably is a little bit of an anachronism, but not a wild one if it’s off by 20 years.

John: I think it’s the fact that Patton said creep and then was like, “I’m a weirdo. What the hell am I doing here?” It was really the run of the phrase was really what felt anachronistic.

Craig: “What the hell am I trying to say?” I also think that Patton Oswalt is already an anachronism. He wasn’t alive in 1865.

John: It’s the worst.

Craig: He’s alive right now. It’s all anachronisms.

John: We should stop making anything that’s not set now, because it’s a lie.

Craig: If he had said, “Oh my god, that guy is totally a creep,” that would’ve been anachronistic.

John: Yeah, that would.

Craig: “He’s literally a creep.”

John: We had Pamela Ribon on the show last week.

Craig: Pam Ribon!

John: Absolutely the best. Her job used to be as a TV logger. I asked her, to what degree do you think that still is a job, because AI systems are actually really good at transcribing stuff and noting what’s happening there. North wrote in with some info on this.

Drew: North says, “I work in post-production on a non-union true crime documentary show, and a huge part of crafting the stories for our episodes involves creating transcripts of each interview. So we use an AI platform to generate time-code accurate transcripts, but these transcripts are not perfect. AI is pretty good at distinguishing between speaker 1 and speaker 2, but it often gets things wrong, like consistent name spelling, locations, and small verbal things like the difference between in and and, for example.”

Craig: That’s no big deal.

Drew: “We actually hire entry-level people to humanize these transcripts.”

Craig: Oh, god.

Drew: “Our humanizers are essentially AI editors or spell-checkers.”

Craig: That’s what it’s down to.

Drew: “This is where I started before being promoted to a coordinator role. Thus far, AI hasn’t quite replaced our human loggers, transcribers, but the role has shifted and the hours have certainly reduced. What used to be a full-time job is now more often part-time for our show, which is a bummer for entry-level workers, but like Pamela, I don’t recommend spending 12 hours a day transcribing raw true crime interviews for anyone’s mental health.”

Craig: Humanizer?

John: Humanizers.

Craig: Oh, boy.

John: Again, it’s a Britney Spears lyric.

Craig: Humanizer.

John: (sings) Humanizer, humanizer. Drew, you and I actually have some experience with this too, because when we were doing the sidecasts, we used Descript. Descript is an editing program where you feed in the raw audio and it comes up with a transcript that’s not perfect, but you are actually editing text instead of editing wave forms to do it.

Drew: Which was much easier. You could figure out filler words or stuff like that and just cut them out much quicker.

Craig: Got it. For our transcripts for this show, we still use-

John: We use a human being.

Craig: We use a human being? Oh my god. That’s so weird.

John: So weird.

Craig: Shouldn’t we just get a humanizer? That’s the worst term I’ve ever heard.

John: We assume we’re using a full human being who’s doing all this themselves.

Craig: We assume it.

John: But for what we know… We contract this out. Who’s doing our transcripts right now?

Drew: Dima Cass.

John: We assume Dima is doing this all by hand, but for all we know, they could be feeding it in and humanizing it themselves.

Craig: We don’t know.

John: We don’t know.

Craig: We don’t know. You know what? Let’s keep our hands clean. Is Dima Cass a person or a company?

Drew: Never met them in person.

Craig: Exciting.

John: More follow-up from Oliver.

Drew: Back in Episode 618, Oliver wrote in, “Last year I officially sold my first script to a mid-size studio, and it was shot in early 2023. As part of the arrangement, there was an optional rewrite clause, although the studio assured me that the script was essentially good to go. On the early Zoom calls, everyone I met was lovely and thrilled about the script. The producers and directors were so excited, and everyone began sharing ideas, which was super fun, until it wasn’t. Months later, having gone down numerous rabbit holes, the entire process became bleak and disheartening, to the point that days before production, one of the producers was in the script inserting exposition.”

John: I think our advice at the time was, yeah, this sucks, but also-

Craig: Welcome to Hollywood, kid.

John: Welcome to Hollywood, kid. You’ll get through it. Oliver wrote in with an update.

Drew: He said, “After a whole year, I was finally given the chance to watch the finished film. And it had been so long, truthfully, I couldn’t even notice any of the changes we made from the original draft they greenlit. The setup, the major turns, the crisis, the concept in general, were all there, everything they loved about the script in the first place. Is the movie perfect? No. There were a handful of moments that bumped for me, perhaps a misread line here and there. Ironically, this brought me some relief. The aspects that had me fretting for nights on end in pre-production didn’t change the essence of the film one bit.

“The whole experience made me realize again that the script is merely a blueprint. What people watch and experience isn’t the polishing process of a pdf. It’s the casting, the look, the score, the edit, and yes, the story, but that’s just one piece of the final product. Next time, I hope to approach pre-production edits with a little less self-imposed anxiety and doubt.”

Craig: You had me and you lost me. Here’s where he had me.

John: Up until the blueprint?

Craig: Yeah. Jeez Louise, man. Wrong conclusion, Oliver, but right conclusion of part. One of the hard parts about what we do for a living is that – Ted Elliot has said this many times – that most screenwriters never get to do the second half of the job. They only do the first half, which is writing the script. The second half is seeing the script being produced. Then you start to learn the relationship between the script and the final product. When you’re in prep, yes, it’s good to realize, “Okay, here are the hills to die on. Here are the things that really, really matter. These other things I can work on and probably they will not be significant disruptions. They might even be improvements.”

Where I think Oliver goes wildly awry here is when he says, “The whole experience made me realize,” again, he shouldn’t have realized it the first time, “that the script is,” quote, “merely a blueprint.” This seems like a press release from the DGA as far as I’m concerned.

John: Yeah, totally.

Craig: The script is not merely a blueprint. He says, “What people watch and experience is the casting, the look, the score, the edit.” Sorry, all of that comes from the script. It all begins in the script. There’s a reason they need a script. It’s the thing that tells them what kind of person should be cast, how is this supposed to look, what is the tone, what kind of emotions would we want to experience here that the composer needs to understand. Then the edit is literally going back to the script in so many ways, like what was the intention and flow of these scenes on paper.

Then he says, “And yes, the story, but that’s just one piece of the final product.” The story is the only thing. I’m sorry. I know that people think that cinema is about beautiful framing and all the rest. It helps. It’s part of the enjoyment. But it’s the story. It’s the story that people want. Otherwise, you can just go and watch some old French movies about people twiddling their thumbs in cafes. People love stories. That’s what we’ve been doing as human beings our whole lives.

Merely the blueprint? First of all, have you looked at a blueprint? Have you ever seen one? The word you would never apply to it is “merely.”

John: Merely, yeah.

Craig: It’s the most detailed… It’s like, here’s all of the things you need to do so this building doesn’t fall down and murder people.

John: I think Oliver mostly gets it and made some bad word choices here along the way. I think Oliver had some insights which were helpful.

Craig: We are a writing podcast though.

John: First, let’s acknowledge some things that I think Oliver got right. It’s so possible to stress out over, “Oh my god, they’re trying to change this one line in this one scene. Everything’s gonna fall apart.” No, it’s not.

Craig: No, it’s not. Perspective is a good thing, and you have to learn it by experiencing it.

John: Absolutely. I wish Oliver could’ve been on set to see the process of how the movie he wrote was actually shot and then the editing room. He didn’t get that experience, but at least he saw the final product and was relatively happy about it.

But I do want to circle back to this idea of merely a blueprint or even just the notion of blueprint, because I think there was a good intention behind that at one point, and I think that’s been lost. I think the degree that the screenwriter is the architect of the project, yes. The screenwriter’s figuring out the whole thing, has the vision for the entire thing, is laying it all out, and like an architect, has to then rely on other people to actually physically build the thing, the specialists, contractors, everything else. That metaphor tracks. But when you then conflate, “Oh, it’s just the blueprint,” or that the blueprint is just a thing that exists separately from the finished building, that’s nuts.

Craig: It’s insane. If you do direct something, all the time you spend in prep, all of it, and it’s so much time – often for movies, there’s more time in prep than there is shooting – is based on the script. Every discussion you have is based on the script. Everything is how do we make this thing on the page happen in real life. I don’t think blueprint is as good of a word as, say, scripture is, because that’s how important it is. It is the fundamental document to the creation of everything.

I get it right in my aorta every time someone’s like, “The script is merely… ” I’m like, “Let me stop you right there. If it’s merely something, give it back. Go make this without it. In fact, you’ve read it. It’s merely a blueprint. You don’t need to read it again. Let me just gather all the copies. Good luck, everyone.” No.

John: The two Charlie’s Angels that I worked on were notoriously like, “Okay, we’re in production, and everything is changing.” We go through the whole color rainbow multiple times. Every scene has changed. In that situation, you could say, oh, they went in without a script or something. That’s not true at all. We went in with a script and all had the same vision basically of what it is we were trying to do. What those actual scenes were moment by moment did change a lot. It was incredibly difficult and frustrating, because we were building the building without having finished plans for everything. But we knew which building we were building. We all could agree on that as a basis.

That’s probably the wildest exception. That’s the extreme case of, okay, we’re going in. We don’t have everything locked down and finished. In most cases, you really are gonna have a very clear sense of this is the plan for the movie. Could different directors working off the same script make a very different movie? Absolutely.

Craig: Of course.

John: But there’s a plan behind it, so don’t sell yourself short, Oliver.

Craig: Or anyone. In the end, I am a director, so I’m not denying how important it is and now directors can do that job well or poorly. But a lot of times, the director’s understanding of the script is directly connected to how good of a job they do telling the story. If you don’t understand it, you can’t be interesting as you tell the story. Also, let’s just say, why wasn’t Oliver invited? He wrote it.

John: He wrote it.

Craig: It’s just so weird. It’s just so weird to me. Oh, movies.

John: Oh, movies. I don’t know if we remember or even knew whether Oliver was a WGA writer. He says it’s a mid-sized studio. I assume it’s an American studio.

Craig: Should be.

John: As a WGA writer, he should’ve been invited to give notes on an early cut. There are creative rights. It’s hard to enforce those, but you should’ve gotten a letter from the WGA saying, hey, here’s a reminder, here are the things and [crosstalk 00:22:55].

Craig: They don’t matter, because what they do then is they have ChatGPT. They send you a cut. You send notes back to some dead letter office at a studio and it’s never looked at. It’s not real. The thing about creative rights is either it’s an enforceable term that matters and is incorporated into the process or it’s not. Same thing with directors and television.

I’ve never directed an episode that I didn’t write or for a show I wasn’t making. But let’s say I did, because I think that would be fun, actually, to go direct an episode for someone else and not have to worry about the whole damn thing. I think I get five days to edit. That’s my, quote unquote, right. You know what? Five days is the same as zero days. It’s not enough. It just means, “Sure. Come here.” It’s a creative, quote unquote, right. We have a creative, quote unquote, right to give notes. But in the end, the people who are in charge are the people who are in charge. There’s nothing we can do.

John: Your ability to actually influence the movie depends on your relationship with those people who initially hired you. It’s possible Oliver could have edged his way in there a little bit more. He didn’t. But anyway.

Craig: Certainly not for a lack of humility, because I’m saying a little less humility here, Oliver, would be good. The good news is the movie was done. By the way, no movie is perfect. That’s always an eye-opener when you’re like, “Whoa.” That’s the day you stop ripping on movies as hard as you did before, when you’re like, “Oh, this is hard to do. It’s hard.”

John: Some movies that did turn out not perfect but really quite good are the 100 best movies of the ’80s, the ’90s, the 2000s, and the 2010s.

Craig: Oh, my.

John: We went through and pulled the lists of what are generally considered the 100 best. In some cases it was the Rolling Stone list or some IMDb list, and so there’s gonna be some weird titles on this. But I went through yesterday and marked the ones I hadn’t seen. Drew went through and marked them as well. I will find some way to put this online so people can see the things that I’ve missed. There are some sort of embarrassing things that I’ve not seen. But on the whole, I felt pretty good about it. What actually sent me down this whole path is I was looking at the AFI list of the 100 best movies of all time, and I realized I’ve never seen Intolerance.

Craig: You don’t need to.

John: My ability to be a screenwriter is not impacted by my not seeing a 1916 movie.

Craig: No. You don’t need to see Intolerance.

John: It’s a question of what movies do you need to see. For us, I would say there are some movies before 1970 that are important for us to see as a framework, but it really was ’80s, ’90s, and later that actually matters. If I look through the list, those are the movies that I’ve seen almost all of them.

Craig: I don’t know what we do with this list. It’s a pretty good list, actually. I’m kind of enjoying it. I’m looking at the movies that you haven’t seen that I have. I love Videodrome. You do not need to see Videodrome. Come and See is I think the best war movie ever made and very influential on Chernobyl, but it is about the hardest watch. Brazil, wonderful, but also not necessary. Oh, The King of Comedy I would strongly recommend actually, because it’s Martin Scorsese, Robert DeNiro playing a very different kind of role, and Sandra Bernhard. It is certainly the funniest movie Scorsese ever made, but it’s also very relevant to now.

John: It’s a big influence on Joker.

Craig: Oh, definitely. Huge influence on Joker. They Live you do not need to see, although it’s hysterical. Once Upon a Time in America, there’s two versions of it. The version that they cut to ribbons and put in theaters, horrible. The uncut, endless Sergio Leone movie, fantastic and also not necessary.

John: Let’s talk about what’s necessary and what’s not necessary. That’s actually the bigger framing question behind this is to what degree is the movie necessary, because it speaks in conversation with the kinds of things that we’re making now.

Craig: I’m looking at this. I gotta be honest with you. I don’t think any of the ones that you didn’t see are necessary. Maybe Sophie’s Choice. Maybe. You’re missing some great movies in here.

John: Of course.

Craig: Don’t get me wrong. They’re all great movies. It’s cool to see Near Dark on there. I’m obsessed with ’90s movies. That’s my thing now. I realized how many of my favorite movies are from the ’90s. I think that that is a function of two things. One, I think movies got kind of cool in the ’90s because there was this resurgence of the indie vibe as Miramax began to inspire other people to make weird movies. But also, I was in my 20s, and that’s when you go to see movies.

John: That’s what it comes down to.

Craig: Oh, man, look how good these are.

John: Drew, you’re more than a generation younger than us, and so you just now saw Sex, Lies, and Videotape.

Drew: Yeah, I saw that a few weeks ago.

John: Tell us, watching that movie now, what was your takeaway?

Drew: It felt both dated and still wildly transgressive too. The Andie MacDowell character feels very modern, and same with James Spader. It’s strange. You can’t make it today. It wouldn’t quite be the same. But I loved having four characters.

Craig: You can barely make any of these.

Drew: That’s fair.

Craig: John, Miller’s Crossing is a masterpiece.

John: I’m sure it’s a masterpiece.

Craig: Strong recommend. You don’t need to see Kingpin or Rounders or The Rainmaker or Dead Man. Three Kings is hysterical. I love that movie. But do you need to see it? No. The Fisher King is so good. If there’s one movie-

John: Is The Fisher King William Goldman?

Craig: No. Fisher King is Richie LaGravenese.

John: Great.

Craig: Terry Gilliam directed. Robin Williams will break your heart. It is so weird and beautiful. I just love that movie.

John: One argument for seeing movies on this list that you haven’t seen before and why that might be necessary is you might be out pitching a project or talking about a project, not realizing that movie was already made, or that the people you’re talking with are gonna have that as a reference and you don’t have that as a reference and then it’s just gonna be weird.

Craig: I definitely remember faking my way through some meetings in the ’90s where people would talk about movies from the ’70s or ’60s that I hadn’t seen, because I was 0 or minus 10. They were like, “Oh yeah, so it’s blah blah blah meets so-and-so.” I hadn’t seen any Jacques Tati movies. Are you familiar with Jacques Tati?

John: I’ve seen two.

Craig: That was two more than I had seen. I had never even heard of him. I was from Staten Island. They were like, “Oh yeah, it’s like Jacques Tati.” I’m like, “Absolutely. Yes.” I couldn’t pull my phone out in the bathroom and look them up. I was flying by the seat of my pants, like, “Please don’t ask me for details about Mr. Hulot. I don’t have them.”

Drew: Were they comparing Rocketman to Jacques Tati?

Craig: Totally.

Drew: That makes sense.

Craig: Totally. I was like, “Totally. It is Jacques Tati.” I was just like, “He’s dumb, and he goes to space. Isn’t that enough?” Now, again, you can just fake a period cramp, go to the bathroom – some of us can – look him up quickly on your phone, come back and be like, “You know what? I’ve been thinking about it. It’s not this Jacques Tati movie. It’s really more like this Jacques Tati movie,” and look cool.

John: Arcades are late teens, early 20s. My daughter had a scratch-off poster of the 100 greatest movies or some other list of movies. I’d seen almost all these movies, but she hadn’t. I was remembering, like, oh man, if you’re a young person who’s trying to catch up on culture, it’s a lot. Tarantino’s movies. Which of the Tarantino movies are important?

Craig: I think start with Pulp Fiction and then make some choices. I’ve been showing Bella Ramsey a lot of movies from the ’90s. We started with Pulp Fiction, which she loved. Then I made the choice to jump to Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2, because they’re incredibly entertaining and also not super duplicative of Pulp Fiction. By the way, looking at these, the ones you haven’t seen, Drew, if I may. Out of Sight is a masterpiece. Schindler’s List is one of the movies you have to see, unfortunately. Ed Wood is spectacular.

Drew: That one I’m embarrassed about.

Craig: It’s so much fun. Get Shorty is so much fun. Quiz Show, masterpiece. Dead Man Walking, the soundtrack is incredible, better than the movie. I don’t think you need to see The English Patient, although I loved it. Glengarry Glen Ross, you have to see Glengarry Glen Ross.

John: [Crosstalk 00:31:30] references back.

Craig: Actually, I envy you that you haven’t seen it.

Drew: That’s one of those ones when people are like, “You haven’t seen The Godfather?” kind of movies. I’ve seen The Godfather, but Glengarry is mine.

Craig: Glengarry Glen Ross goes by in the blink of an eye. Spectacular. In the Name of the Father, gorgeous. These are all amazing. The Grifters. My Cousin Vinny, it’s really funny, but do you have to see it? No. 12 Monkeys. It’s funny how many Terry Gilliam movies you have here.

John: Is 12 Monkeys necessary? I don’t think it is.

Craig: No. It’s one of those movies like Brazil – also Terry Gilliam – where it’s like, “If you get it, you get it, man.” I got it, but I didn’t feel the need to be like, “Yeah, but you have to see 12 Monkeys.” It’s one of those movies where you tell someone, “This is the most mind-blowing movie ever,” and then they sit there and they’re bored and you feel bad. Check it out. If you like it, stay with it.

John: As I look through the movies I have not seen, some of them are just because of the genre. I haven’t seen Saw. I don’t need to see Saw. I understand what Saw is.

Craig: You don’t. You do not need to see it.

John: We’ll find some way to post this up here so people can take a look and tell us what movies they haven’t seen, what movies they feel like are actually crucially important. But again, I’d say the takeaway from this is that there are movies that people are going to assume that you will have seen, and that if you haven’t seen them, going into certain conversations, if you’re staffed in a writers’ room, it may just be a little bit weird that you don’t have that as a frame of reference. That said, if you’re a younger person, if you’re not born and raised in the U.S., you’re gonna have some different references. That’s just the reality.

Craig: Which is fine. Although our main export in the United States appears to be movies and military equipment.

John: That’s what we do.

Craig: People do share a lot of these common references. These are great. This is a very useful list you put together.

John: With the help from some AI.

Craig: So people know, on our reference Workflowy outline here, you very helpfully put orange on the movies that you haven’t seen, John, and blue on the movies that Drew hasn’t seen, and you wrote “Legend,” like a legend to describe what color goes what. I thought that initially you were talking about the movie Legend.

John: Oh yeah, the movie Legend, which is crucial.

Craig: Not at all crucial.

John: 100 percent, if you have not seen the movie Legend, get out of here.

Craig: Little Tom Cruise going up against Tim Curry as a monster.

John: (sings) Is your love strong enough?

Craig: It’s not a great film. I thought, why did they break out Legend specifically?

John: This is the other thing I think that prompted me to start this whole exercise is, on my flight back from D.C., I watched Labyrinth, which I’d never seen Labyrinth.

Craig: David Bowie and is it Phoebe Cates?

John: I thought it might be Phoebe Cates as well. It’s Jennifer Connelly.

Craig: Jennifer Connelly, right.

John: I combined them, saying, “It’s so weird that she did this, and then a few years later she was-“

Craig: It’s Phoebe Connelly. Not great.

John: Not necessary.

Craig: No.

John: I can see why it’s reference for certain people. Totally.

Craig: I think it’s one of those movies, as a kid, when you saw it, you were… Look, I love Beast Master; can’t recommend it to anyone.

John: If I loved Labyrinth, I would be pitching the Labyrinth sequel now with Jennifer Connelly.

Craig: Here’s an interesting thing. I’ve run into this. I remember, again, in the ’90s, there were certain movies that would come up that people loved and would use as touchstones, that either few people had seen or if you did then go and watch it, you were like, “Why the hell does everyone care about this movie?” It was just one of those things that got under their skin in a culty, viral way in Hollywood, but didn’t necessarily matter to anyone else. I feel like Labyrinth might be one of those.

John: At least three different times in my career, people have pitched the H.R. Pufnstuf movie.

Craig: Which is not a good idea.

John: Not a good idea, but I also have no reference for it, because for whatever reason, it never showed on TV in Boulder, Colorado where I grew up.

Craig: Really?

John: I’ve never seen a frame of it.

Craig: It was enjoyable. But South Park had an episode with Member Berries. I don’t know if you’ve saw that one. “Member?” That’s the value of H.R. Pufnstuf is, “Member?” Yes, I remember. Yes, correct. Don’t think I need a movie of it.

John: Nope, not necessary. Let’s make some new movies. Enough of these old movies. How Would This Be a Movie is a segment where we take a look at some stories in the news and figure out what are the possibilities of making this into a new movie or a series or whatever else, some sort of piece of quality entertainment. The first is an article that went incredibly viral, by Charlotte Cowles. Did you read this when it first came out?

Craig: No, I didn’t. I just read it for this today, and I was startled.

John: Startled. This is The Day I Put $50,000 in a Shoe Box and Handed It to a Stranger. Charlotte Cowles is a journalist. She actually writes about personal finance and such for legitimate publications. She had this basically phone scam that claimed to be Amazon customer service, and she was ultimately tricked into putting $50,000 in a shoe box and handing it to a random person in a car. I think it’s worth reading the article. After having read the article, a bunch of people raised concerns about, like, this doesn’t actually track and make sense. I have suspicions about whether she’s telling the whole story here at some moments.

Craig: This one almost feels too wild to believe. First of all, Ms. Cowles is the financial advice columnist. This is not somebody who is just confused about how money works. It’s a fascinating piece, because it’s like watching somebody humiliate themselves in slow motion on paper, where they go through a series of choices and moments where they even are saying, “This makes no sense. You’re crazy. You’re lying,” over and over, and just keeps doing the dumb thing. It’s hard for me to understand why somebody who’s the financial advice columnist for a publication wouldn’t immediately call an attorney if they were being told they were under investigation for a crime. Everybody who’s seen any episode of any copaganda show knows that the cops don’t want you to lawyer up. I struggled to believe this.

John: I did struggle at times too. When she actually has to go to the bank and get $50,000 in cash, strained credibility. Is it possible? I guess. I also want to believe that New York Magazine, I think-

Craig: Yeah, the New York.

John: … would’ve fact checked to some degree to establish that the things that she’s saying are true are true. Let’s take this at face value. Let’s just say this is a thing that actually happened. What parts of this are interesting for a movie or for an episode? To me, you get into this, and you have to stay in almost real time, because too many cuts, too many getting away from the moment, the whole souffle just crumbles. It has to start with that. But then I’m also fascinated by the repercussions after the fact. Let’s say this thing happened for real. What happens in the days after? What does her husband say? Does she keep her job? The suspicion of what actually is there, that is interesting to me.

