The original post for this episode can be found here.
John August: Hello and welcome. My name is John August.
Craig Mazin: My name: Craig Mazin.
John: And this is Scriptnotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters.
So, Craig, we?re pretty busy, aren?t we?
Craig: We?re pretty busy guys. I?m making a movie. You?re making a Broadway show. I saw that your? ? Well, I mean, it?s going to be a Broadway show but right now it?s a Chicago show.
John: It?s a Chicago show. We announced finally ? for Big Fish ? we announced our out of town dates. So we are going to be going to Chicago in April for a five