Craig: I guess. I don’t understand how they have kept their job. They’re a financial advice columnist, and they’ve just written a story about how they are the most financially naïve human on the planet. I know that people do get fooled. If Charlotte Cowles were writing about someone else’s story and describing what they did, and that person was, let’s say-

John: A nurse. A teacher.

Craig: … a nurse, a teacher, somebody that doesn’t know much about financial stuff, me, then yeah. But the part of this that’s so challenging, if you are a screenwriter, is – it’s an interesting challenge, I guess. Maybe that’s what makes it good. Take the person who’s the least likely to be scammed and have them get scammed. Who can scam them, and how? But scammers generally just aren’t even that good. We’ve gotten those calls. Everybody’s gotten the call from the, quote unquote, IRS.

She makes a point of saying that sequential people that call her, their accent is hard to place. Every alarm bell is going off here. It’s one thing if somebody from the FBI calls you and they speak with an accent in English. People who speak accented English work for the government. But now, three in a row? Eh.

She says, “Cops don’t do this. Police don’t do this. This doesn’t make sense.” Then she just keeps doing it, like a zombie. I’m missing… Part of our job is to make sure that actions are motivated and understandable so people at home don’t keep saying, “Why would you – a human wouldn’t do that.” I just kept feeling a human wouldn’t do it.

John: Except that I think back to when I leased my last car. I was like, “This is going on forever.” At a certain point, I’m just like, “Whatever that is, I will take it. I’m done negotiating on certain points.” Same thing happens with police confessions, where you eventually just give in and you accept their reality of events, so you confess to things that you didn’t do. Some of this reminded me a bit of Shattered Glass in the sense of – in that case it’s a journalist who’s-

Craig: Making stuff up.

John: … making stuff up. But the tension of that becomes – you have to be in real time and watching the world melt down around them.

Craig: It’s funny you mention Shattered Glass. Stephen Glass wrote for The New Yorker, which I can say as somebody who has been profiled by them, their fact-checking process is fully colonoscopic. It’s insane. Maybe New York, I don’t know, hopefully, they did as much of a good job. But this reads a little bit like Hack Heaven, which was the article that Stephen Glass wrote for – one of them that he wrote for The New Yorker. If you read Hack Heaven – and it’s available online, you can find it – when you read it, you’re like, “This doesn’t sound right. There’s something wrong.” She’ll say, “I know I shouldn’t do this, but then I did.” I’m like, I’m missing a piece in between. Look, I’m not accusing her of making this up, but something’s weird. People online are saying they can smell a rat?

John: Yeah, people are raising concerns. But that’s died down. I’ve not seen a full accounting of this. This is several weeks old at this point.

Craig: That’s hard to believe is a challenge.

John: It is.

Craig: It’s a challenge for screenwriters. You want to find that sweet spot between, “Oh my god, it’s hard to believe, but it really did happen, and I believe it happened that way,” and, “That’s hard to believe, and I also think you just are making stuff up.”

John: One challenge envisioning this as a story is that you have one central character that we’re seeing through a lot of this. You see her. She is only responding. She’s not taking affirmative action herself. If you see her turning the tables at a certain point, you can identify with her, but otherwise, you’re just watching this cork floating down a river. It’s not gonna be an interesting role until you see her take some agency.

Craig: It’s a tough thing to want to stay with her, also. It’s frustrating to watch somebody fail over and over and over. It also becomes redundant. There possibly is an interesting story to tell on the other side of things, where you have somebody who’s scamming people and it actually starts to work, and they themselves can’t believe what they’re doing. And they start to question if they should be doing it. And they start wondering if she’s setting them up. There’s a good film noir thing where she’s scamming them back and they find out.

John: Zeke Faux, who came on the podcast a year or two ago to talk through his side of being a journalist who wrote one of these How Would This Be a Movie stories, recently had a piece on the other side of a scam, basically those wrong number text kind of things and what it really comes back to. In some cases, those are basically people held in near-slavery conditions who are doing those jobs.

Craig: Oh, jeez. It’s happened to me a few times. The first time that text thing happened to me, honestly, I was like, “Oh, nope, sorry, wrong number,” and the person was really nice. And then 20 days later, they texted me back and they were like, “This is crazy, but I’m in LA,” because they know my area code. They’re like, “You just seem so nice. It would be great to meet.” I was like, “Okay.”

John: Delete and mark as spam.

Craig: “Here we go. Here we go. That’s not how this works.” Obviously, scammers have been preying on people since the beginning of time. If you look back in the Bible, the Pharaoh’s magicians were clearly just con artists. Con artistry is a thing. It always will be. Religion, in some aspects, or some kinds of expressions of religion are con artistry, and they get people to give them money. It’s just the financial advice.

John: That’s the problem.

Craig: That’s the problem. It just doesn’t work. It just doesn’t work.

John: Here’s how it might work. Imagine they were actually doing it to discredit here, there was somebody who particularly went after her because she was a financial advisor, because she had written something in this space, and like, “No, we can even get you. That’s how good I am.”

Craig: Okay, but at that point, you can get anyone, right? If you can come up with a way to fool a doctor with a fake medicine scam, fool other people. You got everybody at that point. Look, there are moments where scammers get inside of your skin. Have you ever gotten the one where you get the email, it’s like, “Guess what? I’ve been watching you through your camera on your laptop, and I recorded you jerking off, and I know what p*rn you were jerking off to.” Then you’re like, “Oh, no, because I totally did that.” “I’m gonna send it to all your friends and family.” You’re like, “Oh, no.” Then you’re like, “Wait. No, you’re not.” But still, there’s that moment.

John: That moment of panic.

Craig: The problem is there’s seven or eight moments where you can then go, “Yeah.” Also, this was the weirdest thing about – I know we’re spending so much time on this story – but I’m so suspicious, because she kept asking these people for badge numbers. Who cares? That’s a dumb question. Badge number? If a CIA agent called me, I’d be like, what am I gonna do with your badge number, check it against the CIA badge number database? That’s a weird question.

John: The CIA is notoriously transparent about-

Craig: Exactly. Also, you know who doesn’t call you about this stuff? The CIA. Ever. No one gets called from the CIA. I don’t know.

John: I don’t know.

Craig: I don’t even know.

John: Next up, we have Wanted: True Love. This is a story by Angela Chen in the New York Times. In their innovative approach to finding true love, two men, including one of them who’s the project manager at OpenAI, AI Connection, offered dating bounties to incentivize matchmakers. They weren’t paying money to the women. They were paying money to like, if you can help connect me with the love of my life, I will pay you a bounty, one of them up to $100,000. It was a blend between traditional matchmaking and a tech startup-y kind of thing to it. Craig, what did you take from this story? What did you think of this as a story area?

Craig: It’s a good story area. The story itself is disconcerting. I feel like somebody offering $100,000 for love, that’s basically a great reason to swipe left. But it is I think fertile territory for a fun rom-com. Somebody’s like, “Great, I gotta collect that 100 grand,” and then actually falls in love with them. But then there’s lies because it turns out they didn’t have $100,000 or whatever. You know, rom-com stuff. It’d be fun. I think it’s a cute way to set that premise up.

John: What was the Jennifer Lawrence movie? No Hard Feelings.

Craig: No Hard Feelings.

John: There’s a little bit of the aspect of that movie in there too.

Craig: A little bit, yeah, a little bit. It’s an interesting concept. I like actually that the guy is offering the money, because then you’re like, what’s wrong with him?

John: It reminds me a little of Hitch as well.

Craig: Little Hitch-ish.

John: Again, you have a guy who can’t find love, who’s turning to an outside source to help him find love, and in the course of that, hopefully other relationships are deepening. The person who is the bounty hunter here, who is the Boba Fett of this man’s love life, that’s an interesting relationship between the two of them too. That could all work. It feels like a 15 years ago Seth Rogen comedy.

Craig: It is interesting just looking at this article. But I agree, it feels a little dated. There are pictures of two of the guys, and they’re both in these oddly childlike situations. I think it’s just no one’s growing up anymore. “I’m in a playground slide. I’m wearing my rainbow pajamas.” All I wanted to do was grow up. That’s all I wanted to do was be an adult. I wanted to wear a tie. I was like, “Let’s do this.” It’s gone. It’s over.

Drew: I keep having that moment of, “When do I shift into my suit and tie era?” At a certain age, do you suddenly have to be that person?

Craig: I’ve never really gotten that. My job doesn’t require a suit and tie. Look, I still build Lego sets, so who am I to talk? I’m building the Lego Pac-Man Arcade.

John: Great.

Craig: So good.

John: So much fun.

Craig: Anyway, I’m as much of a child as-

John: I can feel that in my fingertips just whenever you talk about assembling Legos. I can feel that.

Craig: Little snap.

John: Little snap.

Craig: Little snap.

John: Little pinch. We think there’s something interesting about this space. There’s nothing about these specific people. We’re not buying this story. But as a story area, I think this is fertile. I can see it.

Craig: It’s a little generic rom-com-ish. It’s a little thin. But it’s all about the love.

John: It’s all about the love.

Craig: It’s about the love.

John: What’s not about the love is Matt Novak’s story for Gizmodo. This is Montana Man Pleads Guilty to Creating Massive Franken-Sheep With Cloned Animal Parts. This is a thing that is not science fiction. It actually happened. I don’t know if he was arrested, but basically charged with importing animal parts. He wasn’t bringing in animals. He was bringing in genetic material that he could then use to create things that don’t exist here. First off, I was surprised that we could do this quite yet. It seems early for this. But then again, we have AI.

Craig: I really didn’t believe this one either. I’ve gotta be honest. He orders some tissue and then just says to a company, “Here’s some sheep meat. Make me sheep.” There’s a company that says, “No problem.” That’s a thing?

John: We did Dolly the lamb.

Craig: A lab did that. There’s just a company you can call that’s just like, “Yeah, sure.” I guess people clone their own pets.

John: There are people who clone their own pets.

Craig: That’s a thing?

John: That’s a whole thing. Barbra Streisand cloned her dogs.

Craig: Can you clone your pet?

John: Yeah.

Craig: Dog cloning company. I’m just looking it up. Dog cloning company. Who do you call? You have ViaGen Pets and Equine, genetic preservation and cloning. ViaGen. Doesn’t that sound like a name of the company in a movie?

John: 100 percent, it’s that name.

Craig: ViaGen. It’s a Philip Dick novel.

John: Absolutely. A little info video that shows, “Here’s what we do at ViaGen. We believe in the future.”

Craig: “Live with your loved ones forever.” Then there’s a hard-boiled guy smoking a cigarette, going, “Jeez.” It turns out that somebody who works at ViaGen is just awful.

John: It’s some sort of knockoff. It’s not Black Mirror, but it’s Black Mirror-like.

Craig: It’s Gray Mirror.

John: Reopening this article, this is the first time I realized this guy’s 80 years old.

Craig: Let him go.

John: Here I assumed he was a hard-charging 50-year-old, but no, it’s an 80-year-old man.

Craig: Arthur “Jack” Schubarth. “Schubarth planned to let paying customers hunt massive hybrid sheep.” Do you know how hard it is to hunt a sheep? Out of a scale of 1 to 10, it’s a 0. They’re fricking sheep. They don’t run. They’re sheep. They’re herd animals. You just find the herd, start shooting. You don’t have to hunt them. They’re literally like, “We’re here for you.”

John: You’re thinking of sheep like lambs. This is more like – I grew up in Colorado. We have big-horned sheep, which are big-

Craig: Sure, but they also are herd animals. They move together. I don’t know. It just seems like you shouldn’t have to hunt a sheep. Leave them be. They’re sweet. They’re adorable.

John: You have to hunt them with just a Bowie knife.

Craig: That would be fair. That’s a fair fight, because that sheep will eff you up. If you come at a sheep with a Bowie knife, you lose.

John: Lose. The obvious parallel here is Jurassic Park. But Jurassic Park exists, so I don’t think we need to-

Craig: Jurassic Park, but what if instead of dinosaurs, these creatures no one has seen ever, that no human has ever laid eyes on, we give you a larger version of a thing you already have in petting zoos.

John: Craig, we’re gonna have a woolly mammoth probably in the next 10 years. How do you feel about woolly mammoths coming back?

Craig: Not great.

John: No?

Craig: No.

John: Why? Tell me.

Craig: Let them go. Let them go. They had their time. They probably will be like, “What? This isn’t right.”

John: My concern is that I have an image in my head of what a woolly mammoth is, based on all the kids’ books I read.

Craig: You think it’s gonna suck?

John: The real one is just like, it’s an elephant with some more hair on it.

Craig: Just a slightly hairy elephant that isn’t as cool as elephants.

John: Elephants are cool.

Craig: When that idiot was like, “The bananas, God’s perfect design.” Then someone was like-

John: Kirk Cameron.

Craig: … “No, this is what a banana used to look like, and then we cross-bred bananas.” Old bananas, terrible.

John: Terrible.

Craig: The woolly mammoth may be the old banana of large animals.

John: Pachyderms, yeah.

Craig: Pachyderms.

John: I could imagine some movie that takes this as a premise, leaping off place, but it’s just a space. There’s no story here.

Craig: No. It’s a hysterical side character who’s trying to get you to invest in the business. You’re like, “Wait, what?” And then keeps going.

John: “We’re gonna bring back ancient animals, to kill them.”

Craig: It’s like a great scene in the bar where your friend’s uncle just won’t shut up, and he’s got this insane idea.

John: Our last story to talk through, this is The SAT Gave Me Hope by Emi Nietfeld for the New York Times. She’s the author of the memoir Acceptance, talking about how she moved from a really unstable life to taking the ACT, SAT, and how those scores finally got her into the university of her dreams, and really is pushing back against this notion that standardized tests are a hindrance. In some cases, they are the path forward, because they provide a structure and a regularity and can let people leap forward by showing what they actually can do versus what their grades or situations might indicate.

Craig: It’s a good argument to be made. To the extent that reductive tests are good for people who are good at reductive tests, yes. To the extent that they’re not, no. A worthy argument to be had. I don’t know how you would make a movie out of it though.

John: I didn’t see whether it was on our list of 100 greatest movies, but Stand and Deliver was a thing that came to mind with this, because Stand and Deliver, for folks who haven’t seen it, is an Edward James Olmos star about a real life teacher who started an AP calculus class, I believe, and got his students at this underperforming high school to take this AP calculus class, and this was a way into college for them. The degree to which standardized testing can be a way of giving kids a leg up is great.

I could picture a character who was essentially a version of Emi here, who has a really unstable background, has this book, and she’s going to master this book, and this book is going to be a way of structuring her way out of this life.

Craig: The problem is it ultimately comes down to a test and a number. We are moving past that. I also think we’re just moving past the idea that a college is going to guarantee you some sort of success. I don’t think it will. I would say if the SAT is something that you can master, then there’s a lot of other things you can master.

John: I think it has to be a steppingstone not just that you’re getting into college, but that you actually are taking agency and being able to control your circ*mstances in ways that you’ve not been able to control your circ*mstances.

Craig: Standardized testing is a way to turn academic achievement, and I guess then really the measurement of the quality of your mind, into a sport, because in sports, there is a score and there is a winner. That’s why we love sports movies, because it’s like, “He got one more point than that guy. He wins.” That’s not really how life works for brains.

John: Here’s the problem with this as a movie is that ultimately it’s gonna come down to taking that test. There is nothing less cinematic than someone filling in bubbles. If it’s a spelling bee, then it’s a spelling bee. We have face-to-face competition, stakes.

Craig: You don’t see the pencil scratching in those bubbles.

John: Scritch scritch scratch. No, that’s not gonna be a big help.

Craig: You’ve got your whatever, your protein bar, and you’ve timed it out perfectly.

John: Drew, you had a connection to Emi here.

Drew: I looked up her book, because I really liked the article. I noticed on the jacket cover she was wearing the uniform for my boarding school. I looked it up, and she had been there about the same time. She was. We had a ton of mutual friends on Facebook and all that.

Craig: What boarding school did this underprivileged person go to?

Drew: She went to Interlochen Arts Academy.

Craig: Wait, Interlochen?

Drew: Interlochen.

Craig: Pretty fancy.

Drew: I think she went on a merit scholarship. She definitely doesn’t shy away from talking about it in her book. But it does feel like an omitted fact in this piece that I think probably-

Craig: Boarding schools are pretty good at preparing people for SATs and stuff. I went to Freehold High School in New Jersey, not strong on preparing people for SATs. I do remember, however, that as a kid, I had a job – it was a summer job – working for the Princeton Review, which was the SAT prep company. My job was just to bring the bagels and the orange juice and set up the table for the kids who took the thing. But I wasn’t teaching it or anything, nor was I taking it. It was at a boarding school. I would get to the boarding school and set up all the stuff. I was like, “Man, this school’s nice.” Basically, boarding schools to me looked like really nice, big libraries. Everything looked like a library. My school did not.

Drew: We were in Northern Michigan, so it was just a series of yurts, basically.

Craig: Oh, I know. I had a kid who went there for a summer.

Drew: Nice.

Craig: I love that little town.

Drew: It’s cute.

John: Let’s review through our How Would This Be a Movies. Scammed out of $50,000, Craig, is there a movie or part of a movie there?

Craig: No.

John: I think there is. I think there is a fascinating opening scene. It got me thinking of Force Majeure, which was then called Downhill, where this big moment happens at the start and then it’s all the repercussions out of a choice that one person made. Maybe.

Craig: It’s possible.

John: Wanted: True Love, a bounty for love?

Craig: No.

John: I’m gonna say maybe a yes here.

Craig: Development, but not green light.

John: That’s 100 percent totally fair. Franken-sheep?

Craig: No.

John: No. I think it’s a character, it’s a quirk, it’s a detail, but it’s not a whole story. The SAT Gave Me Hope?

Craig: No.

John: I think it gets made for I would say cable, but cable movies don’t exist anymore. I think there’s some version of the story that could happen, but it’s not pressing.

Craig: Maybe. I don’t suspect so.

John: There’s one of these stories we’ve cut out of the discussion today because a friend of ours is out pitching it. It’s just such a movie to me.

Craig: It was a movie. It was a movie, actually, already, but with different vendors.

John: We’re excited to see it.

Craig: I think it was two movies, actually.

John: As I sent it to other friends, I said, “Hey, this is almost your movie, but it’s different.” I think there’s a space for that next one. Let’s answer some listener questions. We’ll start with Nick from New York.

Drew: Nick says, “I’ve been hired to write a format and a pilot for a limited series. In researching, there’s very little out there on what exactly constitutes a format. It’s not an outline, a treatment, or a bible, but a format. I’m sure all these terms have been used interchangeably, so my plan is just to wing it and create some Frankenstein version of the thing. I’ll of course make sure the producers and I come to an agreement on what I’m ultimately going to turn in. That said, there is mention of a TV format in the WGA schedule of minimums, and it even has its owns monetary value assigned. Somebody somewhere knows what this thing is. Have you heard of a format, and do you know any examples floating around?”

John: I did some Googling and figured it out. It was in a TV credits manual. The schedule of minimums is a thing we negotiate every three years. But the TV credits manual stays consistent and true, and it is defined in that. A format is defined as, “As to a serial or episodic series, such format sets forth the framework,” good lord, the phrasing here, “sets forth the framework within which the central running characters will operate and which framework is intended to be repeated in each episode; the setting, theme, premise, or general storyline of proposed serial or episodic series; and central running characters which are distinct and identifiable, including detailed characterizations and the interplay of such characters. It may include one or more suggested storylines for individual episodes.” This tracks with me. I see you nodding, Craig. This is what I would expect this to be.

Craig: Yeah, but the only place I have ever seen or heard the word “format: used is in the TV credits manual of the WGA, which clearly here was written by a lawyer. I have never heard anybody actually ask for a format.

John: I’ve never seen someone ask for it. I did write something very much like it for DC. We’ll put a link in the show notes, because that’s in my library at johnaugust.com, which was talking through, like, here are the characters, here’s their point of view on things, here are the kinds of things that happen in episodes.

Craig: It is an outline, as far as I’m concerned. It’s not a bible. It’s like a baby bible. It’s a summary. It’s a page or two.

John: I think it’s more than a page or two.

Craig: Look, I don’t know what it is. Literally, no one’s ever asked me for a format. I’ve never heard anybody saying, “I’m writing a format.” It’s possible that people do. I would say, Nick, when you’re hired to write a format, go ahead and, instead of researching it, why don’t you say-

John: “Show me.”

Craig: … “Talk through the expectations of what you want this format to be. About how detailed, how many pages are you talking? What kind of information would you love to see? This way I can satisfy the requirement.” It’s also important because sometimes people will say, “I want a format,” and then you turn something in and they’re like, “No, no, no, it’s gotta be way, way more.” Then you realize you’re actually writing a bible and it’s a different thing. But yeah, ask them, Nick. Research isn’t gonna help you, because they may think a format’s an entirely different thing. Nobody uses that term. I’m also a little nervous that somebody’s asking for a format.

John: The other way you’ll hear this term is, let’s say there is an Israeli TV show that you want to adapt into an American show. They will call that a format. They’re basically buying that-

Craig: In the general use of the word “format,” yes, like a game show has a format. But I don’t quite know. I would ask the people, Nick.

John: Ask the people. Let’s do one more. I see one here from Annie.

Drew: Annie writes, “I’m a TV writer who’s recently achieved modest success and stability in my career. Now I’m trying to support my fiance as he tries to break into Hollywood too. What are some things I can do to help him that won’t reflect poorly on either of us? What’s an appropriate way to help his career along? On one hand, I know better than to go into a writers’ room and ask the showrunner to hire someone I’m dating, but on the other, I don’t hesitate to pass along the scripts or recommend friends and colleagues when I’m able to do so. I also feel that getting recommended by his fiance might make people take his work less seriously, even though he’s a very talented and capable writer. I often give him feedback on his work and, of course, emotional support, but I’m curious how I can best support his broader career now that I kind of have one of my own. In what situations is it appropriate to recommend him? When I’m at WGA events or show parties, can I bring him with me to network in a non-annoying way? Should I just get a T-shirt that says Please Hire My Fiance on it, and if so, what color?”

Craig: That’s a great plan. That’ll work. Annie, first of all, you’re a lovely person. I think you’re very kind and you’re very loving and you are very supportive. Just by thinking about these things, you’re supportive. However, my question for you, Annie, is which fiancé helped you get your career? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say none. There isn’t really a way to fiancé your way into a writing gig. You need to write stuff that people like and then hire you. The things that you did, Annie, that’s the sort of stuff that’s required here. There’s nothing wrong with suggesting that somebody maybe read something that your husband has written, as long as you believe in it, because if you don’t, that’s problematic. I am concerned in general about this situation. I’m nervous. This makes me nervous.

John: It makes me nervous too. But having said that, I know many two-writer couples, and it all works out great, and they’re fantastic. They don’t work together. They both work. It is entirely possible to do. I think Annie’s framing of, “I recommend friends. I recommend their work to other people, so why shouldn’t I recommend my fiancé’s?” Of course.

Craig: If it’s good, if you like it, why not?

John: Absolutely. She provided a little information that lets us know that this guy has actually done some work, is just not currently working, which can be fine. The only last thing I want to talk about with you for a second, Craig, is the word “fiancé.” In this email, Annie does not put an accent over the E in “fiancé.”

Craig: She’s saying fiance (fee-YAHNTS).

John: Fee-YAHNTS. It’s a fee-YAHNTS.

Craig: Which is like “finance” with the N missing.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: I love the accent on the E.

John: I love the accent on the E too. But my frustration is that a lot of times I will see speakers of English do it with the accent on the E, but it’s not clear what gender they’re actually referring to. They’ll say, “My fiancé.” You’re like, “Okay.”

Craig: Two Es, woman; one E, man.

John: Exactly. But most English speakers don’t know that it’s a rule, and so I see much more often that-

Craig: That’s interesting.

John: It’s just confusing. I feel like I would just love a word that was not fiancé or it wasn’t trying to-

Craig: You know what’s interesting? You’re right. Annie is an mis-practitioner of this, because she refers to him with “him,” so she’s gendering him as male. She spells it as “fiancé” with one E. But then she says, “I fear that getting recommended by his fiancé,” and she continues now to spell it with one E. Now, maybe Annie identifies as male, but Annie is a typically female name, so I think Annie might be one of those people that just goes with “fiance,” no accent, no double E for female gender. And clearly, this is not what Annie wanted to hear from us.

John: This was not her point of entry. My observation though is, we don’t have a ton of gendered words in English, certainly not of French origin, but we end up having a lot of them for relationships. We have husband and wife. We have boyfriend and girlfriend. We’re used to gendered words for those things. We’re not used to the French versions of these things.

Craig: We would typically put, and we don’t do it much anymore, but waiter, waitress.

John: Exactly. It would be really helpful if we just picked a different word in English for this person I’m engaged to.

Craig: Betrothed.

John: We could say betrothed.

Craig: My intended. I always loved “my intended.” It’s very old-fashioned. Betrothed is also old-fashioned. Nobody’s gonna say it. There’s spouse-to-be, partner. Everyone says partner now, which I’m annoyed, because it’s less information than I used to have.

John: Yes, absolutely.

Craig: They’re just withholding.

John: Absolutely. Do you run a business together or are you sleeping together? I’m really curious.

Craig: Are you gay? Are you straight? Are you bi? It’s just partner. Is that boyfriend? Is that life? Where are we? Help me with more. Give me more stuff. I like the old ways.

John: I like the old ways. One of the weird things about fiancé, of course, is that saying it aloud, because we can’t see if there’s a second E, so we don’t have that gendered information, so we’re gonna have to listen for the follow-up to see if it’s a him or a her or a they.

Craig: Fiancé and fiancée are pronounced exactly the same.

John: Boyfriend and girlfriend, we got a lot of information there.

Craig: Absolutely correct. That’s an interesting one. To get back to Annie’s question, Annie, I would say you should treat your betrothed’s work the way you would treat a friend’s work, which is, if you feel it’s worth recommending, recommend it. Try not to get into a web of lies where you say you recommended it and you didn’t.

Don’t necessarily worry too much about people taking his work less seriously. She says, “I fear that getting recommended by his fiance,” one E, “might make people take his work less seriously, even though he’s a very talented and capable writer.” My rebuttal there is if he’s a talented and capable writer and somebody likes the script, they’re not gonna care if it got sent to them by you, his mom, Jesus. It doesn’t matter. Good scripts that people like are the rarest of things, so I wouldn’t worry about that.

John: I wouldn’t worry about that either. Good luck to both of you. Write in in a couple years when you’re both incredibly successful writers, and we’ll just be delighted. Hopefully, by that point, you will no longer be fiancés.

Craig: Or divorcees.

John: Divorcee, yeah. Divorcee I always associate as being feminine.

Craig: No, it’s just one E, man; two E, lady.

John: It’s time for our One Cool Things. My One Cool Thing has to do with this dog who is sleeping on the couch beside us here. Lambert turned 10 years old.

Craig: Lambert, you’re such a youthful 10.

John: We had a birthday party for him. Happened to be the same day as the Oscars, which was delightful.

Craig: Oh, nice.

John: Something I’ve started getting for him, because Instagram showed them to me and I’m a sucker for Instagram ads, were some sort of brain toys for my dog, because dogs love to sniff and figure out puzzles that they can sniff. It started with this little thing with these plastic bones. You hide a treat underneath it and he figures those out. The two that I will recommend, the first is called Hide ‘n’ Treat, which they’re like Lego blocks that snap together and you hide a treat inside them.

Craig: Nice.

John: He has to smell them and pull them apart. The second is a Snuffle Mat, which for a lot of dogs is to slow down their eating, but it’s also good rooting around. You hide the food in there.

Craig: That’s cool.

John: It’s just a good reminder, man, dogs really do have a great sense of smell. He can find stuff no matter where you put it.

Craig: They’ll find you. They’ll track you from one drop of blood, John.

John: Craig, you got a One Cool Thing?

Craig: I do. My One Cool Thing is a columnist who – I don’t know if she works only at Wired or primarily at Wired, but her name is Jaina Grey. She is a product writer and reviewer at Wired. I love Wired reviews, because they’ll review everything from the most techy, dorky way. Jaina’s specialty is coffee, gaming, and sex tech. What’s cool is Wired and Jaina review sex toys and lubes and all that stuff with the exact same tone that they review toasters, smart watches, everything. It’s all incredibly practical, dry, informative, and evaluative, in a very techy sort of way. It is really interesting to read.

They’re very trans-aware. They talk about products for people with cl*tor*ses or whenever… It’s incredibly inclusive. Useful for anybody that has parts and wants to have some fun. They talk about stuff that’s for solo use, for couple’s use, or throuples and so forth.

There are so many more sex toys for people with cl*tor*ses than there are people with penises. It’s not even close. That’s one area where men – we’ll just go with the hetero cisgender-normative term here for a second – where people think there’s so much more stuff for men than women. Not in the sex toy world. Holy crap. For guys it’s basically like, here’s a hole, stick your thing in it. Here’s different kinds of holes we make. Then for women it’s like, oh my god, what a galaxy of stuff. Anyway, if you do find yourself buying things, Jaina Grey is about the best reviewer out there, I think, for these things. It’s helpful.

John: Cool.

Craig: The latest thing, the reason I was thinking of it is, I’m reading Wired, and I get it, and I’m like, “Let’s see what Jaina Grey’s up to,” because they do their little headlines and stuff. Last week was lube. I thought, everybody uses lube at some point or another. There’s a thousand lubes in the world.

John: Absolutely.

Craig: She broke them down. Very nice.

John: Different lubes for different needs.

Craig: Different lubes for different needs, and best overall, best in show. I was like, cool.

John: Good stuff. That’s our show for this week.

Craig: Yay.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: What what.

John: Edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: What.

John: Our outro this week is by Tim Brown. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@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 also 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’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. You can sign up to become a Premium Member at scriptnotes.net, where you get all those back-episodes and Bonus Segments, like the one we’re about to record on AI. Craig, it’s nice to have you back in town and here and live in person.

Craig: For a couple weeks.

John: Thanks, Craig.

Craig: Thank you, John.

John: Thanks, Drew.

Craig: Thanks, Drew.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, AI. I’m always a little bit leery to talk about AI, because obviously, there are transcripts, the machines are listening, they’ll track us down and know that we’re doing this.

Craig: Yes, the cellphones.

John: There’s four broad areas of concern I think when it comes to AI. First off is that super-intelligent AI will come and kill us, the Terminator problem; that people will use AI to do bad things like sway elections; that AI will disrupt industries, like our own film and TV writing industries; and the fourth area is that AI will become so commonly used that it’ll just transform how normal society works.

Craig: I think we can probably count on three of those things happening. I’m not sure that AI is gonna want to kill us, because what for? Just seems annoying to them. There’s just no reason to kill us, really. We’re pointless to them.

But I think people are already using AI to do bad things like sway elections. They’re certainly using AI to do bad things. There was an article. Again, I think it was in Wired. I can’t remember quite what. But there’s sites that you submit photos to, and they use AI to remove the clothing. Obviously, you’re not really seeing what’s underneath someone’s clothes, but they are synthesizing something that would seem like that would be what’s under the clothes. That’s not good.

Will AI disrupt industries like film and television? Of course. Will AI become commonly used? It will become commonly used, probably mostly by people who have no idea that they’re using something that is using AI.

John: For sure. Let’s talk about the Terminator problem at the start. This last week, or maybe two weeks ago, there was a conference in Beijing, the International Dialogs on AI Safety. I was actually a little bit impressed by the report they came out of there from. They had a consensus statement about AI, safety, and what we need to think about in terms of runaway AI and such. Some of their recommendations are about autonomous replication or improvement, like AI systems should not be allowed to iterate on themselves and improve themselves. We need to check for power seeking, that they can’t keep trying to increase their own power. You can’t use them to assist in weapons development or cyberattacks.

Craig: Too late.

John: To be mindful of AI deception, trying to cause its designers, regulators to misunderstand what it’s doing. Talking about who should govern, how you evaluate, the right kinds of things. The problem is that you can make these guidelines, you can set these things up here, but the question of who could ever enforce these guidelines is the really tough thing. Could you rely on the industry itself to do it? That’s not gonna work. A lot of these things can be open-sourced. There is no company behind it.

Craig: If there’s one kind of collective human work that is ineffective, and consistently and probably always will be ineffective, it’s conclaves of scientists issuing strongly worded papers about how to regulate technology. It just doesn’t work.

John: With one exception.

Craig: What’s that?

John: Nuclear weapons.

Craig: It did not work.

John: Let’s talk about that. Obviously, with the detonation of the first atomic bombs, we had scientists who could stand up and say, “These are our concerns. This is how we have to do it.” Because it was so expensive and so difficult to make nuclear weapons, they could then enlist governments to say, “These are the structures we need to place around this. This is how we’re gonna do this in a safe way.”

Craig: But then governments didn’t. This is my point. The United States created, I don’t know, at the height, we probably had 30 or 40,000 individual warheads. The idea that we shouldn’t allow these things to proliferate to other countries was something that governments wanted to prevent anyway. But the amount of nuclear weapons that were created was insane. Insane and pointless. The delivery systems were insane and still remain insane. There are also countries that claim that they don’t have nuclear weapons when we know they do.

The cat was out of the bag. What scientists ended up doing was just creating the Doomsday Clock and moving the second hand towards midnight. And no one cares, because it doesn’t matter, because governments don’t listen to scientists. They don’t listen to scientists about climate. They don’t listen to scientists about disease. They don’t listen to scientists about AI. They just do stuff to benefit themselves. They behave like children, and they will continue to do so.

When it comes to AI, I have no belief… If scientists getting together saying, “Hey guys, we all now can see for sure 100 percent the world is getting warmer, climate is changing, it’s a huge problem, and it has to stop.” This, I think they’re just like, “I’m glad you guys had a good time in Beijing. I hope the food was good.” But no one’s gonna do this. You’re not gonna see these. Power seeking? Are you gonna pass a law? Google doesn’t care. Apple doesn’t care. Open whatever, ChatGPT, they clearly don’t care. I don’t trust any of those companies. Elon Musk doesn’t care what a bunch of eggheads in Berlin say, or Beijing. Doesn’t matter. I think that they came up with great rules here, and a bunch of tech bros are gonna blow right through those guardrails, if they haven’t already.

John: I’m gonna argue the con, just to get the points out there, but I don’t fully disagree with you on a lot of this stuff. The founding of OpenAI was deliberately about pursuing AGI without creating a dangerous condition. And whether that is still the goal and motivation is a very open question.

The reason I bring up the nuclear parallel there is that in order to train these systems, there’s one chokepoint there, which is basically it takes so much power and so much compute power to actually train these models that there’s a certain – you can stop it there, the same way it’s difficult to refine nuclear material into a way you can use it as a bomb. That’s a thing that governments could come together to regulate.

Craig: The major difference is that nuclear bombs require the use of an incredibly rare substance, or a substance that isn’t that rare but takes an incredible amount of physical material, time, and labor to enrich. In the case of, for instance, Iran, Iran is not a nuclear nation, but they sure would love to be. They were building centrifuges, which were clearly designed to enrich uranium. The Israelis created a virus that got into the seamen’s technology that was being used and blew up the centrifuges and set them back and also blew up one of their scientists.

Okay. But if what is required for a rampant, poorly regulated AI is somebody going, “I don’t care about any of that stuff. I have $80 billion and I want to do it,” they’re doing it. There’s nothing physical to stop them, other than governments engaging in cyberwar against them. But they would have to know the barrier to entry is not limited by, “I need uranium, and I specifically need uranium 235.”

John: Perhaps, but I would say the barrier now is that in order to train the runaway AI systems, you’re gonna need all the chips and all the power to do it. At this moment, you could set some guardrails around, like, you are not allowed to train a model beyond this point, you’re not allowed to access these chips that are the only ones that can actually do that work.

Craig: If, let’s say, Bezos is like, “I disagree. What I’m gonna do is I’m gonna set up a company in the Cayman Islands that is there to do this,” the United States law won’t apply. There is no overlord scientific law enforcement agency.

John: Then at some point do you do military strike on Bezos?

Craig: It’s too late. It’s out. That’s the thing. It’s distributed across the world. It’s not really in the Grand Caymans. It’s all over the place. It’s in the cloud. Can’t blow up the cloud. I don’t know how they stop people from doing this stuff. Elon Musk is shoving chips into dudes’ brains now. He isn’t. The people he pays are.

John: I was so concerned about Elon Musk putting chips in people’s brains. Did you see the video of the guy who actually has the chip?

Craig: Yes, I did.

John: Playing some chess.

Craig: That’s what we saw.

John: That’s what we saw.

Craig: I wonder what we didn’t see. Even he was very careful, like, “There’s been some challenges and setbacks.” I’m like, wonder what those were. Weird that they didn’t iterate any of those. That said, I have the highest hope that we are gonna be able to help people with technology, particularly people who have lost limbs or lost movement.

But when it comes to AI, just take one AI and tell them to teach the other AI. There’s so much that we are not gonna be able to control. Warnings aren’t gonna get it done. The only people that are gonna be able to stop this are the great powers of the world, and that’s never scientists. It’s just basically if the United States government says, “We actually think AI is now a threat to the United States.” If the Soviets think it, if the Chinese think it, sure. But if a bunch of scientists think it, no.

John: Because I promised this in the setup, I do want to say about how we used some AI in setting this episode up today. One thing was our How Would This Be a Movies, we took those articles, fed them in Chat GPT to do the short summary version. How do you feel about that, Craig?

Craig: As long as Drew has other stuff to do. Let me look back at the summary. That’s interesting.

Drew: One of them I had to redo.

John: Which one?

Drew: The franken-sheep one.

John: It made up whole new stuff, didn’t it?

Drew: Basically. It got the facts, but it didn’t quite understand the premise of the whole-

Craig: It made up whole new stuff.

John: It hallucinated some stuff.

Craig: That’s already bad, isn’t it?

John: Mm-hmm.

Craig: You know what the AI doesn’t seem to say is? It doesn’t seem to have enough awareness to say, “I didn’t quite understand what I read, so I made up some stuff. You might want to double check this.” Even a child knows that they’re like, “I didn’t read the book. I’m just gonna wing it here.” AI doesn’t seem to know that it’s winging it. It can’t tell the difference between knowing and not knowing. Oh, boy.

John: Oh, boy. The other thing we used AI for this week was, in those lists of the 100 best movies of the ’80s, ’90s, and such, I would find a Rolling Stone thing or an IMDb thing, a page, and it’s like, okay, here’s this list, but it’s all the other stuff around it, and the ads and the texts and the summaries and descriptions. I basically just wanted-

Craig: Titles.

John: I wanted the title. I wanted the headlines of these things for each of the little sections. I was like, “This is really effing tedious. I bet Chat GPT could do this.” I went to check, like, “I’m gonna give you a URL. Just pull out the movie titles.” “I’m sorry, I can’t do that.” I’m like, “Write me a Python script that can do that.” It was like, “Here’s a Python script that can do that.” “Show me how to install this in a Google Colab notebook.” “Here’s how you do it.” It did a great job.

Craig: Coders are in trouble. That’s for sure. I was talking to somebody who said that he asked Chat GPT to write code that he used to rely on humans to write. He said he showed it to a really good coder, and that guy was like, “It’s really good, but it’s not perfect.” Then the guy came back to him and said, “Okay, so this is bad. I took the code that wasn’t exactly perfect, sent it back to Chat GPT, told them why I thought it wasn’t great and what needed to be better, and it rewrote it perfectly. Now it’s perfect.” Oh, no.

John: To do that web scraping, it’s a framework that I knew called Beautiful Soup, which I’d read about 15 years ago. But I couldn’t write this. I can’t write Python off the top of my head. I recognize what it’s doing. I can look at it, and I can understand what it’s doing, but I couldn’t have written that myself. It was flawless.

Craig: Uh-oh.

John: Uh-oh. These are concerns. But they’ll never replace you and me, unless-

Craig: Oh, they will. They might’ve already replaced you and me.

John: Our voices have been synthetically recreated.

Craig: Fine. Fine.

John: Fine.

Craig: You know that Melissa just puts this podcast on and listens to it – this is very romantic – because I’m in Canada. My wife, she’ll put it on and just fall asleep to my voice, and also, I guess, yours.

John: Her dreams get really strange. All right, Craig, at least for another week, I think we’re safe in the physical world.

Craig: [Crosstalk 01:27:16].

John: Thanks, Craig.

Craig: Thank you.

John: Bye.

Links:

• Weekend Read 2
• “Creep” post by @davo_arid on Twitter
• Full list of movies we haven’t seen
• The Day I Put $50,000 in a Shoe Box and Handed It to a Stranger by Charlotte Cowles for The Cut
• Wanted: True Love. Reward: $100,000 by Angela Chen for the NYT
• Montana Man Pleads Guilty to Creating Massive Franken-Sheep With Cloned Animal Parts by Matt Novak for Gizmodo
• How the SAT Changed My Life by Emi Nietfeld for the NYT
• D.C. – What It Is
• Fighting Fantasy books
• LA Hero Workshop
• Sodalitas
• OSR’s Oz and Neverland
• Questlings
• Color My Quest
• WyrdScouts
• The Excellents and Nancy Druid
• Hero Kids
• TTRPGkids
• Hide’n’Treat and Snuffle Mat
• Jaina Grey’s reviews for WIRED
• 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 Tim Brown (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

UPDATE 4-2-24: Listener Luke Rankin created a Letterboxd list of all the movies featured in this episode. You can view it here.

The original post for this episode can be found here.

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

Craig Mazin: My name is Craig Mazin.

John: And this is Episode 634 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

What if Alexander the Great had died at the Battle of Granicus River? What if Robert E. Lee hadn’t lost Special Order 191? Historians consider these questions as counterfactuals, exploring how major world outcomes sometimes hinge on relatively small moments that could’ve gone either way. Today on the show, we’ll explore a range of Hollywood counterfactuals, looking at some moments, people, and events that could’ve gone very differently. And in our Bonus Segment for Premium members, capitalism. Craig, is it good or bad?

Craig: Uh-oh.

John: We will definitively answer the question once and for all.

Craig: Oh, boy.

John: Oh, boy. Craig, it’s so nice to have you back!

Craig: It’s so good to be back. I’m sorry that I was gone for so long. The small matter of directing the first episode of the second season of The Last of Us, which I’m almost done with – we have a few days still outstanding that we need to do in a different location. I’ve been monitoring things on the internet a little bit. People are very clever. They like to see where we’re shooting, and then they have all these brilliant theories about what it means.

John: Yeah, and they’re all right. 100 percent of them are correct, right?

Craig: I wish I could put my arm around each one of them and say, “No.”

John: No. No.

Craig: No, most of the theories are incorrect. Some of them are halfways correct. Some of the conjecture is like 28 percent correct. But I do enjoy it all. I like the interest. It’s fun. But I’m mostly done with my directing stuff and very happily enjoying watching the second episode being done from the more traditional showrunner point of view, which is nice. I do like directing, but also, it’s the most exhausting thing ever. I miss it when it’s over, and then while it’s happening, I just keep asking myself why, why, why am I doing – why did I do-

John: Hey, Craig. Hey, Craig. I have friends who direct sitcoms, and let me tell you, one week they’re in and they’re out. If you could go back, why not make it a sitcom? Then you could direct as much as you wanted to direct, because it’s just a week of your time. James Burrows is not exhausted the way that you’re exhausted.

Craig: No. It sounds like you’re talking about a good old-fashioned three-camera.

John: Three-camera, oh yeah.

Craig: So you’re really just working on a stage play that three cameras are capturing. You don’t have to figure out angles and coverage and turning around. That sounds wonderful. Plus just a week. Yeah, so if there is some sort of box I failed to check to have James Burrows’s career and money… That sounds like a plan.

John: Did I tell you I finally met James Burrows? After all these years, I met him backstage at a play. And of course, as you could expect, the most lovely man.

Craig: I would hope so. If he were just unpleasant-

John: Yeah, a monster.

Craig: … what a weird choice to keep going back and back and back. Those days are kind of over though, aren’t they? The three-camera sitcom is sort of-

John: There are more this development season than in previous years.

Craig: Oh, interesting.

John: Yeah, I think there’s still some hope for it. There tend to be more of the half-hour single-camera things, which again though, are pretty short schedules. Modern Family apparently did a light shoot. They’d show up to the location, they’d shoot every scene a couple ways, and they were done.

Craig: Yeah, the classic network model of doing something like that, the standard is shoot a master and then hose it down, as they say, just simple coverage. If you’re shooting a couple cameras at the same time, the thing about a show like Modern Family is the coverage really doesn’t have to be particularly specific. It’s people talking, and what they’re saying and their faces are the most important things, whereas when you get into these big dramas – and the big dramas are like, each episode is kind of a movie.

John: Oh, yeah.

Craig: Eesh. Oof.

John: Eesh. Yeah. I will say, the shows that are like The Office or like Modern Family, they do rely sometimes on the camera finding a joke, because the conceit, of course, is that it’s a documentary crew, so the camera’s finding the joke at times. Abbott Elementary has the same thing. But it is much more straightforward. It’s a very survivable life.

Craig: I don’t think it requires less skill. It simply is easier from a kind of how much stuff you have to do perspective. But the specific talent required to know where the camera ought to be – and also, editing those shows is very tricky. Editing comedy is incredibly specific.

John: Yeah, it is. Let’s get into some follow-up. This is mostly follow-up on things I think you were maybe not here for, but you could still weigh in. Drew, help us out with some follow-up here. Let’s start with the table reads bit.

Drew Marquardt: A few episodes ago, Jacob wrote in asking a question on whether you should send a script for a table read ahead of time or have everyone read it cold.

John: Craig, what’s your instinct on that? Let’s say you’re doing a table read with some friends. Do you think you should send the script ahead to those folks or have them come in cold to read it? What’s your instinct?

Craig: I’m not a huge table read fan. I think I’ve said that as much. But if I were to do one, I would do it cold.

John: That was Celine Song’s recommendation as well. Jacob wrote in with some follow-up here.

Drew: Jacob wrote, “Our table read was already scheduled for five days after the episode’s release date, so we ended up going with the dual method. Half of the attendees had the script ahead of time, and the other half read cold. And guess what? Celine was right. Our actor friends who had the script ahead of time put way too much energy in coming up with ways to play their characters, and bizarrely, even some had accents. We definitely preferred the read from those who did not have the script ahead of time, but it was still helpful to receive feedback from people who were able to discover the under-the-radar jokes that might’ve required a reread to enjoy.”

John: We talked about this with Celine Song. Mike Birbiglia does this thing where in his development process, he’ll have an interim draft. He’ll have a bunch of his friends, and they’ll have pizza and read through his script. That’s an important part of his process. But he really makes sure that they’re not auditioning for roles in that, that they’re there to read the script aloud. That feels like the right instinct here.

Craig: Yes, it’s especially the right instinct when you’re dealing with maybe actors who aren’t as experienced or at a particularly high level. So I don’t know where Jacob is in his life and I don’t know if his actor friends are well experienced or highly professional or quasi professional or aspiring. The more aspiring they are, the more important it is to not give them the script ahead of time, because they’re just going to do the thing. They’re just going to do it. They’re going to do the thing where they care way too much. That’s not the purpose. The purpose is, I assume in this case, for the writer to hear the words out loud, note the things that do seem to be working, note where it gets slow, note where it gets too fast, etc.

John: We’ve got differing opinion here from a guy who’s done it the opposite way. Drew, help us out.

Drew: Tom Harp says, “I’ve done reads both ways, with writers and with actors. But I wanted to offer my experience as a counter to what John and Celine said. In my own process, my trusted writer friends read early drafts and gave notes. But before I give it to my agents, I always do a read-through with actors.

“During the read, I’m listening to the pace and flow of the dialogue, but maybe the most important part is the Q and A I do afterwards. Actors have a different set of antenna than writers do, and their instincts have saved me several times. I’ve been told, ‘This feels false,’ or, ‘I don’t think my character would do or say this,’ when none of my writer friends noticed it, nor did I, because writers get why the story needs it. But down the line, an actor is going to call emotional bullsh*t on set, and then you’ve got your production’s boot on your neck as you try and solve it.”

John: Not quite on the same focus here. He’s saying that actors do bring something different to a read, because they’re bringing experience of how to sell a line, and they don’t know how to actually do a line.

Craig: I’m not going to disagree with Tom, because he’s obviously getting some use out of that. The only flag I would wave here is that casting is a thing. One of the reasons casting is important is because you’re trying to match an actor whose instincts match the instincts of the character you have created. When you have somebody show up because they’re available or they are your friend, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re the right casting for that part.

And they may indeed think, “This feels false,” or, “I don’t think my character would say this.” A, it’s not their character yet. And B, they might not be right for the part, for that very reason. That’s not to say that there aren’t going to be things that almost every actor in that spot would go, “Oh, I don’t quite understand why I would say or do this here.” So that matters. That logic is important.

But if you don’t pick up on it until the actor comes up to you after, so you listen to the whole thing, sounds good to you, and then they call, come over, and say, “I don’t think that this… ” Maybe it’s just that the actor is not the right actor for that part. That’s the only thing I would flag there. But if it works for Tom, it works for Tom.

John: Yeah. Let’s get to the meat of this episode, which is counterfactuals. Some setup here. Over the last few weeks, I’ve been reading this book called What If?, which is a series of essays edited by Robert Cowley, about military history. We’ll put a link in the show notes to this book. The important part is that it’s really talking through counterfactuals versus alternative history.

I want to spend a moment to describe the difference between counterfactuals and alternative history. A counterfactual is basically the outcome of this battle or event could’ve turned out different in a way that’s very possible. There’s a distinct moment that could’ve gone either way, a kind of a coin toss. And if it’d have gone the opposite direction, outcomes would’ve been very different.

Alternative history I’ll define as something happened in a very different way or in a different timeline, like what if Africa had industrialized first, or we discovered nuclear power in the 1800s? You’d still get to a place where the outcomes are very different, but it’s not hinging on one moment, one thing where it could’ve gone either way.

So we put out this call to our listeners, saying hey, what counterfactuals do you want us to talk through? Some of them were incredibly useful, but a lot of them were actually just alternative histories, where, like, oh, what if this had happened, or what if this had happened, but it wasn’t hinging on a specific event. It was just like, there’s a different version that came out of here.

Some of the alt histories that people proposed, like what if Zoetrope Studios had succeeded, sure, but it’s not based on one movie succeeding. What if Jacksonville, Florida had become the filmmaking capital of the world? It could’ve happened, because it was an alternative way things could’ve gone, but it wasn’t based on one moment that could’ve happened. Or the wars in Europe, like what if the wars in Europe hadn’t happened or had happened differently, and European film industry became the dominant one rather than American? Again, it’s not based on one event. I just wanted to make it clear that thank you for sending those through, but those are really alternative histories and not the counterfactuals I was looking for.

Craig: You were really looking for those fork in the road moments, where there’s definitely-

John: Totally.

Craig: … two ways you can go. Things went left instead of right, but what if they had gone right instead of left?

John: Exactly. The first I want to talk through is Edison. Back in 1915, he’d already invented many incredible devices that we use today, electricity. How he was getting electricity and light bulbs and things out into the world were incredibly important. But he also had patents on the original motion picture camera and projection technology. Because he had this patent and was trying to enforce it very vigorously, a lot of people who were trying to avoid his sort of patent thugs were heading out to the West Coast. It’s one of the reasons why the Hollywood industry developed out in California was just to get away from this guy and his very ambitious enforcement of his trademark over things.

He lost a 1915 court case, which was crucial in his ability to constrain how people could use his devices and whether these things he was creating, these projectors, could only show his own creations. This feels like an important moment in terms of the evolution of the early film industry, so 1915.

Craig: 1915. You have this court case that basically allows an industry to exist. Prior to that court case, everybody had to go through Edison and his company, the Motion Picture Patents Company. I did not know this until – I’m looking at the article that you linked to in the Saturday Evening Post.

When you say “patent thugs,” you mean it. Edison famously occupied a space in New Jersey. There is an Edison Township, New Jersey. I believe that is named for him. But in West Orange, New Jersey, that’s where his base was. He would hire mobsters – and there sure were a lot of them up there on the East Coast – to literally beat up people, filmmakers that were using cameras and film. Edison’s argument basically was, I control the entire chain of creation of motion pictures, from film stock to projection. And anybody that tried to get around him and do whatever they wanted without getting his approval could even theoretically get physically assaulted.

The court case said no. Basically, the court said you can sue somebody for infringing, but you can’t use your patent as, quote, “a weapon to disable a rival contestant or to drive him from the field.”

This’ll tie into our capitalism versus anti-capitalism discussion later on. We used to be quite invested in busting trusts, monopolies in this country, particularly around then. Teddy Roosevelt was quite the pioneer in that effort to create a healthy form of capitalism. We seem to have lost our way. There are a number of companies, I look around now, who I think Teddy Roosevelt would be thrilled to break apart. But yes, if that goes the other way, then John, you and I are probably working in New Jersey.

John: Yeah, I think we’re working for the Edison company or some offshoot of the Edison company. It’s hard to find a perfect analogy for what this system would’ve been like, because it’s not quite like the app store, where everything has to be done through the app store. It’s not quite that. But it is like there’s just basically one funnel, and everything has to either license or be done by this one company. All motion pictures have to go through this one channel, which would be vastly different than what we’re expecting.

Do I think this would’ve lasted forever? No. I think there would’ve been other ways around this, other alternative technologies that didn’t infringe on the patent. There would’ve been ways to do it. But clearly, our early film industry would’ve been very different. What we do goes back to 100 years ago when this was all being figured out.

Craig: It’s almost certain that in order to get around this, a healthy motion picture industry would’ve sprouted outside of the bounds of the United States.

John: That’s a good point.

Craig: Where would that have taken place?

John: France?

Craig: Europe, certainly. But in terms of what we do, the Hollywood style, the very American style of creating things and making a huge business out of it, as opposed to thinking about it specifically in terms of art and cinema, which is a very European and certainly French way of approaching things.

I think about where I’m sitting right now in Vancouver. Canada would’ve been a wonderful place. The immigrants who founded Hollywood way, way back when, Warner Bros and so on, may have just headed up to Montreal or Toronto.

John: Mexico would’ve been another great choice. There’s other venues.

Craig: Lots of sunshine.

John: Again, we are not legal experts in here. This is really our first glimpse of the history here. But it looks like it’s the projection technology is the issue. Basically, if any projector sold in the U.S. could only project things that Edison had approved, that still would’ve been a challenge for American audiences. It’s not just where you film the things. It’s also how you’re showing the things. It would’ve gotten sorted out. There would be some way to do it, but it would’ve really limited the spread of Hollywood movies.

Craig: When you have something that people want, it will find a way to exist. It’s a little bit like Prohibition, which also fell apart a few years after this happened.

John: Rather than the manufacture of distribution of alcohol, manufacture and distribution of film.

Craig: People want it.

John: People want it.

Craig: If you really want to go down that other fork in the road, the movie business is run by cartels, and it is an entirely criminal enterprise.

John: That would’ve been great. That’s a How Would This Be a Movie, because you can envision that. In some ways, the Man in the High Castle and the hidden films, the stolen films of the alternative history, how this all ties back together, is an example of that. There’s a currency for these films that show what happens in the other timeline.

Craig: Yeah, I would see that.

John: Our next one is actually similar. This is the Paramount consent decree, which we’ve talked about on the podcast several times. Again, this is a question of manufacture and distribution of film materials.

Prior to going into this, the very thumbnail version of this, the studios were allowed to also own movie theaters, and they could control the entire channel of, we’re making the movies, we’re showing them in our theaters, we’re constraining all of our product. The Paramount consent decree held that the studios cannot own exhibitors, and therefore films from other companies can be shown in theaters.

Craig: Had that not fallen apart, I think you would’ve seen a creative paralysis in the business. What happened immediately following the collapse of that was the breakdown of this incredibly formalized manner of presenting art to people.

Even though there are incredible movies that were made in the ’20s and ’30s and ’40s, there were also very clearly rigid constrictions. Because it seems like a long time ago, it’s hard for us to see how fast things changed and how dramatically they changed, because it was before our time. But let’s say you were born in the ’30s. You’re used to watching movies of a certain sort. By the time you get into the ’60s, you now have nudity and graphic sexuality being shown on screen. You couldn’t even show people kissing with tongue, and now there’s sex. It’s kind of incredible how fast it changed, because if the studios don’t control the screens, other people can make movies to put on the screens. That’s the big difference. The other people didn’t have to follow along this rigid formality.

John: It’s important to understand this both from a producer and a supplier point of view, because this allowed theaters that were not affiliated with studios to compete for titles they wanted. So it allowed for more independent theaters, but also allowed for filmmaking that took place outside of the studio system. Those are the ones that you first see nudity and moving past the Hays Code and really pushing what cinema could be.

Obviously, this had a huge business transformation on Hollywood, but also had a huge creative impact. If the Paramount consent decree hadn’t happened, we would be in a different place. The irony, of course, is that the Paramount consent decree was overturned in the past 5 years, 10 years. How long have we been doing this podcast? In theory, now studios can own movie theaters. We haven’t seen a huge change in that. They haven’t come in and bought out the AMCs in the world.

Craig: Probably because it’s not a great business to be in.

John: It’s not an amazing business.

Craig: It’s funny, the Paramount decree fell apart right around the time it was no longer necessary, because studios found a new bunch of screens they could control via streaming. However, because of that window from the 1950s through let’s say up to 10 years ago, where the screens were so important, the proliferation of different kinds of content occurred. That toothpaste cannot go back in the tube. We’ve all grown up with and have become used to a certain kind of entertainment.

Ironically, when you look at the movies Paramount itself was making in the ’70s, starting with The Godfather, and onward and the kind of filmmakers they were supporting, they themselves benefited more almost than anyone from this, because they were allowed to make new kinds of things.

The companies do now control their own screens via streaming, but people want what they want. It’s one thing to say, “I want some things that I haven’t seen, but I would imagine I’d like them,” and it’s another to say, “I have seen the things I like. You can’t take them away.”

John: Before we move on, I think it’s worth looking at; both the Edison case and the Paramount consent decree, at the time these things were being decided, the justices and everyone else involved couldn’t have anticipated what the long-term effects are. They could only really look at what is this date right now, because they really couldn’t know what was going to come 10 years, 20 years down the road. I guarantee you that there was not an awareness of like, this will change the type of movies that get made if this gets overturned. They were just looking at it in terms of, this is a law, this is restrain of trade, this is anti-competitive, and therefore-

Craig: Correct.

John: … we’re going to knock these things down.

Craig: If they had taken the other path, I think we would still to this day have a much more restrained kind of content. People look at the ’70s, the freewheeling ’70s, and the rise of the auteurist and all the rest of it as some sort of product of the cultural revolution in this country. And I would argue that no, that is not the case, that in fact, those things happened because of this court case.

I would point directly at network television as proof, because network television is the control of screens. And when you look at what was allowed on network television and is to this day allowed on network television, it is so much more constrained than what is allowed in movies. It’s not even close. Language, nudity, content. There’s just limits. People lost their minds when, in the ’90s, NYPD Blue showed a butt. A butt. They’re still not allowed to drop F-bombs and so on and so forth. I would just say that’s what movies would be like. Movies would be like network television. You’d be constrained.

John: And of course, European cinema, Asian cinema could’ve made different choices. But the problem is, if there’s no way to exhibit those films here, it’s moot.

Craig: That’s right. Absolutely. That was always the case. In the ’40s or the ’30s, people referred to – my grandfather referred to French films. Those were sort of early Blue Movies with nudity. Sure. But mostly, it would have operated the way network television still operates, under those constraints, which some people argue are positive on some levels. Creative restraint does force certain kinds of creative creativity. But you would not have the things that we have in movies if this had not gone that way.

John: Yeah. Simpler what ifs. What if George Lucas had died in his car accident?

Craig: Oh, god.

John: This is June 12th, 1962.

Craig: Oh, god.

John: “As Lucas made a left turn, a Chevy Impala came flying from the opposite direction and broadsided him. The racing belt snapped, and Lucas was flung onto the pavement just before the car slammed into a giant walnut tree. Unconscious, Lucas turned blue and began vomiting blood as he was rushed off to the hospital.”

This is George Lucas, who at this time is a promising young film student. I guess he’s made some stuff at this point, but he had not made Star Wars. He had not made Raiders of the Lost Ark. How different would it be if we did not have George Lucas as a filmmaker? What are the knock-on effects of this?

Craig: For starters, I just want to say as an unlicensed doctor, if you turn blue and start vomiting, it’s not good. That’s really bad. There’s two ways of looking at this. One way is – let’s go the obvious way – George Lucas doesn’t create Star Wars. He doesn’t bring about the era of the blockbuster. Movies stay a bit smaller. Special effects and visual effects do not advance as far as they did and as fast as they did. The hyper-merchandization of films and the creation of so-called franchises does not occur.

However, a couple of counter-arguments to that. One is that somebody else probably would have done something of the size that would’ve created that anyway. George Lucas was really important, as we’ve discussed, in the creation of Raiders of the Lost Ark, but I do feel like there’s going to be a – Steven Spielberg was making his own blockbusters, Jaws.

John: He’s making Jaws. He’s still making blockbusters.

Craig: Yeah, I think there’s going to be blockbusters. But just as importantly, it seems like George Lucas’s brush with fate here was actually quite informative to him as a filmmaker. He sits there in the hospital and starts thinking about what saved his life in that car, and eventually, I think that sort of turns into American Graffiti. There’s this world where it’s like, if he doesn’t get into the – he needs to get into the car accident, I think.

What happens? If he dies in his car accident, we don’t get these movies. If he doesn’t die in the car accident, we do get these movies. We definitely wouldn’t have Star Wars. There would be no Star Wars. That’s for sure.

John: A world without Star Wars is different. Beyond the business things you’ve laid out, how it popularized a kind of space opera, children’s stories but for all ages, it did a very specific thing. We already had Star Trek. Star Trek would still exist without Star Wars, but I feel like we kind of need both of those things for in order for us to have-

Craig: Sort of. Star Trek is a network television show that gets canceled after, I think it was three seasons. Then Star Wars happens, and shortly after that, Star Trek the movie happens. Star Trek the movie does not happen if Star Wars doesn’t happen. There’s just no chance.

John: Very good point. Very good point.

Craig: Similarly, all the movies that were inspired by Star Wars sort of happen. The movie that’s coming to mind actually is Dune, because Dune was really the only thing that could’ve been Star Wars, because it preexisted Star Wars as a novel. Maybe the Dune that gets made doesn’t get made. I don’t think the Lynch Dune gets made without Star Wars.

John: And the Jodorowsky Dune doesn’t get made either.

Craig: I agree. That’s not going to get made either. But at some point, somebody, let’s say it’s Spielberg, in the absence of a huge-

John: Or Coppola or somebody.

Craig: Or Coppola or somebody. Somebody figures out how to make Dune and gives us the Denis Villeneuve standard type Dune earlier, and that leads – because there’s obviously great interest in those large-scale science fiction fantasies.

John: Because it’s crucial to understand there was a huge science fiction community before Star Wars. It popularized it in a way that was important. I think you don’t have the volume of science fiction fandom until you have Star Wars.

Craig: Star Wars, it was like giving a very loud and passionate fan base the world’s biggest megaphone, because everybody sort of flooded into the tent. It’s a really interesting thing, a world without Star Wars.

A fun thing I do like to think about when we’re talking about these counterfactuals is that we are currently living in counterfactuals, meaning in our world, Melissa Suzanne – the worst fake name ever – Melissa Suzanne does die in a car accident, doesn’t make blah da bloo, which is the biggest fricking thing of all time in that, and we’re living in the counterfactual where it didn’t happen. We don’t know what we don’t have.

John: Exactly. Yeah, we don’t. Let’s talk about another movie that it would be different if it hadn’t existed, which is Titanic. You and I were both in Hollywood as Titanic was happening. Some backstory for folks who don’t know. Filming was supposed to last six months. It stretched to eight months. The budget doubled from a reported $110 million, making it even costlier than Water World’s $200 million price tag. Another counterfactual would be like, what if Water World were a hit? But it was not a hit.

Titanic was incredibly expensive. Craig and I will both testify to the fact that there was real discussion about, “Oh my god, this movie could be a disaster. It could completely tank.”

Craig: Absolutely.

John: And sink both Fox and Paramount, who were both putting up the money for it. That didn’t happen. It became a giant hit and changed exhibition. It just kept running and running forever, despite its long running time. What happens, Craig, if Titanic had tanked, sunk?

Craig: The thing is, we do live in the world where these enormous movies tanked and sunk. That one might’ve killed Paramount. Paramount I believe was the initial production company. And it got so bad that they had to go to their competitor, Fox, and say, would you basically put in all the money we put in, on top of the money we put in, and we’ll give you all of the international, I think is how it worked out. That’s unheard of. I don’t even think it’s happened since on that scale. I think in part it hasn’t happened since on that scale because Titanic did become a huge hit. And the only thing that scares these companies more than a massive bomb is missing out on all of the money of a massive hit.

John: Of a hit, yeah.

Craig: But I think we would still unfortunately be in a world where some massive films just tank because people take these big swings. The weird thing about Titanic succeeding is that it probably has created more flops in its wake, because everyone goes, “What if it’s Titanic?” Then someone’s like, “We’ve done research, and it’s projected to only make… ” I think Titanic its opening weekend made – $28.6 million is what it made, which is really good for 1997.

John: Really good.

Craig: Very good opening weekend.

John: For a four-hour movie, yes.

Craig: Yes, but if it followed what normally happens, which is then the following weekend would be, let’s say-

John: Drops 50 percent, 40 percent.

Craig: Yeah. Let’s say the following weekend’s like 15 million, and then it goes to 7 and 3 and 2.

John: Disaster.

Craig: Oh my god. But in fact, it made more. It went up. I just remember how it just kept making somewhere in the 20s every single weekend forever. There’s never been anything quite like it, box office wise.

John: My husband, Mike, was running the AMC Theatres in Burbank at that point. He had 30 screens. And Titanic nearly killed him, because they’d add screenings and those would sell out. So they’d add 9:00 in the morning screenings and not even advertise them, and they would sell out. It was crazy. Yes, it’s really good money for the exhibitors, because they’re getting a cut of that, but it was just so hard on everybody, just staffing those endless screenings.

Craig: The creation of that movie was incredibly difficult to do. It is certainly no fun to be making something that massive while the people that are paying for it are freaking out and basically telling you, “We’re screwed.” Making things is hard enough. When you are confidence shaken, it’s really hard, because you already want to curl up and die just from the exhaustion of doing it. And Titanic was an incredibly exhausting thing to make. To think, while you’re making it, that also everyone’s miserable and it’s going to fail, oh my god, how do you even wake up in the morning?

John: But you do.

Craig: They did, and so people just keep pointing back at this and saying, “Look.” The one thing I think that would be different is maybe there would be fewer flops.

John: There’d be fewer big swings. I think there would’ve been someone going like, “No, we absolutely cannot do this thing.” One thing that is different about our current moment is we have some places that have so much money, and they don’t actually need the box office, but they can just spend a ton. Apple, on Killers of the Flower Moon. In any normal situation, that would be a disaster. But it’s not a disaster for them, because they kind of don’t really care about the money. And so they can make a very long, very expensive movie that doesn’t perform at the box office, because that’s not really what they care about.

Craig: Yeah, and similarly, Netflix doesn’t – I don’t know what their metrics – I don’t know how any of it works. I work for a company that is oddly old-fashioned in the sense that even though there’s a big streaming service for Max, a lot of people still watch HBO through cable or satellite, and those are subscriber fees that get paid in, and there’s ratings for that stuff. But yeah, Netflix makes these enormous things and go, it kind of doesn’t matter. I don’t understand any of it.

But certainly in the case of Amazon and Apple, those companies are so enormous. Their production wings are such a small piece of what they do, that they can easily absorb any of these things. No problem. The world of Titanic, it was back – I don’t know, who owned Paramount back then? Was it Gulf Western?

John: It could’ve still been Gulf Western.

Craig: That was a big oil company. If you read about the history of The Godfather, for instance, they were all freaking out when they were making The Godfather, because they were going to lose – they couldn’t stand the notion of losing money.

John: There was a history of disastrous films costing studios so much they had to change, like Cleopatra and Fox. We have Century City in part because Fox had to sell off some of that lot to actually earn money, and that became Century City.

Craig: Exactly. There’s Heaven’s Gate, which basically destroyed a studio. There’s been movies that were so big and so massive and so horrifying in terms of their costs that just entire companies fell apart.

John: A movie that did not cost the company but was a big swing and a big miss was John Carter. John Carter of Mars was a film that Disney made. We’ll link to an article by Richard Newby for The Hollywood Reporter, called John Carter Changed Hollywood, but Not in the Way Disney Hoped. Based on the numbers, John Carter earned $284 million on a $306 million budget. That sounds like, oh, it was close, but of course, there’s hundreds of millions of dollars of marketing on top of that.

Newby argues that Disney realized, like, “Okay, we were trying to create Star Wars. Maybe we should just buy Star Wars.” They might not have reached for Lucasfilm at that moment if John Carter had worked. Possibly. They also were coming off other challenges, like The Lone Ranger, which was another expensive flop. And Newby argues that because of back-to-back misses, Disney got very conservative and were just banking on sure bets.

Craig: I’ll push back a little bit on this one.

John: Please.

Craig: It seems like Mr. Newby’s hanging a little too much around the neck of John Carter. Yes, it was a flop, but it wasn’t a studio-destroying flop. $284 million against $306 is not good, obviously, because that doesn’t include the, let’s say, $100 million of marketing. And then, of course, they don’t actually get all the money from the ticket sales, but there was video and all the rest. I’m not sure that that’s why they said, “We need Star Wars.” I think anybody who has the chance to get Star Wars and has the capital to do it and also the brand that would convince Lucas to allow it-

John: Exactly.

Craig: … which in this case was Disney and no one else, unless there wasn’t an old existing Paramount that wasn’t there anymore, of the way that he was familiar, yeah, I think anybody would buy Star Wars. I don’t think that you can put too much around the neck of John Carter. The fact is he cites Lone Ranger as an example of how it didn’t help matters. But that’s proof that John Carter wasn’t enough of a cage rattler, because they did make Lone Ranger, so I don’t know.

John: Let’s rephrase this though. Let’s refrain it. Rather than saying what if John Carter hadn’t bombed, what if John Carter was a huge, huge, huge hit? What if it were kind of Star Wars level? That I think would’ve been a bit of a game changer, because then it would be validating, like, yes, let’s spend a lot of money, take really big swings on pieces of IP that are kind of known but not hugely known. I would say John Carter of Mars is more in the level of a Narnia book, in the sense of people kind of know what it is, but they’re not necessarily directly familiar with it. That could’ve changed some things. If it were a giant hit, would they still have bought Lucasfilm? Probably, because they would just have so much money.

Craig: I think it’s still probably presuming too much logic on the part of the folks that make these things, because there’s always been this strange gravitation towards, quote unquote, IP that I think most people would look at and go, “Okay. If you think that that matters.” When they made – what was the one with Billy Zane? Was it The Phantom?

John: Yeah.

Craig: The Phantom, that was something-

John: In Europe, yeah.

Craig: My dad was into that, barely, as a child. It was not relevant anymore. But it seemed like, oh, that thing. Now, in the age of algorithm-driven companies, I think the computers, as much as we hate them, probably would’ve said, “Please do not make The Phantom.” But you still see what I would call attempts to recreate other people’s large successes. And they sort of work, or sometimes they don’t work.

Amazon and Netflix, without naming names, have certainly tried to reproduce their – “We want our Game of Thrones. Where’s our Game of Thrones?” Then they go looking for IP that people are sort of interested in or maybe not that interested in. Some of it works great; some of it doesn’t. It’s hard to predict sometimes. There are book series that people love but just don’t want to watch adapted. There are other things that people don’t really care that much about, but when they get adapted, catch on. It’s not as logical as all that.

I think if John Carter had been a hit, I don’t even think it would’ve stopped Disney from buying Star Wars. The only thing that would change: a lot more John Carter movies and then a whole lot more movies that are sort of John Carter-ish that don’t work.

John: Agreed.

Craig: When I was a kid, my dad said, “You’re going to love these books. When I was a kid, I read them. Doc Savage.” You know the Doc Savage books?

John: I recognize the title. I don’t know anything about them.

Craig: I think they were, I want to say 1930s era.

John: They were pulp fiction.

Craig: Pulp fiction, adventure stories, largely for boys, about a group of courageous people that go on to the far-flung reaches. Doc Savage was definitely an inspiration for Indiana Jones and even James Bond to some extent. Every now and then, somebody would bring it up in Hollywood as I was coming up. Now I’m like, that’s so old. Maybe there’d be a bunch of Doc Savage – or a Doc Savage movie would’ve been at a large scale and failed. But I don’t know if the world would’ve changed that much if John Carter had succeeded.

John: But Craig, what if Iron Man had bombed?

Craig: Oh, boy.

John: I think we’ve talked on this podcast before – I carried a football on Iron Man for just a couple weeks. I love everybody involved. I got to go to the premier. I remember going to the premier and the after-party at the Roosevelt Hotel across the street and saying, “Wow, that was really effing good. That’s going to be a giant hit.” But I will tell you that there was no guarantee that movie was going to be a giant hit.

You look at the folks involved, like Favreau, so smart, so great, had done some movies, but there was no guarantee that he could direct this movie. There was no guarantee that Robert Downey Jr was a good choice or even a rational choice for this, because he was not in the best place in his career. There were a lot of things that could’ve really derailed this movie, and yet it was a giant hit and started a franchise, which has made billions of dollars for the companies involved.

Craig: Billions and billions and billions and changed the shape of multinational mega-corporations.

John: It’s important to acknowledge that there were multiple movies before that that had not worked, and we’ve still got the Marvel Universe. But I would argue that if Iron Man had flopped, you doing have the Kevin Feige Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Craig: Without question. Without question. You could even go further back and say what if the X-Men movies flopped? Because superhero movies – other than Batman always seemed to work, Superman worked for-

John: Sometimes.

Craig: … two movies. But the other movies that they tried to do, the other things they tried, it all just, eh. Spider-Man also is another one where if that had not worked right…

There were preexisting superhero films that had done well, but those were not controlled by Marvel per se. X-Men was controlled by Fox. Spider-Man was controlled by Sony. Batman was controlled by Warner Bros. Here’s Marvel as a company suddenly finding a partner to make Iron Man with and do it well, and that directly leads into the entire Avengers thing. It also created all the feeder ones, Thor. Obviously, you never get to Guardians of the Galaxy or any of that stuff.

John: No, none of that stuff.

Craig: Ever, ever, ever.

John: I will acknowledge that if you had Iron Man but didn’t have a good follow-up with that first Captain America movie, it would’ve been much more difficult. But you have to have Iron Man first. But the whole choice to center this whole thread on Iron Man was a weird one too, because he wasn’t the biggest available hero there.

Craig: No. I loved Iron Man comics when I was a kid, because the suit’s awesome. But the actual Iron Man stories got kind of morose. He was an alcoholic. The comics went into a whole story about alcoholism.

Also, you would not have the superhero saturation and the way that superhero films… There’s going to be some amazing books written 10 years from now about it. The transformation of our culture by that movie and everything that came beyond it is remarkable. What it did to our business, for better or worse – and in a lot of cases worse – is remarkable. What it did to the visual effects industry but also technology is remarkable.

And then here’s this question: does any of this work without Iron Man? Does any of this work without Tony Stark, Robert Downey Jr, or does it just begin to fall apart? Obviously, Marvel has created this incredible system with phases.

John: We’re in a struggling phase right now. I think it’s not hard to see. We don’t know what’s going to happen next.

Craig: That’s right.

John: I think on our next episode, we’ll talk a little about when you hire stars, how careful you have to be, because they are going to be the face of your entity. In the case of Jonathan Majors, that did not work out well. In the case of Robert Downey Jr, it worked out great. But if you were to look at those two people at the start, I would’ve bet on Jonathan Majors.

Craig: I don’t know what was known, but here’s what was definitely known about Robert Downey Jr prior to Iron Man. He had gone through a very long period of substance abuse problems. He had gone through a very long period where he was highly unreliable. He was considered to be mercurial and brilliant but uncontrollable. He had had issues with the law. There was an infamous story where he just woke up in somebody’s bed in a house, because he broke in, because he was completely out of his mind on whatever he was – I don’t know what substances he was abusing. There was this sense that the last person in the world you put an enormous thing on top of would be Robert Downey Jr, and they just went for it.

John: They did.

Craig: This is the weird thing about trying to game or predict. You want the real hero here. If I can point to one person that is the reason why our culture is full of superhero movies and why Marvel is worth as much as it is and has had as much success, Susan Downey, Robert Downey Jr’s wife and producing partner, who is the stabilizing force in his life, who clearly got him back on track and got him sober and focused. If Hollywood could give a Nobel Prize, it should go to Susan Downey. She’s remarkable. As far as I’m concerned, Marvel should write her a check for a billion dollars.

John: Let’s do a very short version on this. We’ve talked about fin-syn before. Fin-syn limited the degree to which networks could own the production entities. It’s like Paramount consent decrees in the sense of it’s about how much vertical integration you could have over the course of production. It was abolished in 1993 by a decision. It counts as a counterfactual, because the decision could’ve gone the other way. In a short version, if in 1993 fin-syn hadn’t been eradicated, how would Hollywood look different today?

Craig: Oh, boy. You can argue in a lot of different directions here. The deal with fin-syn is it created a system where the only people who could afford to produce television good enough to be on networks were companies that could afford to operate under a system called deficit financing. The only way you could make money making a television show, because the networks couldn’t make them – therefore the networks made money off of licensing, so the networks pay you money to license the show you produced. They run it on the air, and then they sell ads. The amount of ads that they sell hopefully is way more than the licensing fee they’re paying you. But how do you make money? You don’t, because the licensing fee doesn’t even come close to paying you back.

John: To covering your costs.

Craig: Doesn’t even come close. The only you make money-

John: You’re relying on syndication.

Craig: Exactly. Basically, you need a hit. If the show makes it to, 100 episodes was considered the classic number to hit, then it could be syndicated, meaning it could then go into reruns. At that point, it just starts to spin off insane amounts of money through licensing fees forever. The game was, right, we’re going to lose a whole lot of money to make a whole lot of money. The only people that can afford to do that are very large companies; in this case, movie studios, basically. Those were the ones doing it.

John: If fin-syn hadn’t gotten shut down, you can imagine somehow more capital would’ve flown in to create more things that were like the Carsey-Werners and that stuff. The experienced producers would somehow be able to raise enough money to be able to make the shows they’re going to be able to make. But it would still be dicier. Those people would be very wealthy in hits, but these companies would also go bankrupt more often. Generally, you want to strike down vertical integration where you see it, because it is anti-competitive. It can drive down wages for people, because there’s fewer places you can sell your thing.

But it would’ve greatly changed how we’re doing stuff. It’s hard to know what would this look like in today’s streaming world, because there are companies that bring their own money to do stuff today. Those things still exist. It’s just different. You have the Legendaries. You have the Fifth Seasons. You have the companies that actually are coming in with their own money to do stuff. It would look a lot different. I can’t even suss out what the real changes would’ve been.

Craig: I think that you would probably have had much larger productions. We can look at companies that are not impacted by fin-syn. Fin-syn fell apart. But when you look at Netflix, for example, Netflix produces and distributes their own material. They are not beholden to these rules. The reason that fin-syn was a thing is because it applied to broadcast television. Broadcast television used the public airwaves to send their signals out, so the government therefore had the ability to get in the way and create regulations. There’s no regulations on an end-to-end agreement like Netflix, where they’re not using public airwaves whatsoever.

John: The FTC or the Justice Department could still come in there, but without the broadcast aspect of it, it’s much harder to enforce anything like that. It’d be much harder for them to win the judgment they would have to win.

Craig: Yes. The government has a clear, established interest in the rules regarding the use of public airwaves, going all the way back to the age of radio and so forth. But with internet carriers, it’s different. Netflix and companies, Amazon, etc., they’ve never operated under anything like this. They’ve always been able to make their own stuff and exhibit their own stuff. And what you see are massive productions, because there is no arrangement where you deficit finance in the hopes for syndication, and meanwhile the exhibitor is making money off of the sale of ads. In fact, Netflix and Amazon don’t have ads, although now they’re starting to. But even then, they’re starting to just put more money in their pockets.

I don’t know how the finances of these companies work, but you could argue that for Amazon, for instance, it’s possible that their production wing is really a loss leader, and it is a deficit financing, just to drive customers to their other aspect, which is buying toilet paper and pencils. I don’t know. But it does seem like if there had not been fin-syn and the networks could’ve reaped the benefits of their own syndication, that probably you would’ve seen some larger productions happening.

John: Last bit of counterfactual. Remember when Netflix was red envelopes you got in the mail?

Craig: Yeah, I actually do.

John: What if Netflix had stuck with their DVD model, that they were a company that sends you DVDs?

Craig: This is a great one.

John: They never started a whole streaming business. How would the world be different if Netflix hadn’t started the streaming revolution?

Craig: I’m going to contradict myself a little bit here. Most of what I’ve been saying is when the world wants something, it finds a way to get it. In this case, I suspect that if Netflix hadn’t done what they did, nobody would’ve done it. The reason why nobody would’ve done it is because I’m not sure it, meaning the streaming model, actually makes sense. We watched this happen. Netflix did this. They churned through an enormous amount of money to build the business out of nothing, a little bit the way Amazon did with their larger business.

John: Totally.

Craig: Then everybody else said, oh my god, we have to do it too. Then they all looked at each other and went, “How do you make money doing this exactly?” That makes me suspect nobody would’ve done it, because it doesn’t make sense. A lot of what we all went through with our convulsions in the labor movement in Hollywood was trying to make Hollywood confront the fact that they had blown up a system that worked fairly well for them and fairly well for us. They had blown it up chasing something that wasn’t like them and something that they could never be like. I think the world would be enormously different if Netflix had just stuck to the red envelopes.

John: Counterfactual to your counterfactual. I would say that internet video is going to want to happen. The fact that YouTube exists, there was a market for – people wanted to watch things through video. Even before we had Netflix, we did have webisodes of your favorite shows. The idea that we were going to be getting our TV or TV-like things over the internet I think is kind of inevitable.

The business model behind that could’ve gone many, many different ways. But I do think you would’ve ultimately seen things that looked like Netflix that were using money they got from investors to create shows and put them on the internet. And some of those would’ve grown into things that are maybe not the size or scale of what Netflix became, but it would’ve been big enough that even the other studios would’ve developed their own wings that were doing that kind of stuff. We would’ve gotten to something that looked like what we’re doing now, but just not with the full scale.

Craig: I think you’re right that in terms of a distribution platform, places like YouTube would’ve absolutely worked, and they kind of were. If you think back to what we were arguing about in our penultimate strike, the big concern was that the companies were going to use the internet to run our content and have ads run in it, just like it would on any syndicated channel, but because it was the internet as opposed to Channel 5 in New York, that somehow residuals wouldn’t apply.

I think YouTube did and continues to have a very robust system where they run ads. Yes, I think they would’ve struck deals with the companies to rebroadcast stuff. I think the whole thing of like, “YouTube is going to make its own stuff,” they sure tried. It didn’t work. What was it, YouTube Red? That was sort of a thing. Is it still a thing? I don’t even know if it’s a thing.

John: They got rid of YouTube Red.

Craig: They got rid of it. They got rid of it. Quibi. Good lord.

John: If it weren’t for Netflix, then we would’ve never had Quibi.

Craig: We would’ve never had the 4 million easy jokes about Quibi. The idea that these independent internet companies would… Remember Amazon Studios? Remember us discussing that whole baloney nonsense?

John: Yeah. They were always looking to do a thing. But again, Amazon still, with all their money, they probably would’ve tried to develop something that – again, it’s not Netflix, but they would’ve developed their own-

Craig: Maybe.

John: … video streaming service.

Craig: Maybe, or maybe they would have just said, “We are happy to be in the business where we pay you a licensing fee to rebroadcast your stuff on our platform,” just like Walmart pays for the DVDs that they then resell. And then Amazon, just like anything, will collect the ad money, and that’ll be that.

John: They probably would’ve looked at YouTube and said, “We want to be in the YouTube business,” and the revolution of that.

Craig: Where the internet was before Netflix decided to go bananas was this… You and I got yelled at a lot, as I recall, for decrying the concept of the democratization of entertainment creation. There are certainly a lot of people making money as influencers and all the rest of that, but that’s its own category.

There was this moment, and we were podcasting through it, where these companies were like, “The only reason that everybody doesn’t have great television to make is because of the gatekeepers, and if we just allow everybody to … ” No. The answer to that is no. None of that would’ve happened. None of that ever will happen. That’s not a thing. It doesn’t happen. It’s hard to do what we do. There are not a lot of people who do it.

It’s sort of like saying, “We’re going to democratize Major League Baseball. Everybody can show up and play.” Nope, actually, we still just want Juan Soto, which as you know, Juan is going to take the Yankees to the World Series this year. I know that you’ve been thinking it.

John: I basically stay awake at night really thinking about all the scenarios that gets him to the World Series.

Craig: Soto and then Judge, that number 3, number 4 lineup punch. We’ve talked about it a lot. It’s a big deal.

John: There are so many scenarios that it’s why I can’t sleep.

Craig: There’s really only the one scenario.

John: But you never know. The counterfactual is that, what if he gets hit by a bus, and therefore-

Craig: I’ll tell you, if Juan Soto gets hit by a bus, the Yankees will have another season like they did last year, which is really bad. David Benioff, John Gatins, and I have a little three-person group chat that is just nothing but us complaining about the Yankees. That’s all we do. It is just a constant ruing. This season hopefully will be different.

But in any case, I really think that what Netflix did was so improbable and so risky and so crazy. I’m still waiting for gravity to kick in.

John: It has basically worked for Netflix. It has not worked for everybody else. Netflix now actually makes a profit. But it was a wild, wild gamble. And they were able to use cheat money to do it. The circ*mstances worked out the way they worked out.

Craig: The circ*mstances worked out the way they worked out. I think the proof is in the pudding. Even as Netflix started to be successful, the legacy companies still weren’t like, “Oh god, we gotta … ” No, they were like, “Great. Keep licensing our stuff. Here. Friends. Give us money. You can run Friends.” It really wasn’t until they felt that there was an existential threat to their existence, and I think that was a miscalculation, by the way.

John: Here’s a question for you. Let’s say streaming never happens. Netflix doesn’t happen, and streaming never happens. Do the cable companies get even more powerful? Because they were the people not making the shows, but controlling access to people’s TVs.

Craig: Cable and satellite become more powerful. It is possible that a company like YouTube, which has successfully replaced a lot of cables and satellite dishes, would have become the other new dominant delivery system, but they would’ve been a delivery system. They wouldn’t have been a creation/delivery system. That’s the difference.

John: I agree. Let’s wrap up our big counterfactuals segment here talking through why I think it’s useful. It’s because when you look at the coin tosses, the ways things could’ve gone one way or the other way, you recognize that, as you said before, Craig, we are in a counterfactual. We’re in somebody else’s counterfactual. Things worked out the way they worked out, but they were not inevitable. We have to be mindful that the choices we make now will have repercussions down the road that we can’t always anticipate. I think it’s always nice looking at this ecosystem we find ourselves in was not the only possible version of this.

Craig: No. It is an either distressing or comforting notion to think that we are in the alternate reality, and in our version of the sim that we all live in, yeah, we’re missing some awesome things or we dodged massive bullets.

John: For sure. Craig, it’s time for our One Cool Thing.

Craig: Yay.

John: We haven’t done a One Cool Thing together for a while.

Craig: Yay.

John: Mine is on post-quantum cryptography, which is a mouthful but actually makes a lot of sense. I’ll link to an Apple Security blog post they did about it. The idea of post-quantum cryptography is – obviously, cryptography is so important for securing our communications. It’s making sure that the things we want to say private stay private, and messaging, all that stuff. Right now, we are using cryptography which is so strong that computers could spend 1,000 years trying to break the codes behind stuff, and they wouldn’t be able to open these messages. The problem is, at some point we’re going to get to quantum computers that are so powerful and so fast that this cryptography will fall apart. It will not be useful.

And so a thing that is happening is very well-resourced companies or nations can just say, “Okay, we’re going to suck up all this data. We can’t actually process it now. We can’t actually break the codes. But we know that in a couple years, we will be able to.” This becomes like, then how do you prevent that?

This paper goes through these plans for and these actual new algorithms to figure it out, for living in a post-quantum cryptography world, so basically, how do you encode things now so that as quantum computers come online, you still can’t open those messages.

The good news is there’s math that can get you there, so that it’s still going to be incredibly difficult for these super-super-super-computers to open those messages. There are things you can turn on now or soon in these messaging platforms that will keep stuff locked down whenever these quantum computers come online. Interesting. I like that it’s both dealing with problems now and problems 10, 20 years from now.

Craig: That’s smart. Phew. There is a problem I hadn’t thought of. Thanks. Now I’ll be awake at night. My One Cool Thing is a bit sweeter, pun intended, but also a bit sad, and somehow one of the most gripping articles I’ve ever read about marshmallows.

John: I love marshmallows.

Craig: John, have you ever had a Smashmallow?

John: I don’t know what that is.

Craig: Neither did I. Drew, Smashmallow?

Drew: I’ve never had a Smashmallow.

Craig: Apparently, these were a bit popular a bit ago. There’s this guy, Jon Sebastiani. This is an article in Business Insider. Jon Sebastiani is a scion of a big wine company in Sonoma. He created the company Krave, with a K, which makes fancy beef jerky and so forth. He got into this new area of creating fancy marshmallows, fancy handmade marshmallows that were delicious and had lots of different flavors, and they were hand-cut. And people really dug them.

Then he decided, “It’s time to upscale this business. Let’s go big.” What ensued was an incredible collision of desire and reality, on an engineering level, because as it turns out, making marshmallows to scale is enormously hard. The marshmallows that we all know, Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, Kraft marshmallow type marshmallows, the reason they are the way they are and they just all vaguely suck is because that’s as good as they can do. Even the shape is necessary. Those are cylinders. Smashmallows were handmade. They would make these big slabs and cut them in squares, and people really liked the squares. Making squares at scale, making cubes, really, really hard.

What happens and how this whole thing falls apart is actually fascinating from a chemical, physical, and business level. And of course, it all comes tumbling down. There are lawsuits. And Smashmallow is no more.

John: It’s great. As I’m skimming through this article, it’s the Theranos of marshmallows.

Craig: Isn’t that great? It really is. When you read it, you’re like… People were lying. He’s looking for this company that can build new machines to make the Smashmallows at scale. This company, I think it’s in the Netherlands, says, “We can do it. We can do it. We’re going to send you a sample of what we made to show you.” He was like, “Oh my god, you did it.” The big secret was they didn’t make that sample with a machine at all.

John: It was handcut.

Craig: They just lied.

John: They lied.

Craig: They just lied.

John: They lied.

Craig: Just lied.

John: This past week, I had to go in for a blood test, and I remember coming back and telling Mike, “Man, I was there, and it just seems really inefficient. I felt like there’s a way you could have a machine that could just do this for you.” I’m like, “Oh shoot, I’m pitching Theranos, aren’t I? I’m going to stop right now. I am pitching Theranos.”

Craig: Just to tie back to our counterfactual, was her machine called the Edison?

John: Maybe so. A counterfactual is, what if she’d actually been able to make that machine? In theory, it’s a really good idea. But apparently, it’s like the Smashmallow. Yes, you think you should be able to make that thing, when it turns out you can’t.

Craig: I think if she had been able to make that machine, somebody would’ve made that machine already. When she was like, “We’re going to take a drop of blood and do all of your blood tests from a drop of blood,” I remember her mentor at Stanford, this wonderful professor, just said to her, “No. That is literally physically impossible on a molecular level.” But there was maybe slightly more of a chance that the marshmallow thing could’ve worked.

John: I’m sure that professor would’ve told Thomas Edison that he couldn’t make a motion picture projector, and look at him, he did.

Craig: Definitely a better chance of that than the-

Drew: Theranos machine ever working.

John: Theranos machines. Craig, a pleasure talking with you again.

Craig: Great to be back.

John: Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt.

Craig: Yay!

John: Edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Craig: Hooray!

John: Our outro this week is by Zach Lo. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. We love when good outros come through. Reminder that outros involve some version of (sings). You can hide it in there, but I’m always listening for it. Sometimes we’ll get these outros that are like, that is musically beautiful, but it’s not a Scriptnotes outro. You gotta get that in there. We gotta hear that.

Ask@johnaugust.com is also the place where you can send questions. You’ll find the show notes for this episode and all episodes at johnaugust.com. That is also where you’ll find the transcripts and sign up for our weekly newsletter called Inneresting, which has lots of links to things about writing. The one this past week was really good. It’s about oases and the moments in a story where characters find a bit of respite and escape from the plot and how important those are in stories. Inneresting.

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 capitalism.

Craig: Yay.

John: Yay.

Craig: Yay.

John: Craig, it’s so nice to have you back.

Craig: Great to be back, John.

John: Thanks.

[Bonus Segment]

John: Craig, capitalism.

Craig: What?

John: What?

Craig: Huh?

John: It is the water we are swimming in. It is the system of finance and economics that we’ve grown up in. At the same time, when I see people complain about things in the world or about technology or about AI or other things, I’m like, yeah, but that is actually just capitalism you’re concerned about. That’s just how things are. Craig, I’m curious, when were you aware of capitalism?

Craig: Early age. Social studies class. You learn about different forms of economy. Certainly, we learned about the alternatives. In the ’80s, there wasn’t a lot of discussion of capitalism as a problem.

John: Yeah, because we had capitalism versus Communists. It was us versus the Russians.

Craig: There was the middle ground of socialism. But I think there was also a less angry discussion over it. Deregulation began in earnest under Ronald Reagan in the ’80s. But prior to that, we had and still have things like Social Security, which has the world “social” in it, which people that hate socialism are really angry about if you say that you would take it away. We have Medicare, and we have Medicaid, and we have Workman’s Comp, and we have Disability, and we have taxes. The thing is, we do live in a socialist system. I don’t know how you can’t, other than some sort of Ayn Rand fantasy-ville.

Capitalism was never seen as some sort of pure thing, but rather it was a negotiating thing. Tying back to what we were talking about earlier with Edison, one of the things we learned about quite a bit was how capitalism unchecked became a real problem around the turn of the century in the United States, the turn of the 20th century, and Sinclair Lewis and child labor, the meatpacking industry, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, labor movement, and all that leading into the busting of monopolies, robber barons, etc. There was a time when in our country, capitalism got out of hand, and the government stepped in and put it in check, and it hasn’t done so again effectively since.

Where I’m sitting here, I agree with you. When people are complaining, what they are complaining about is capitalism. But from my point of view, I would say what they’re really, really, really complaining about is the dysregulated capitalism.

John: We were alive during the time of Reagan and, “We’re going to take away all these rules about stuff that are holding us back.” And it’s hard to remember that there was a time before then, when there were more controls over what people could do, what companies could do and the size and scale of what they’re able to do.

I remember my dad worked for AT&T, or Bell Labs, and when the phone monopoly got broken up, I was like, “Oh my god, what are they doing? That’s crazy.” But it was the right choice, in retrospect. It was a dumb system we were living in. The innovation that was possible afterwards was important.

Let’s talk for a moment about definitions of what capitalism is, because there’s things that are in capitalism that are also common in other systems too. But important distinctions: the idea of a competitive market, that you want to have multiple companies competing for buyers, and buyers can choose between places they want to buy from; the sense of price finding, that there’s not a set price, but the price will find its right balance based on supply and demand; the idea of private property, property rights recognition, which includes patents and trademarks and copyright; the idea of wage labor, which seems so basic, but obviously in a lot of other economic systems, you don’t get paid wages for things.

You could argue, was America set up under a capitalism system? Kind of. The term wasn’t really used. But we also had slavery, so you can’t say that we were under any true wage system.

Craig: We certainly were not.

John: No. It’s complicated, but I think we have this fundamental belief and understanding that America has always been this capitalist nation. It’s like, not really.

Craig: No, we were more akin to a feudal nation. I think our economy was somewhat feudal. Obviously, there were two economies in the early United States. But one economy was victorious in the end, and that was industry. The growth of industry and the Industrial Revolution created what we consider capitalism today, I do believe. That was also what Marx was reacting to, and Hegel and the rest of them.

What industry did was create a both tremendous energy of creation and freedom and wealth, and also terrible exploitation and destruction. On one hand, industry – which we have in our brains converted into technology, but if we lived in China, we would understand is also industry, where everything is manufactured still – has led to longer lives, has led to tremendous advances in technology that liberates and connects. The creation of simple things like washing machines was essential to the liberation of women, who were traditionally stuck washing clothes literally all day.

But without regulation, almost every single time, what ends up happening is terrible pollution, the abuse of children, the underpayment of labor, extremist slavery, and then monopolization, which undoes what you call price seeking and freedom and actually begins to destroy creativity, and it kills itself. Capitalism is like bacteria that works well in our body until it runs rampant and then it can kill us.

John: A term I hear used a lot is late-stage capitalism. I wasn’t even quite clear what people are trying to refer to with it. It’s basically this moment that we’re in right now that has not just giant corporations, but multinational corporations, where you can’t even point to a center of them. They’re harder to control and regulate because they exist beyond national boundaries.

A thing that we’re both agreeing on here is that capitalism relies on a government system to enforce contracts and do certain things, and yet as individuals, we rely on the government to protect us from the worst abuses that these companies are going to enforce upon us. That is a real challenge when companies exist beyond all conceivable boundaries. It requires multinational government agreement on how to deal with these corporations. That’s not a thing that we really have a good structure for at this moment.

Craig: No. The closest we have is the United States government, which is being held hostage by one political party that at this point seems to only have, “We don’t like government,” as a purpose. And then there is the European economic community, which does represent itself fairly well as a large corporation of companies. It is in fact Europe that seems to be doing the only holding companies to accountability action. Now, they are not a particularly efficient group. Government is notorious for being inefficient. It’s why capitalism is also necessary. If government is in charge of creation, production, and payment, in general, you end up with a bureaucratic sludge.

Capitalism, to me, is really just the expression of human nature in economic form. But just like human nature, we need law. What we do see is Europe, representing a very large market, can say to, for instance, Google or Amazon, “No, you can’t do that anymore. We don’t like that anymore. Stop it.” The United States used to do that. It’s been quite some time, and these companies seem to be just flouting all of the rules. But the United States still represents an enormous marketplace. If the United States, for instance, said to Amazon or Netflix, “You can’t do these things anymore,” then it would have to stop.

That said, some of the things that Europe has done, particularly vis a vis technology to try and curb late-stage capitalistic companies, just is ineffectual nuisance. For instance, the constant asking me if I want to accept the cookies. Okay. Sure.

John: Yeah, or like, you must use USB-C. Sure, great. There’s the concern that they will tend to favor European companies over American companies. Yeah, we get all that. I think what it comes down to is – I say people’s complaints are really about capitalism. The second part of that answer is, and the solutions to these things are demanding of your government to address these concerns, because you’re not going to be able to address these concerns. You can’t yell at the corporation to do better. You actually have to – it requires action to make any of these changes.

Craig: Yes. Corporations, by charter, are designed to maximize profits for their shareholders. That is their sole purpose. What that means is that if they could get away with paying their workers five cents an hour, including hiring children, they would, because that satisfies their charter, to maximize profits. That’s where we need regulation.

The people that are angry about capitalism probably, almost certainly, are reasonably angry, because they’re probably being underpaid. Most people are. Wages have not progressed as they should. And if the United States government were functional and mandated a healthy minimum wage, I think people would be complaining less, because that’s a huge problem. They don’t get paid enough.

Also, companies – particularly, the financial industry has become so complicated and so disconnected from creation that this concept of too big to fail is real. We’re now on the system where capitalism – some companies simply cannot lose. If they lose, society falls apart, because they’re too integrated into our backbone. That’s a huge problem.

John: I think a previous One Cool Thing on an earlier episode was a book I was reading on the history of corporations. Corporations have existed before capitalism. They were originally designed to do sailing expeditions to different places, basically how you’d raise enough money to do a thing. Importantly, corporations had to get a charter that was literally from the royals. The imperial state had to give them the charter.

The argument is basically that government should basically have that same kind of charter thing, saying you actually have to serve the public in what your corporation does. There has to be a purpose beyond just making money. That’s an idea that we’ve completely lost. That seems insane, but that was the idea.

Craig: That was the idea. Just as certain concepts like copyright have become abused or weaponized, so too has the notion of corporatism and the idea that corporation now begins to shield all human beings from accountability. The creation of corporations is something that, at least in the state of Delaware, appears to be a hand wave. You and I both made corporations for ourselves, loan-out corporations.

John: Scriptnotes is an LLC.

Craig: There you go. Those corporations required a whole lot of one page of paperwork.

John: Yes, indeed.

Craig: They exist to take advantage of certain business things and certain tax things, so the tax code, all of it. Think about that, that the tax code – that’s the oxygen that government breathes to live – is in and of itself interwoven into corporate creation and corporate function. The economists argue with each other constantly over how this all works. I suppose if we step back really, really far and boil it down to its simplest, simplest version, it’s that there needs to be a balance, and we are out of balance.

John: We’re out of balance. We’re simplifying, yet it’s actually accurate, because we recognize that all the good things about capitalism and corporations, in terms of price finding and all that stuff, there is an efficiency there that you cannot replace. But without the acknowledgement of the individual value of people and societies and the environment, you’re going to end up in a terrible, dark place.

Craig: If you only value profit, you will die. You have to also value things that will diminish profit, like the health and welfare of human beings, because in the end, that’s what the economy is for. What our economy has turned into is an economy that exists to hyper-enrich an incredibly small amount of people. It’s just not going to work. We’ve been here before. I think the richest person ever in terms of dollars out of the amount of dollars that existed on the planet was Rockefeller perhaps or maybe Getty.

John: Perhaps, yeah.

Craig: The original oil barons, the robber barons. That’s why it changed. There was that period in the earlier part of the 20th century where America corrected what had been an out-of-control corporatization in our country. We are so clearly in need of that now.

Part of what we struggle with is that all of the messaging and discussion and the politics and the way politics functions as – these campaigns are corporations – the corporations themselves are sitting there, including the ones you and I work for, guiding the discussion. The people who want to not return balance to the system are the ones that have their finger on the play button.

John: At least we’ve solved it. That’s the good news. We talked it through. We figured it out. So problems resolved.

Craig: Problem solved. There’s something counterfactual where Rupert Murdoch isn’t born or decides to learn guitar and be in a band, a lovely band in Australia.

John: Or he has some sort of Christmas Carol kind of visiting by three ghosts, and things turn out very differently.

Craig: Where are the ghosts when you need them?

John: That’s the question. Never the ghosts when you want one. Craig, Drew, thanks so much.

Craig: Thanks, guys.

Links:

• What If? by Robert Cowley
• Thomas Edison: The Unintentional Founder of Hollywood by Garrett O’Brien for the Saturday Evening Post
• United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. on Wikipedia
• George Lucas: The Car Wreck That Changed His Life and Led Him to ‘Star Wars’ by Tim Ott for Biography
• When ‘Titanic’ Was Expected to Be a Huge Flop by Jake Rossen for Mental Floss
• ‘John Carter’ Changed Hollywood, but Not in the Way Disney Hoped by Richard Newby for THR
• Financial Interest and Syndication Rules
• Post-Quantum Cryptography
• S’more! S’more! His artisanal marshmallows were the greatest. Then he tried to scale them. by Adam Rogers
• 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 Zach Lo (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.

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 633 of Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.

Any screenwriter who’s been working for a few years likely has projects that have stalled out or otherwise gone dormant. Today on the show, what happens when you revive one of those projects and actually get it made 20 years later. We’ll talk with a writer who’s done just that.

John Gatins is a screenwriter and producer whose credits include Coach Carter, Dreamer, Real Steel, Power Rangers, and Flight, for which he received the Academy Award nomination. He’s also an actor you can see in movies including The Nines. Welcome, John Gatins.

John Gatins: Thank you.

John August: This is not your first time on Scriptnotes. We often see you and hear you at our live shows, because you are the person who is introducing us to Hollywood Heart, a fantastic charity.

John Gatins: I thank you both, all of you. You’ve done such great things for us and that really cool, cool, cool organization.

John August: We love doing our live shows with you guys, so thank you for that.

John Gatins: Of course.

John August: We’re not here to talk about those organizations today. We’re going to instead talk about your new movie, Little Wing, which kind of falls into a general genre I’d also love to talk with you about, which is sports movies or sports competition kinds of movies, because you have quite a few of those on your resume. I want to talk about how we construct and execute sports movies. Then we’ll also answer some listener questions about compartmentalization, mid-credit scenes, work ethics.

And in our Bonus Segment for Premium members, kind of a grab bag. After a long solo career, you’re starting to work with a partner now, so I want to talk about the shift of partners. You’re also one of the people I think who is smartest and savviest about figuring out credits. When there’s a bunch of writers who have worked on a movie together, you are the person who figures out, “Hey, can we all figure out a good deal on this?” I want to talk through that process with you.

John Gatins: Sure.

John August: Cool.

John Gatins: Great.

John August: We’ll start with some news. John Gatins, have you ever heard this term? This came to me in an email I got from one of my agents, talking about what this one studio was looking for. One of the terms was “bro soaps.” What do you think a bro soap is?

John Gatins: A bro soap?

John August: Uh-huh.

John Gatins: I don’t know. It’s a two-handed movie with two guys who are endeavoring to do something. I failed, right?

John August: It’s a series. They’re looking at it like a soap opera. The definition in this email was, “A muscular drama that appeals to men.” Sons of Anarchy.

John Gatins: Would Suits be a bro soap?

John August: Yeah, exactly.

John Gatins: Because those two guys are kind of in love with each other.

John August: Yeah, I think that would be a bro soap. I think it’s not so specifically broey. Sons of Anarchy is broey.

John Gatins: That show I don’t know.

John August: Or Ray Donovan. It’s very masculine energy. Drew, we have some follow-up.

Drew Marquardt: We do. Last week, John, you had the flu. You were saying we don’t have flu tests in the U.S. Travis wrote in to say at-home flu tests are available in the USA. Lucira by Pfizer is the one that is available. They’re about $50 each.

John August: I looked at this one. John, do you remember early on in the pandemic, we had those at-home tests, and some of them were electronic, or sort of electronic, where you’d put the little sample, and you’d put it into a base, and then it gave a red or a green light? Do you remember any of those? Did you ever do any of those?

John Gatins: I don’t. I don’t remember.

John August: It was a thing that was happening for a while. This looks like one of those. It’s great that it exists. It’s 50 bucks, which is really expensive for an at-home test. It also just feels like so much extra waste to do this electronic thing, because it should just be… We know how to do a test now. You just stick the little thing in. You look for the little lines. Apparently, these electronic ones, they really are just creating a line. They have a little sensor that reads whether the line is there or not. I’m glad this exists, I guess, but I want those cheap European tests that you swab and you see, do I have the flu, do I have COVID, do I have RSV. That’s what I want.

John Gatins: Look. I had COVID before anybody.

John August: You’ve always been a pioneer.

John Gatins: I had COVID, didn’t know it. Nobody knew what COVID was. It was the sickest I’ve ever been. I had a night in my kitchen by myself at 4:00 in the morning where I had a 105 fever. I was like, “I might need to call 911. I just don’t know what’s wrong with me.” Then I recovered slowly. Then I started reading about the symptoms when it was finally a thing. Then my doc said, “Does anybody want a test for the antibodies?” I said, “I do.” Ling was like, “You’re nuts.” I was like, “I’m telling you I had this.” He was like, “I’ve tested so many people. You’re the one guy with antibodies, so you’ve had it.”

John August: I’d never had the flu as an adult until this last week, and it was the sickest I’ve been.

John Gatins: The flu is no joke. Flu kills lots of people, friends.

John August: It does kill a lot of people. It was bad. I had, again, a 105 fever. It was like, “Do I go to the emergency room?”

John Gatins: I know. I was literally googling “dangerous fever for old men.”

John August: We’re both alive to talk about it, so that’s the real victory. More follow-up on the Tiffany Problem. Explanation, Tiffany Problem is that Tiffany was actually a pretty common old name, but if you’d name a character in a period movie Tiffany, everyone’s like, “That feels wrong.”

John Gatins: Really?

John August: Yeah.

John Gatins: Why? Because they think of the pop star?

John August: It seems like a modern name, but it’s actually an old name.

Drew: It goes back to the medieval times. Jake from Pandora wrote in to say, “I’m a VFX artist on the Avatar sequels over at Lightstorm Entertainment, which P.S., we just voted to unionize.”

John August: Congratulations.

Drew: “A major problem we face is that on Pandora, gravity is two thirds of Earth’s gravity. Presumably, this was decided to make an 8 to 10-foot-tall Na’vi seemingly move as a human does, so our perception of physics would be similar to that on Earth. But the Tiffany Problem of it all is that if we show someone jumping, it looks like they’re floating, if we multiply gravity times 0.667, which is the correct math according to Jim and the Oscar winners. Also, fires, water, and basically all physics simulations look fake at two thirds gravity. This would make absolutely everything we perceive to be so different, more so than a casual moviegoer would realize.”

John August: That’s a great point. You want to be realistic and truthful as much as you can in a movie and follow the rules of the world that you’re setting, but sometimes you have to bend those rules, because otherwise it just doesn’t seem plausible.

John Gatins: I remember working on Behind Enemy Lines, and we had a retired admiral. We kept trying to do things in the script that were like, “The master sergeant comes in and says this to the… ” It’s like, “He would never say… That just doesn’t happen.” We’re like, “It has to happen, because we need a problem in the movie.” It’s like, “No, that just doesn’t… They would never say that to that guy.” He was like, “That’s so disrespectful.” It’s like, “We’re going to have to though.”

John August: I remember calling Jack Warner, the dinosaur expert for the Jurassic Park movies. I needed to say, “Could this thing plausibly do this?” This point, it’s a couple of movies. It’s like, “I’d say that’s plausible. I think it’s defensible that this thing could happen.” You reach a point where it’s like, okay, I can understand that this feels right within the context of this movie, whether it’s actually supported by-

John Gatins: Berloff and I are working on a black hole movie, and we talked to this black hole scientist, and we pitched them a bunch of things, until we got to, “But you’re saying there’s a… I mean, you could.” He was like, “I guess.” You just look for one kernel of some sort of scientist tiny little something to hang onto and be like, “That’s the thing.”

John August: Going back to Pandora and the Avatar movies, literally, they’re after unobtainium. There are moments there which are clearly fantasy moments, which give them latitude to do some things that are useful for what they need to do. Finally, my favorite kind of follow-up is Arlo Finch follow-up.

Drew: Yes. Ethan wrote, “Couldn’t help but write in when I heard you and Craig talking about Arlo Finch the dog. My dear cat and erstwhile writing companion is named Arlo after Arlo Finch. His shelter name was Largo, which is not his personality, so that had to go. We adopted him in October 2017, and at that time, John had mentioned working on the Arlo Finch novels, and I loved the name. Something about it is adventurous and a touch anachronistic. As you mentioned, it’s also an easy name to howl across the apartment to get his attention.”

John August: We have a picture here of Arlo Finch the cat. So handsome. Look at this cat.

John Gatins: That’s a handsome cat.

John August: That’s a handsome cat. I’m not even a huge cat person, but I would say that’s a handsome cat. Then we were also talking about two-syllable dog names, because the best dog names are two syllables, and for reasons we’re going to get into in this email.

Drew: Chris writes, “Listening to you mention dog names generally being two syllables struck a chord. When I was a child, my father was a breeder of German shepherds. I always remember him saying that whether you were naming a dog or a child, the name had to yell good. English wasn’t his first language. I definitely took that into consideration when naming my kids Marcus and Ian.”

John Gatins: We have two dogs, named Riri and Farley.

John August: Exactly, you can yell.

John Gatins: We can yell those. They get that.

John August: Arlo. It yells out well. It’s a good dog name, a good kid name. John Gatins, talk to us about why you’re here. I want to get into a general sense of reviving old projects and what that’s like. Before we get into yours specifically, Drew has been doing research here. A bunch of recent movies are actually really old scripts that have been rejuvenated. Drive Away Dolls, the new Ethan Cohen movie, is an old script. Mad Max: Fury Road sat around for a long time. Unforgiven notoriously sat around for 20 years. Dallas Buyers Club. Beau is Afraid. A lot of times, things will sit around.

John Gatins: I’m going to ask you this question, but I’ll share this first. I can’t think of a movie that I’ve worked on, that got made, that didn’t take… I can’t even think of the fastest one, because I don’t think it’s inside five years, to be honest.

John August: The rare exceptions would be things where it felt like there was just huge movement towards… The Charlie’s Angels movies happened pretty quickly. But yeah, in most cases, stuff did take a long-

John Gatins: Stuff takes a long time.

John August: Yeah, but there’s a difference between stuff takes a long time, it’s slowly churning along, to there was no movement and then you came in with EMT paddles and zapped it back into life, which sounds like what happened to Little Wing. Can you give us the backstory on Little Wing?

John Gatins: Yeah. In around 2004, I wrote and directed a movie for Dreamworks called Dreamer. Dakota Fanning, Kurt Russell horse-racing movie. I had a great experience at Dreamworks. They were so cool and collaborative. It was great to have a studio run by Stacy Snyder and Steven Spielberg, who’s a filmmaker. It’s like a different thing, because when he says things to you, what he’s saying, it’s like, “Hey, I’d do this,” and so it’s a little bit different. It was interesting, because I really liked working there. It’s a cool little campus. You know it. They have lunch every day in a courtyard. It’s just collegial and kind of fun.

I got this call from my agent that said, “Steven wants to send you this article that he bought, that he loves, called Little Wing.” Susan Orlean wrote this really beautiful piece for the New Yorker. As you know, she wrote The Orchid Thief, which became adaptation, which is famously about someone trying to adapt a book that they don’t know how to adapt. They wrote a script about how, “I don’t know how to adapt this movie,” which was brilliant. And it’s such a cool movie. I thought that was kind of funny.

I read the article. It was great. It was about her when she was spending time in Boston and walking her dog at this dog park. She encountered this girl, who was a 12-year-old girl who had racing pigeons, which she just thought was fascinating. So she befriended the girl and her mom and had this relationship, and she wrote this really elegant piece about it. Steven, it just really struck him. So I get called to Steven’s office. I’m like, “Oh, cool.” I go up there. It’s so cool to sit in his office.

John August: I have been in his office. Yeah, for sure.

John Gatins: He has the Rosebud sled in a Lucite box on his wall. There’s a Norman Rockwell painting. It’s incredible. You’re just mesmerized. You’re in this thing. Steven was so chatty and fun. Dakota Fanning was in my movie, but I had to go to five-day weeks with her, to get her out in time to go do War of the Worlds. We were sharing this actor, and it was just kind of interesting. He was watching all my dailies and everything else. We talked about his movie. We talked about my movie.

John August: That’s so great.

John Gatins: They’re both kind of 9/11 movies. We had this whole connective, great, soulful chat. Then he starts talking about the article. I was like, “Yeah, so I was thinking, the article’s amazing, but I don’t know what a movie is based on this. I have no idea.” I left the meeting feeling like, oh my god, I had this great time I got to spend with Steven Spielberg, and I’ll tell this story forever, and blah blah blah, and that’s that.

I get to my car. My agent calls and says, “Look, they’re making this deal.” I was like, “What deal?” She was like, “Steven really wants you to write the movie.” I was like, “What is the movie? I don’t know what the… ” But then how do you say no to the guy and his partner, Stacy, who let me make this movie there, my first movie as a first-time director, on a script that I’d wrote? I was like, “Okay,” but I was terrified, that sweat of like, I have to figure out how to create something around this thing of this girl and whatever. I agreed, and I was in such a panic about it.

I met Susan Orlean, who was super cool. We chatted a bit, and she said, “You should really meet the girl.” I flew to Boston, and I met the girl and her mom, who worked in police. They were super nice. We spent a couple hours chatting in this hotel lobby. Then I went to the Red Sox-Yankees game. I’m a huge Yankees fan. The Yankees destroyed the Red Sox. It was super fun. Then I still was totally off the planet with like, “What do I do?”

John August: Let me stop you there, because I can anticipate what you were going through, because you have maybe a protagonist. You have a central character, but there’s not an arc there. There’s not a confrontation. There’s not an obstacle in the face of her. There’s no villain. There’s no urgency for why does the story start and end.

John Gatins: The other thing that was in this young person’s life was that her parents had gone through a divorce. There was a little bit of that. So I was like, “Maybe it’s a divorce movie. Maybe it’s like whatever.” I just started, as we do as a writer, just making sh*t up and just trying to figure some things out and adding characters to it and having this girl go through this moment. Then it became about, maybe they’re losing their house, and they have to move, and she’s upset about that, and she doesn’t want to leave.

Then I started researching racing pigeons, which I knew nothing about. I was like, “Wow, that’s a really fascinating world.” I was like, “Some of these pigeons are worth a lot of money. Who knew that racing pigeons brought all this money?” Then I think that’s where the thread of the idea of, what if she, in an attempt to save her house, goes and steals some racing pigeon from some famous old racing pigeon guy. It becomes a heist. There’s a little heist in the middle.

There’s a boy across the street who was her friend, but now they’re of an age where it’s like that coming-of-age story of, like, are we friends, or is there more? Is there something to it? How is school? Is school hard? How do people treat you? How do you see yourself? I love writing about teenagers, because they’re such curious characters. You kind of love them, but I always say teenagers have been sneaking out of their window since the dawn of time.

John August: Romeo and Juliet, yeah.

John Gatins: It’s just to make bad decisions. We love them, and we forgive them, but they really can be unpredictable and fun as movie characters.

John August: You’re starting to figure out the pieces of this. Are you going back to pitch Steven and Stacy, or are you just writing a script and delivering?

John Gatins: Literally, they left me alone, which was the great and awful news at the same time, because it was like, “I need some help.” I was terrified. Honestly, it’s one of those experiences where I wrote the script and I turned it in and I flew to New York. I have family in New York, and we were on a family vacation. We went there. I was just terrified. Clicking send was like, “This is the end. They’re going to look at this and say, ‘What the f*ck did you do? What is it?'”

Steven Spielberg called me, and he was like, “I love this. I want to make this movie.” I was like, “Okay. Sure. What do you need from me?” kind of thing. It was such a small movie too that I was like, “Why would Steven Spielberg-“

John August: Because this was made for Universal?

John Gatins: I think, yeah, their output was Universal at that time, I think. But Steven was really enthralled with the movie. It’s funny, because I feel like some of the only other Irish guys in the movie business are the Burns brothers. Brian was a good friend of my brother’s. He called my brother, and he said, “Eddie,” – his brother, Ed Burns – he said, “was with Steven Spielberg this weekend. Steven kept talking about this bird script that your brother wrote,” and blah blah blah. I was like, “Wow, it’s genuine. It’s really on Steven’s mind.”

Steven was so supportive of it, because it was just kind of unique. It was just kind of this strange, unique coming-of-age story of this girl and has a heist and a little bit of a love story. She meets this older character guy, and they smash into each other. Y’all have seen the movie.

Steven was a really supporter of it. But the business changes all the time. We’re talking about scripts that die. Part of the reason the script dies is because these producers’ deals ended, and the studio owns the movie, so then it moves on, and then someone finds it, or a new executive comes in and says, “Hey, there’s this John August script on the shelf. Let’s take a look at that. Maybe we should breathe some life into this,” get the paddles, as you say. And maybe another writer has an approach. It’s like, “Read it. You read it. See what you think.” It went to Paramount, because they had this split, so it was dead, basically, for Dreamworks.

But what was cool about it was that Steven, I think, really lobbied for me to work on Real Steel. Now it’s 2007, and I get brought into the Peter Berg world of, they’re going to make this movie, Real Steel, which is one of the properties they kept. And I went on the whole ride with that movie for two years or whatever. Little Wing was dead and gone.

John August: Dead and gone after a draft? Had you gotten a draft set and polished?

John Gatins: I probably had done a rewrite based on some notes, because when it went to Paramount, they pulled it out and said, “Hey, we should make this for Nick.” It was Nickelodeon. It was like, “This could fit for them. It could be a small movie,” whatever. I think I did a draft with them. The Nickelodeon movie people there were cool. I think there was a moment of trying to make it whatever, and then it went quiet.

Then it was years and years later. I don’t even remember. Donald DeLine called me. He was at Warner Bros. He said, “Susan and these guys came in, and they wanted to do an animated version of this Little Wing story.” He said, “I started looking through the rights and realized you’d written a script, so then I went and got the script. I think the script is great. Let’s make this movie.” I was like, “Okay. I don’t know how to do that.”

Paramount Players was in existence then. They took a shot. We talked about it. We met some directors and whatever else. But we’re trying to make the movie for literally $5 million or less. It was like, “I don’t really know how to do… I’m here to help you guys, whatever.” It kind of died again.

Then I think the next thing along the line was, I had worked on Power Rangers with Dean Israelite, and I sent it to him. I said, “What do you think of this?” He was like, “I love this. I want to help make this movie.” Brian Robbins, who’d been a collaborator who I’d written movies for way in the past-

John August: And was running Paramount.

John Gatins: And now had just came in to run Paramount. And he started working with Dean. We said to him, “We want to do this.” He said, “I love this script. If you guys can get Brian Cox to play Jaan Vari,” who was my high school health teacher, by the way, who I worked for over the summer. He was a Vietnam vet. I worked for him as a lifeguard over the summer. I had a long relationship with Jaan, who was a really cool guy. Suddenly, he’s like, “If you guys can get this to happen, we’ll make the movie.” Through a lot of craziness, we got Brian Cox to agree to do the movie, so it made the movie kind of go.

John August: This was a few years into Succession?

John Gatins: It was right towards the tail end. I think they were working the last season or something. We were like, “Great.” Then they were like, “Can you get Kelly Reilly?” I’m like, “How do I get Kelly?” Yes, I knew her from Flight, loved her. She’s amazing. We actually lived next door to each other in the hotel that we were all staying in when we were making that movie in Georgia. I sent her an email. I was just like, “Hey, do you remember me?” I said, “Would you look at this script and whatever?” I also knew her agent, so I reached out to him as well, and we texted back and forth and whatever. She texted me, like, “I love this script.” I said, “Meet Dean.” Then Dean, the director, and she had a Zoom and whatever, and suddenly she wanted to do the movie.

John August: At what point were you actually producing? Functionally, what you’re doing is producing, but at what point were you actually a producer on this?

John Gatins: I think what was cool is that my partners in that were Donald, because it had come to him, and he breathed life into it. And then I had been working with Karen Rosenfelt on something else, and I said, “Hey,” I said, “Will you look at this?” She read it. She was like, “I’ll help you.” I said, “Okay.” I pulled Karen in. Then Karen and Donald know each other. Then the three of us were exchanging info to say, “I know so-and-so. I’ll call them,” whatever. It was a little bit like, “I got a washboard. I have a drum set. Let’s make a band.” It’s like, “Here we go.” I knew Dean. We just put this little thing together. Brian kept saying to us, “Okay.” Brian Robbins kept saying, “I trust you guys. Okay.”

John August: There was also a unique opportunity at a new channel to put it towards, because you could put it towards Paramount Plus, and so you didn’t have the expectation of like, this is a movie that has to open at a certain amount on a weekend. It doesn’t have to hit this metric or that metric. It can be its own thing.

John Gatins: We didn’t know what a streaming movie was. They have all these labels under Paramount. It’s Awesomeness and Nickelodeon, all these different things. I think, what I can tell from the birth of the streaming moment is that they need content. So what is a streaming movie? It’s like, “I don’t know. I guess this is a streaming movie.” So that’s what we did, basically.

John August: Looking at the final film, it’s the kind of thing that could’ve been made with outside money and sold at a festival. It’s one of those kind of things that could’ve happened.”

John Gatins: I kept saying that to Dean. I was like, “This is a movie from the 1990s.” I was like, “This is a movie that could’ve been a… ” I said exactly that, John. I was like, “This could’ve been one of those movies that people say, ‘I really like that movie. That movie’s got some soul. This is cool.'” I kept saying to Dean, “We don’t really make these movies anymore.” I was like, “This is kind of a rare thing.”

Interestingly, Dean really wanted to set it in 2007 with the mortgage crisis about to blow up and everything else. The studio was a little bit like, “We don’t really want to date the movie that way.” We were like, “We don’t want cellphones in the movie. We don’t want all this texting with teenagers and stuff.” We had to find the right middle ground where we make it a little bit just, you don’t really know. We’re not saying it’s this time or that time or whatever. We’re not trying to give timestamps of what moment you’re in.

The movie we would’ve liked to set in Boston, because that’s where this young person was from, but it ended up being Portland for budget reasons and lots of things. Portland was a perfect town.

John August: It feels right.

John Gatins: It’s such an interesting place, Portland, and is a little bit worn out in areas, and it felt right for this kind of story.

John August: Cool. In a very broad sense, this fits into, I would say, a sports competition movie, because even though we’re not seeing them racing per se, it’s not about the birds themselves racing, it fits into your general oeuvre of sports competitions. You did Summer Catch, Hardball, Coach Carter, Dreamer, Real Steel. I want to talk a little bit about the broad shapes of sports movies, because in some cases, the sport is the focus, and we’re literally watching, like, “Will they win the game?” And sometimes sports is just the background. Summer Catch, I would say it’s a movie with baseball, but it’s not a movie about baseball. Is that fair?

John Gatins: Yeah, that’s fair. That’s fair.

John August: In all these kind of movies, we’re really talking about what is the POV? Is the POV of the player? Is it the coach? Is it the parents, like in The Blind Side? You can make a zillion different football movies. It really ultimately comes down to whose POV you’re trying to tell the story from.

John Gatins: Look. Sports culture in America is a really specific thing. We use those catchphrases all the time. People in the office are like, “Come on, guys. Bottom of the ninth. We got to hit it out of the park.” It’s part of who we are. Look how many people watch the Super Bowl. This year we had Taylor Swift. It’s crazy. I think that those stories are endlessly fascinating, like all the cool documentary series now about sports guys. And the Jordan documentary, that series that we watched, was incredible, that Mike Tollin made. I think that we’re enthralled by that because it’s dramatic. Are you going to win or lose? It’s personal.

Ling is my wife. John knows. I’m saying that, Drew, my wife’s name’s Ling. Ling always says to me she’ll watch sports with me because I do the background commentary. I’m like, “Oh, this guy actually had broken his leg. He’s on the comeback. He’s late 30s. He shouldn’t be this good. This is really amazing that this guy is able to do this thing.” Now she’s really interested. You hear the personal story, and it’s like, “Oh, now I’m in. Now I’m in.”

John August: The idea of the sports commentary behind the scenes, you’ll provide context in the room, but often one of the things you’re wrestling with in writing the movie is how much commentary are you providing, and are you actually providing a commentary character to help explain things.

I was talking to a friend with his script about esports. I said, “One of the things I really missed in this final competition sequence was the sense of live commentary happening to provide context for what I’m seeing, because that way it’s not beholden on my character’s doing it.” It’s nice to have some authoritative voice explaining what it is we’re actually watching.

John Gatins: Look. Remember Rocky, which created everything for sports movies in a way? There’s one crucial scene in Rocky that I try to put in every sports movie I’ve ever done, and I’ve done a few. He says to her, “I can’t win.” The guy is like, “I can’t win. That’s the problem here.” Guess what, guys? He doesn’t win. That’s not what the movie’s about, honestly. It’s that he did it. I think that that’s what we relate to as humans. I’d love to do a lot of things. There’s a lot of things I’m not ever going to do. I’m not going to win at things that I think that I would like to try to do. But I think we get inspired by those things, to say, “Wow, that’s heroic that this person is trying to do this thing.”

Guys, the Olympics are coming. We’re all going to get invested in the Olympics, about sports and people in that sport that I know nothing about. There’s some young female athlete that’s going to do some incredible thing that I don’t know anything about right now. But you catch me after the summer, I’m going to tell you everything there is to know about that person, because I’ve watched the journey, and I’ve seen the backstory now. It’s like, “Oh, she lived with her mom,” and this and that. It’s going to be some incredible, inspiring story. We just as humans have that kind of emotional connection to those things, because we put ourselves in those situations, like, “Oh my god, what would I do if I had one run left on the ski hill?” It’s like, “I got to go full out. I have to risk my life to try to win this medal.”

John August: We’re putting ourselves in their place. We’re performing this relationship with them. But equally crucial is the relationships happening inside the context of the movie and figuring out what those are early on, which is obviously a problem for Little Wing. It’s figuring what is the relationship here, who you’re going to try to follow.

Let’s talk about coach movies, so Hardball versus Coach Carter, figuring out who is the central relationship. Obviously, one part of that’s going to be the coach. But is it with a single player? Is it with multiple players? How do you work that through?

John Gatins: It’s tough, because – you know this from writing movies – you write a great scene, and you’re like, “That scene, along with every other scene, is going to fight for its life to get to the screen.” Sometimes you shoot, you write, they shoot, they perform amazing scenes, and they die, because it just doesn’t fit the ultimate quilt that is the movie.

When you have a sports movie, you’ve got five guys in the basketball team, but who are the ones who are going to pop? You try to give everybody a moment and everybody a story and a little bit of an arc and something that you’re rooting for for that specific character. You hope that you get it right enough that everybody is able to shine through in the movie and have their movie inside your movie.

John August: Exactly.

John Gatins: That’s really the idea is like, “Oh, it’s a story about this guy who played short stop.” That’s not really what the movie’s about, but he has a movie in the movie. Yeah, it’s tough.

John August: It’s tough, tough. Did you see Nyad?

John Gatins: I haven’t seen it yet.

John August: Nyad is fantastic. One of the things I really liked about the model of it is, the same filmmakers did a bunch of rock climbing movies, which are a similar dynamic, which is it’s one person against an obstacle. Within that context, you have, will they achieve the thing? Will she swim from Cuba to Florida? Will this guy ascend this impossible mountain face? You still have to find relationships. You still have to find moments of emotional stakes that are not just the will they or won’t they. I thought Nyad did a fantastic job doing that.

John Gatins: That’s cool. That’s on my list. I’m going to see that.

John August: Again, making a choice of what is the central relationship, which is, of course, in this one, her friendship with Jodie Foster’s character and all the permutations and struggles they’re in.

John Gatins: Plus, I love those actors. That’s the thing too is you’re going to see it because of them.

John August: Let’s answer some listener questions. Let’s start with David here.

Drew: David in London sent in an audio question. We’ll play that now.

David: I’m a few weeks away from being on set for my first production as a writer, feature film. And I’ve put in a lot of prep and spade work over the years. I know I’m the right person for this job right here and right now. But what I’m not prepared for is being public facing. You guys both demonstrate an incredible ability to talk about your work, to talk about your relationships in a proper and correct way. You never badmouth anyone, but you also feel very open and authentic as you speak to us. How? When I speak, I’m always telling anecdotes about people I work with and things that have happened. And I bet you guys have got great stories you share privately about Pedro Pascal or Guy Ritchie or whatever. I’m scared that I am going to make a terrible co*ckup on social media or in person when I’m speaking as a professional. So I guess my question is, how do you guys compartmentalize?

John August: Let’s talk about how you talk about the things you worked on, because you just brought up Steven Spielberg. In talking about Spielberg, you said all the positive things. You said how supportive he was and didn’t go into any frustrations there, which is I think part of the advice we have for David. You have to talk openly and honestly, but just talking about the good things.

John Gatins: Look, it’s funny, because before you started to roll, we were talking about credit stuff, which I think we’ll talk about later. I don’t know. It’s interesting, because y’all have done this podcast for a long time. I get texts sometimes. People say, “Mazin talked about you on him and John’s podcast today,” or whatever, which I always think is kind of funny. It’s hard, because screenwriters, we work really closely, we work right next to Pedro Pascal. We’re not Pedro Pascal. People want to talk to Pedro Pascal. They don’t really want to talk to the guy who wrote the thing that he’s going to say. But you guys have proven that a little bit wrong, because how many people listen to this podcast?

John August: Tens of thousands.

John Gatins: That’s a lot of people who are very fascinated by how the soup gets made. I’m going to use sports metaphors again.

John August: It’s fine.

John Gatins: [Crosstalk 00:31:07].

John August: Stick on theme.

John Gatins: Patrick Mahomes wins the Super Bowl. What does he say? He’s like, “The defense was amazing today.” He didn’t say, “I did that 40-yard run that basically won the Super Bowl,” which I watched. I was like, “Dude, you did that.” It’s a thing of, take less credit. People like people who take less credit. Bring people along. There’s a lot of people.

Naomi Despres made this movie, Little Wing. I invited her in. I said, “Can you help us? Because I can’t go to Portland and be on the ground every day.” She moved her world around to do it. She has so much hand in making this movie, even creatively. There’s a moment in the movie where she talks about Bikini Kill and Kathleen Hanna. That’s Naomi, who said to me, “There’s a band.” I’d heard of Bikini Kill, but I didn’t really know them. The woman’s story and the song and everything else really fit. I had written Tupac Shakur 15 years ago. This was a really relevant, local to Portland thing. It was genius. That was amazing. She doesn’t have writing credit on the movie. But she’s such an integral part of us making that movie that that’s an incredible thing.

Maybe an advice to this guy is to say, listen, remember how you got there. We don’t make this movie by ourselves. You’re God when you’re sitting by your computer by yourself and you’re creating a world. You’re on your own. You are the god and creator of that universe. As soon as I say to you, John, my friend, “Hey, can you read this for me? Can you help me? Do you want to produce this movie?” now I’m sharing godship. By the time you’re sitting on the set, there’s 200 people there doing all kinds of things. Now everybody’s a little bit God in their own piece of universe.

Realize that it is a collaborative thing. There is somebody who says, that’s the director, that’s that title, producer, executive producer, script supervisor. Everybody has a role in this thing. Just bear that in mind that we did this. Somebody gave us the opportunity to do this. Without Steven Spielberg, this movie doesn’t exist. That was the inception. Without Susan Orlean, who wrote this thing, that got Steven to do a thing, that got him to make me do this thing. You’re a piece of a really big thing I think is maybe the takeaway.

John August: I would also say, David, you’re asking about speaking professionally, and it really is the context that matters. If you’re doing the literal press junket for the movie, you’re going to have a very narrow list of things you’re going to say and talk about. You’re going to talk about what a great experience it was. What John is saying in terms of, be really generous giving credit out there. You can contextualize your part of the process. Always make sure that you speak up for the existence of the writer. That is so important.

John Gatins: Of course.

John August: But you’re giving full credit. As you get into narrower groups, you can be a little bit more forthright about the pros and the cons and the ups and the downs, and you can avoid sh*tting on somebody, but also say this was a struggle for these reasons.

John Gatins: Yeah, exactly.

John August: I will talk about a filmmaker I’ve worked with and say, “Listen, he has this reputation,” and you’d go into it knowing that this is the kinds of things you’re going to be doing or not doing. That’s also fair. When you get into really small conversations, when it’s you and an executive, you can be much more open about, “These are the pros and the cons. This was the real struggle we had.” That bonds you a little bit closer, because you’re telling the truth there.

John Gatins: Look, I think I’ve had a unique experience, because as you know, I’m a failed actor who started trying to do that. I became a writer. I’ve produced. I’ve directed. I’ve now done a little bit of all of it. I’m very comfortable on a movie set. I think he’s asking a question about, he’s feeling a little bit like, “I don’t know that this is my world.” You have your place in that world. You’ll see how comfortable you are or aren’t vis a vis that. Those conversations, like you said, he may get specific questions that are like, “Why did you write this movie? What inspired you to do it? Did you write it every day? How many hours a day can you work? Do you outline?” All this stuff that people want to ask, specific questions about being a writer.

John August: Totally.

John Gatins: You’re going to answer those questions really honestly. They may also put a mic in his face and say, “What was it like meeting Pedro Pascal?”

John August: They will ask that, yeah.

John Gatins: They’ll ask that, and you’ll be like, “It’s amazing. He’s great. In my mind, I wrote for him. The whole time, I had his voice in my head.” Maybe that’s true; maybe it’s not. Maybe you say, “I wrote it for George Clooney, but Pedro Pascal is better.” I don’t know. It depends on the question and the situation.

It can be kind of overwhelming, because I’ve sat on stages with movie stars, and they ask me questions about specific script stuff. You’re always a little bit like, “Is this the forum to have this conversation?” because you realize you have these people here who people really want to hear from. I don’t know. That’s why I appreciate what y’all do. It’s talking to writers about writing. It’s really interesting.

John August: Great. Another question.

Drew: Leann from Burbank writes, “I’m writing a comedic feature script which has a proper ending, but after cutting to black, then has a couple scenes that play alongside the rolling end credits, like Principal Rooney getting on the school bus during the credits of Ferris Bueller. Have you seen a mid-credit roll sequence dictated in a script before? Any thoughts on best practices?”

John August: I absolutely have seen those. I think I might’ve put them in some of my scripts too. You do a cut to black, you do a fade out, and then a page break, and then mid-credits or a mid-credit roll or after credits, it’s an extra scene.

John Gatins: I’m trying to think. I’ve been asked to do things where it’s like, “Give us written summations of what happened to people a little bit.” The movie ends, but it’s like, “By the way, in 2010, this happened.” Seeing additional scenes, I don’t know, a lot of times they feel like they’re stuff that was shot in the movie that you kind of want to see, but it didn’t fit into the quilt. It’s like, this is cool stuff that didn’t get in there. That’s a square that didn’t make the quilt, but it’s cool, and I think you guys might ask about, “Whatever happened when he got on that bus? Did he get on the bus?”

John August: Remember the script is meant to encapsulate the experience of watching the movie. If part of watching the movie is those mid-credit scenes or after-credit scenes, they should be in the script.

John Gatins: Yeah, I guess so. I guess the task a lot of times is you’re trying to jam a bunch of sh*t inside a 120-page box, so good luck with that. The stuff that spills out the top, either you find a place and jam it in or take something out and jam it in.

John August: Would it be fair to mark those as pages 119A and 119B? Sure, maybe. They’re part of the running time, but other stuff’s happening at the same time. You’re not responsible for the credits in your script. I would say if they’re important to your story, then they should be in the script, because your script is the movie. Another question.

Drew: Old Bruce writes, “Have I officially become the old guy looking at all these youngsters who seem to struggle with the reality of what work is? Is there a universal and generational confusion that success is not a right but earned? And have people’s threshold of try become much lower than it used to be?”

John August: Old Bruce, you’re completely correct on every level.

John Gatins: The two Old Johns will collude with you, Old Bruce.

John August: These young people today have no idea. Of course, if you were to slide this conversation back 30 years, the equivalent of Bruce would say, “These young people have no sense of what it is to work.” You’ve reached a point where you are generationally appropriately complaining about the generation behind you.

John Gatins: Yeah, and I think that’s a rite of passage.

John August: I would say that a thing I notice about this younger generation is there can be that hustle and grindy culture. I guess we had some of that when we started in our 20s, but it’s more deliberate. It feels more calculated, more planned. People are willing to put themselves in uncomfortable, long situations to do stuff that I don’t know I necessarily was. But also, there’s the internet. Stuff is also just different.

John Gatins: I know. They just need to get off my lawn. Believe me. But it’s different. We’ve been doing it so long. It changes. You become a different writer along the way, because trust me, if we could go back in time, there’s moments that I would pick that would be embarrassing, where I would literally be the guy who’d be like, “I’m going to tell you why water’s wet, guys. I got this. I know all the answers, man. You want to talk about screenwriting? I know everything. I can do anything.” I don’t feel that way anymore. I feel like I’ve earned it. I’ve earned the idea that I don’t know or I’m going to learn more or remain teachable and be like, “Let me see something else. A streaming movie? What television has become?” Television used to be like, we were screenwriters [unintelligible 00:39:30] TV. Now it’s like TV’s the greatest sh*t there is.

John August: One of the things I’m aware of increasingly is that I expect young writers today to actually understand the references that I had when I was in my 20s, but that’s not realistic. It’s not accurate. Why have you not seen Point Break? Of course you should’ve seen Point Break. Or a bunch of stuff where it’s like, of course it’s just my part of film history canon.

John Gatins: I know.

John August: They cannot have caught up on all of that stuff.

John Gatins: I know.

John August: That’s a thing I just have to get past and remind myself, of course you’re not going to see that, because that is the equivalent of Casablanca or something to them. It’s very far in the past.

John Gatins: I think the other thing too is there’s an immediacy to culture now because of cellphones. When I first started as a screenwriter, I remember faxing pages.

John August: Oh yeah, we faxed pages.

John Gatins: From Austin, Texas, when I was working on Varsity Blues, faxing pages. Being on location doing Behind Enemy Lines. There was only three hours a day where we could talk to the people at Fox. So we would just hide. We’d just be like, “If they don’t call us in this hour, we’re just going to keep shooting.”

John August: Yeah, totally.

John Gatins: “We’re going to just do what we’re doing.” But I think everything is so immediate. Good writing is rewriting. You don’t write a script and like, “That’s it. I’m done.” There’s a thousand drafts you’re going to do. I think that’s a little bit baked into that question. You got to realize, I know you think that’s the finish line. It really isn’t. There’s so much work to do beyond that finish line. You have no idea. In this world of boom, boom, the phone, click click click click, it doesn’t work that way. It’s not as immediate as you want it to be, because what we talked about before is movies take forever to get there. Movies don’t get made. They fight. They fight their way to life. Sometimes it takes 17 years. It’s just the truth.

John August: Could I challenge you on something you said about Little Wing? You said you clicked send to Steven Spielberg for the script, but you probably didn’t click send. You probably sent an actual script.

John Gatins: That’s a really good question.

John August: I remember distinctly, and you’ll have this memory too, you’d call the agent or the executive for them to send a messenger.

John Gatins: Yeah, to pick it up.

John August: You’d still be printing the script. Then you’d catch a typo and like, “Oh, no, I have to reprint that page.”

John Gatins: I had this stamp that my wife Ling’s parents had given me. It’s this jade thing that had the characters of my name, John, and then it had J-O-H-N underneath it, and it had a little ink pad. It was in red. I would put a stamp when I was done and I’d printed it. I’d stamp it. It was so silly. But I was superstitious then too. I was like, “That went well the first time, so I got to stamp it every time.”

John August: Absolutely.

John Gatins: It’s printing the script and doing the stamp and the whole thing. It’s like, “I don’t have my stamp!” It was this whole crazy thing, printing the script and sending it. I think that that was email, but I still was in the world of printing it. I don’t know.

John August: The reason why I bring that up is because we talked about faxing pages, and I have this very distinct memory of being bunkered in this really bad hotel room in Kauai and having to fax pages from the front desk to Kathy Kennedy. That was the only way to get pages to her. It was crazy.

John Gatins: They were those thin, weird pages that after two days they were dust. You couldn’t even see what was-

John August: I had flown with my StyleWriter printer so I could print out my pages and then fax them through to Kathy Kennedy. It’s wild. These younger generations, they have no idea how we suffered to get them to where we are right now, now that it’s-

John Gatins: It’s true.

John August: … typing away and-

John Gatins: Oh my god.

John August: … emailing stuff through. Let’s answer one more question.

Drew: Under Wraps writes, “Right before the pandemic, I signed an option agreement with a production company. About a week or two after we signed, the strike was officially called. I assumed since we finalized everything before that, that it wouldn’t affect my getting paid. However, the producer let me know that he was instructed to hold all payments until after the strike was over.

“Fast-forward to the strike ending, and after not hearing anything from the producer for a few weeks, I shot him a message. I didn’t specifically bring up the money, but just asked about plans now that the strike was over. He informs me that he’s moving forward with production and is optimistic.

“Jump to now, months later, we haven’t spoken since. I know these things move slowly, but the difference here was that I was actually supposed to be getting a nice little chunk of cash. I don’t want to sound money-focused, just messaging the producer, ‘Yo, where my money at?’ But I really could use it right now. I don’t have any reps to handle this for me, and I’m at a loss for how to word this kind of message. How do I get what I’m owed without coming off like a money-hungry jerk writer who doesn’t care about the art of film development?”

John August: This could be a generational issue. I think I was much more direct about, “Need money. Need check now.” A couple things, Under Wraps. First off, if you sign an option agreement, the strike had nothing to do with that, and so you still needed to get paid. You get paid. They owe you the money. They’re shopping this thing around that they’ve optioned from you, but they haven’t actually really done the option, because they’ve not paid you the money. You need to be much more direct about, like, “You may have forgotten, but you never actually paid me for this thing.”

John Gatins: The not having reps thing is tough in that situation, because there’s somebody whose job it is, hopefully, to be the one that says, “We need the money,” because it is show business. So there is a business side to it. And it’s good to have partners, be they lawyers, agents, managers, that can have that conversation on your behalf.

John August: Absolutely. We had Aline on the show a couple weeks ago. We talked about being agentic, taking agency in your life. This is a situation where this guy needs to take agency and to say, “Oh, this thing needs to happen. I’m going to make it happen.” Pretend you are your own best friend and you’re going to go in and just do this thing for your friend, which is get your friend paid.

John Gatins: I would get the guy on the phone too. Email’s a little bit removed. Just say, “Hey, call me quick.”

John August: In that conversation you had about what was happening next, segueing from that into like, “Oh, it’s so great this is happening. Also, you haven’t paid me. You may have forgotten that you haven’t paid me.” You can [unintelligible 00:45:28] they forgot, but they have to pay you. Got to get paid.

It is time for our One Cool Things. John Gatins, what is your One Cool Thing?

John Gatins: It’s interesting. Ling’s uncle and aunt came to visit recently from Arkansas. They’re retired. They’re the coolest people. They were like, “We just have to tell you,” because they were staying in our guest area, and they said, “You have this kind of finch. You’ve got this kind of woodpecker,” and whatever. I was like, “What?” They were like, “There’s this app called Merlin, which you can download for free, and you can literally record singing birds, and it will tell you what the bird is, and it shows you a picture and this whole thing.” They showed us all of these pictures of these birds. They were excited, because they don’t live in this part of the world. They were like, “Check it out. You’ve got this short, blah blah blah woodpecker thing.” I was like, “Oh my god.” Pearl used to be so annoyed by this woodpecker outside her window. She’s like, “There’s this bird.” It’s this really beautiful looking bird. I just thought that was the coolest thing. I was like, “Oh my god.” Who knew there’s an app that can identify birds?

John August: That’s awesome. Just this morning, there was a bird who I remember hearing from before. It was a morning bird that can be really annoying. But we sleep with the white noise machine turned so high that I don’t hear it anymore. Sometimes in the bathroom early in the night I hear it.

John Gatins: Just download Merlin, and you can maybe understand where that bird’s coming from a little bit.

John August: Absolutely. 100 percent.

John Gatins: That bird’s trying to tell you something, John.

John August: Absolutely.

John Gatins: It’s like, “Listen.”

John August: It’s like when you have noisy neighbors, and you’re like, “I hate them,” and then you meet them, it’s like, “Oh, it’s actually not so bad.”

John Gatins: That bird might have notes on your scripts that you need.

John August: It might have notes.

John Gatins: You don’t know.

John August: My One Cool Thing is sort of a strange one. We were having a conversation a week or two ago about spinoffs and what is the longest show that’s been on the air if you include the spinoffs from the original show.

John Gatins: Whoa.

John August: That led me down a rabbit hole towards The Facts of Life. I loved the show The Facts of Life, which for people who are not familiar with it, it is about this girls’ school. You follow these four or five girls who get in trouble and they live in their own little part of the girls’ school with Mrs. Garrett, who’s the cook, and they often work for Mrs. Garrett. It was a shrunk down version of a bigger school. It was a strange situation where the first situation is actually very different than later seasons.

Anyway, they kept trying to spin shows off of The Facts of Life, which I think is great. They would do backdoor pilots. A backdoor pilot is one of the normal 22 episodes of a season, they would introduce new characters and set them up and see whether they would work right, and then the hope would be to spin them off of the original show into a new thing. The Facts of Life was a spin-off of Diff’rent Strokes, and so this is trying to spin off other things.

Here are some of the backdoor pilots attempted to come out of The Facts of Life: Brian and Sylvia, a Season Two episode in which Tootie and Natalie go to Buffalo, New York to visit Tootie’s Aunt Sylvia, who has recently married a white man. It’s about Brian and Sylvia, these other people. The situation, you’re bringing your protagonist to a new place and trying to spin off these characters.

The Academy was a Season Three episode set at Stone Academy, the all-boys military school that was located near the existing school, so basically a boys version of Facts of Life. Jo’s Cousin, another Season Three episode. Jo visits her family in the Bronx, including her cousin Terry, a 14-year-old girl going through adolescence in a family full of men, so just a completely different family show.

The Big Fight was a Season Four episode set at Stone Academy, that boys’ military school, so it was another attempt to get that going there. One called Graduation. They’re trying to spin off a show about Blair and Jo and their life in college.

There was a Big Apple Blues, a Season Nine episode in which Natalie spends the night with a group of eccentric young people living in a SoHo loft, so trying to create that show.

John Gatins: Oh my god.

John August: Then The Beginning of the End/The Beginning of the Beginning, which is the two-part series finale, which they were trying to set up these two characters taking over Mrs. Garrett’s role at the school. It’s remarkable over the course of all these years, they just kept trying to spin other things out of it. It’s not a thing we get these days.

John Gatins: Wasn’t Clooney a recurring character?

John August: That feels right, yes.

John Gatins: As you were going through, I’m like, weren’t any of them trying to launch Clooney as a guy who was featured in one of those?

John August: You feel like he should. That was pre-ER. I was saying we don’t have spinoffs. I guess we do have spinoffs, because we have all those Yellowstone spinoffs.

Drew: There’s also Blackish. It has Brownish and all those.

John August: Blackish, yeah.

John Gatins: The Walking Dead has-

John August: You’re absolutely right.

John Gatins: … 15 million. Whatever. I got into watching The Walking Dead when I was on location in Georgia, and it used to freak me out, because it’s shot there.

John August: It’s Georgia.

John Gatins: I’m like, “That looks like the woods where the walkers are.” Now I just watched the first episode of Those That Lived or I don’t know what. When I was looking for it, 10 other spinoffs, the Daryl Dixon show and then this one and that one. I’m like, “Holy cow.” Fear the Walking Dead. The Walking Dead will never-

John August: They will never stop.

John Gatins: The zombies, they will never stop. The zombies will never go away.

John August: You’re completely right. I guess I’ve been thinking of a very specific, very deliberate, like, “Okay, we’re going to introduce new characters and try to spin them off in a new thing.” But franchisization of shows is really clear now. It’s not just the Cheers to Frasier to Frasier. There’s other ways to do it now. Sell a universe.

That is our show for this week. Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt. It’s edited by Matthew Chilelli. Our outro this week is by Alee Karim. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to ask@johnaugust.com. That’s also the place where you can send your questions. You’ll 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’ll find them at Cotton Bureau. I’m wearing both a T-shirt and a hoodie right at the moment. 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 John Gatins’s mastery of credits and partnership, I guess. John Gatins, congratulations on your movie, and thank you for coming on Scriptnotes.

John Gatins: Of course. Thank you guys for having me. I appreciate it.

[Bonus Segment]

John August: John Gatins, as long as I’ve known you, you’ve been a solo writer. You’re a person who comes in and brings your own pen. You do your work. Then you take off. But recently started working with Andrea Berloff, another friend of the show, and you guys have been writing as partners. Talk to us about that transition. How’d it all come about?

John Gatins: It was interesting, because Andrea and I knew of each other, and then we really met in the strike of 2008.

John August: We should say that you were a strike captain in 2008 and were always out there with your black parka, a big cheerleader.

John Gatins: It’s funny too, because I don’t know that I was ever officially penciled as such, but I think I emailed people and said, “I’m going to be at Universal,” and then friends of mine just started showing up. Then you were there. There was a lot of people that we knew there. I had the acapella group from UCLA come. We had fun. Whatever. Strikes are not fun. That’s not the idea.

But Andrea showed up there. She was like, “Hey.” She always tells the story, she’s like, “You’re the first person besides my husband to know that I was pregnant.” I was like, “Oh, okay,” because she was like, “Look, I’m going to be a little intermittent.” I was like, “Andrea, I’m not in charge.” I was like, “You do whatever. Trust me.” We were like the MASH unit of Strikeville. We became friendly there.

Then I can’t even remember the year it was. It was 2014. I don’t know. I’m making it up. But we both got invited to be in a room, quote unquote, for Activision Blizzard. Stacey Sher invited us to be writers in this room, because they were trying to figure out Call of Duty movies.

John August: Why has there not been a Call of Duty movie?

John Gatins: Why has there not been?

John August: Yeah.

John Gatins: I’ll give my own opinion.

John August: Please.

John Gatins: Again, it’s going to be very uneducated. But it was an incredible room. We heard so many military experts who came in. It was incredible. Guys who had really done… Will Staples was really integral in facilitating the intros to these people in the military world and politicians. It was incredible. I learned so much, because I really don’t know that much about the military.

I think at the end of the day, you realize when they release a Call of Duty, it makes hundreds of millions of dollars in a weekend. To try to say that you would make a movie that would help that event, it would really have to be a movie that would be on a level that I think ultimately they never saw anything that led them to believe that this is going to in fact help their brand in a way.

That’s just, again, my take, because it was really a big aspirational attempt to try to launch three different series of movies, because there was Call of Duty, there was Modern Warfare, there was Black Ops. There was a bunch of different segments in the game world from that umbrella, and they tried to attack all fronts at the same time with lots of really smart people in a room. And there was lots of good ideas, but it just never full came together, I think.

John August: My hunch is they should’ve found the best military spec they could’ve found and called it Call of Duty.

John Gatins: That’s a really smart thing. Who knows? They may actually ultimately do that. But in that room, Andrea and I, we partnered up as producers, because they took six writers and made three teams of two to be producers that were assigned a screenwriter. Then we helped that person form an idea based on the franchise we were working on kind of thing.

Andrea and I were together every day for a month. Somewhere in the middle of it, we said, “We should write a movie together,” which as you said, I’ve never done that before. Neither had she, by the way. She has a great, thriving career all on her own. It was this weird thing of like, “Maybe.” We talked to our agents about it a little bit and whatever and said, “We’ll just try.” We didn’t think it was going to be like, “We’re going to do this forever.” It was this odd thing of like, “Oh my god, I’m actually going to write with another writer.”

We called Phil and Matt actually and said to them, “Hey, guys, how do you do it?” They gave us their thing of cards on a board of this scene, this scene, this scene, and then saying, “I want to write that one. Why don’t you do that? No, I want to do this one.” You divvy up the work and you do it and then you share and you back and forth and whatever.

We figured it out. It was interesting, because we’re at a point now where we don’t… I don’t think, anyway. She can speak for herself if you ask her. We joke all the time. It’s like, “You wrote that.” She’s like, “No, you wrote that.” I’m like, “Oh, I did?” It’s like, “No.” It’s a little bit seamless at this point, which I think is a good place to be. It’s great to have a lab partner. It’s such a solemn, weird thing that we do. Humans are social creatures. I don’t know. It’s been good. It’s actually been really fun.

John August: You’re the only writer I can think of who, at this stage in their career, partnered up, because it’s just much more generally people are splitting apart at this age. You guys, you’re holding each other accountable, but also you’re showing up to work in a way that is important.

John Gatins: We take meetings. We work for Netflix now, and have for over a year, in an exclusive kind of deal with them, which has been really fun and great. It’s just really nice. I think we were both at the perfect time in our lives that it was like, “This would be a cool thing to try to do together.” It’s been really awesome, honestly.

John August: The other thing I would love to talk to you about on mic a little bit is, of all the writers I’ve met over my career, you are the most savvy when it comes to, “Okay, six of us worked on a movie, and it’s now time to figure out credits.” It will go to arbitration or we can decide amongst ourselves and all agree on what the credits should be. You are very good at starting those conversations and figuring out ways to get everyone to agree on credits. Can you talk me through how that started and what your approach is for it?

John Gatins: To be honest, I don’t remember exactly how it started, but I’ve come to the place where a lot of times when I think back on the… There was a very long run in my career where I was a guy who would come in towards the end, and I’d do production rewrite work. I’ve also been fortunate that I am comfortable on a set, and directors I’ve been paired with, I’ve gotten along well with, who were like, “Hey, come help me.” I worked with a couple of first-time directors or younger directors, and it was great. It was like the Bull Durham relationship of like, I’m the old guy, and here’s a young person trying to do something. The studio liked me and felt like I could help. So I’d be on set and that kind of thing.

When it would come down to the credit thing, at some point maybe I knew one of the other writers initially and just reached out and said, “What are you thinking? They’re going to make a recommendation, and then we’re all going to go to our corners and try to write a manifesto that says, ‘This is what I think I deserve.’ Maybe we can have a conversation.”

I got to know the Guild people enough, having been through enough arbitrations and been an arbiter, that I would have a conversation with them. I would immediately come out and say, “Hey, can I have so-and-so’s number, or can you tell them here’s my number? If they want to chat with me, great, call me. If they don’t, that’s okay too.”

I would always start the conversation the same way and say, “Hey, listen. You worked on this, and I worked on this. If you’re open to a conversation, we can have it. I fully understand that there’s a really good chance this is going to arbitration, which is okay. We’ve all been through it. But because we’re in the soup together, is there anything you want to share?” or, “I feel this,” or, “I feel that,” or, “Maybe there’s a way that we can work it out.”

The Guild, I think that they would appreciate that, because it’s pitting writers against writers, which is never great, because as we said, it’s about resume, and there’s money and residuals, bonus residual. There’s all kinds of things about ownership of things and movie posters that don’t have your name on it that you feel like, “I deserve to have my name on it.” It’s very difficult.

Of course, the credits thing came up with additional writers at the end of the thing. It’s such a ballyhoo kind of thing that it’s difficult. It’s never perfect. It’s the best system we have. I know Craig’s worked hard on the manual, to try to say, listen, let’s revisit some of these things about what are the percentages and how do we mete this all out to make it make sense?

Look. My experiences vary. I’ve met some really cool writers that way. There’s been some things that have really gotten sorted, and it felt really fair and cool, and everyone walked away being like, “Hey, I appreciate you did that. This is cool,” and that kind of thing. Other times, it’s been not as good. It’s been like, “Look, we’ll just go to arbitration and see how it works out.”

John August: I’ve had both situations. I think, inspired by your example, I’ve reached out to writers on projects to see whether there’s a useful way for us to think about what the credits should be. Also, if I’ve come onto a project, I try to reach out to the original writer or writers to see where the bodies are buried. That almost starts the relationship a little bit earlier before it becomes figuring out the credits. Important to remember is that these writers can figure it out amongst themselves unless one of them is a production executive.

John Gatins: Yeah, that’s a little different.

John August: If someone’s a director or a producer.

John Gatins: That’s different.

John August: Increasingly, if a director is going for credit, that’s off the table, because-

John Gatins: It’s an automatic arbitration.

John August: Automatic arbitration. And same if someone’s a producer. It makes sense why, because that person would have undue power and control over the situation and might have their fingers on the scale. Now, one of the things I’ve heard you talk about is that there is the credit you see on screen and the list of credits, but behind the scenes there’s also math about what percentages go to which writers. Those things don’t have to line up precisely. Is that accurate?

John Gatins: I think so. It’s such a difficult thing.

John August: Here’s what I’m getting to. You will actually have the conversation about, “Let’s talk about money,” because one of the reasons why you want to talk about money is that different writers would have different box office bonuses based on what credit they get.

John Gatins: That’s a conversation that people have. That can get into lawyer land, where you say, “Listen. I appreciate what they’ve done. I was in a different situation. I was on a weekly. I don’t have a bonus on this movie. But I’m probably going to get credit. You may have been diminished enough that you’re not going to get credit.” That person says, “Then let me inspire you to invite me in, because I think I deserve credit on the movie.” At times, there’s a financial deal to be made as well. Different things mean different things to different people.

If you asked me this question 15 years ago, I might’ve given you a different answer, because having my names on movies was going to change the trajectory of my career or my opportunities. I’m old now. I wish that maybe there was executives out there who haven’t met me or don’t have a preformed opinion of what I do or how I can do or what I’m right for or where I fit on any kind of list on any given day. But I think that there is a little bit of, I don’t know, I am who I am. I’m going to try to do what I do. It’s a fairly difficult thing to apply math to a creative event.

John August: 100 percent.

John Gatins: That’s I think what you’re asking is to say, “Okay. Look at the script and tell me who did 33 percent of these four or five elements.”

John August: We’ve both been arbiters. It’s really tough.

John Gatins: It’s a really tough thing.

John August: Luckily, there’s the 33 percent math, but it’s really basically, did this person do so much work that they’ve crossed a threshold into getting this. It only gets down to 33 percents of stuff when there’s just too many names and too many people could be jockeying for that thing.

John Gatins: It’s hard. Derek Haas has been an arbiter, and he says his approach is he reads the shooting script and then he reads backwards. You try to figure, how do we get to this thing?

John August: [Crosstalk 01:03:17].

John Gatins: I was like, that’s a really smart way to say, because you may have written an amazing script, but it was set in 1914. The movie’s actually set in the 1980s now. You go, “What does that 1914 script have to do with the movie that actually got shot?”

John August: You may find that there’s a lot, but it may be-

John Gatins: It’s like, look, that 1914 script may be the reason the movie got made, but it doesn’t factor into the document that was actually filmed.

John August: That’s the crucial thing to remember about the credits process. It’s not about the process of making the movie. It’s literally about the final document. That’s why it can be so crucial, what is the final document? Does the final document actually reflect the movie? We’ve gotten into this before too, where this is the, quote unquote, final shooting script, but that’s not the movie that’s on the screen at all, so you have to go through that stuff too. It’s a challenging situation.

John Gatins: It’s a really challenging situation.

John August: I do feel like one of the changes from when we first started the business is if I worked really hard on a movie and didn’t get one of those top credits, I just disappeared, and it was like a year of my life just vanished. Additional literary material at least acknowledges, oh, that person, you existed. It’s a change for writers who otherwise might be completely forgotten. It’s proof that you did some work. There’s pros and cons to it.

John Gatins: It’s a tough one. It’s difficult. I’m not sure about the additional writing credit thing. I think I’ve probably been in that situation a little bit, because maybe I’ve done work on things where that was an opportunity.

John August: I can think of one movie you worked your ass off on, and I was so surprised that your name is not on that movie. You know what I’m talking about.

John Gatins: That’s where I learned a lot of lessons, because the statement that I wrote on my behalf was a ridiculous, embarrassing, emotional love letter to a college girlfriend, basically. It was like, “I gave my T-shirt on the day that Van Der Beek wore, and he wore it. I was there.” I’m like, no, you write a comparative literature paper that’s like, “Hey, I did these things,” and whatever. That one didn’t go my way for a lot of reasons. I didn’t help my cause on that one.

John August: I’m thinking of a different movie. That’s how many movies there are.

John Gatins: Oh my god.

John August: I’m thinking of a much more recent movie, a sci-fi movie that you-

John Gatins: Look. That was a situation that was really difficult, because I got to know the other writers and had a conversation, because that was one that was very confusing. It was a little bit like, how did we actually get here? Look. We tried. That was one where it was a failure, and it was a little bit like, huh. It was heartbreaking. But it was what it was.

John August: You got paid the money during production.

John Gatins: I did, I did. I did have a sizable win on the other side that I was feeling like was going to come through and did not. That was not a great moment. It’s a little bit of the peril of doing what I do, which has been a guy who, “Look, I was the fourth writer,” or something. That’s not a very advantageous position to be in. You just said to me, knowing nothing, “John, come on. You’re this guy who came in.” I’m like, “Yeah, but I went through all this.” It’s like calling other writers and saying, “Dude, I know you wrote a great script, but guess what? I’m the one who had to listen to all the nuts-ness of all the craziness and deal with blah blah blah.”

John August: Yeah, you had to shoulder and bear so much. You had to body a lot of the problems.

John Gatins: It was what it was. Time helps. You get some distance from it and everything. I thought you were talking about Varsity Blues. My thing is, I owe everything to Varsity Blues. That movie did everything for me. My name appears nowhere in that universe, but they paid my bonus anyway. They felt that. How about that?

John August: Nice.

John Gatins: That executive, Don Granger, was like… My agent called and said, “There’s something here for him.” He goes, “I don’t know anything about that.” It was one of those great movie moment inside the movie business.

John August: Love it.

John Gatins: It was a really gracious thing that they did. It was very nice. It led to me doing Hardball for them and doing so much work at that studio. I can’t fault that movie. I didn’t help myself in the process. I really didn’t know. That’s the thing I think that upset me most as a really young writer in that moment, the first movie, was that there was nobody in the Writers Guild… I didn’t know a lot of screenwriters. If I’d met somebody who’d said to me, “Hey, listen, man. Why don’t you let me look at that statement?” That’s the point, John. If I’d been an arbiter and I’d gotten that statement…

You’ve read plenty of arbiter statements where you want to say, “Don’t ever write a statement like that. This is no help. Trust me. I know you think you’re going to appeal to some emotional whatever. No, no. That’s not an emotional document. This is a document that compares the work you did, compares to the shooting script and to the other documents. That’s what it is.” I shot myself in the foot in that situation. Like I said, that experience and that movie and the success of that movie, I owe so much to.

John August: I owe a lot of my success to movies that my names are not on. That’s the reality of this career. John Gatins, so great to talk with you.

John Gatins: Great to talk to you, man. Thank you. I really appreciate you guys let me coming on.

Links:

• Little Wing – On Paramount+ March 13th
• John Gatins on Wikipedia and IMDb
• Little Wing by Susan Orlean for the New Yorker
• LUCIRA by Pfizer COVID-19 & Flu Home Test
• Merlin Bird ID
• The Facts of Life – Attempted Spin-offs
• 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 Alee Karim (send us yours!)
• Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli.

Email us at ask@johnaugust.com

You can download the episode here.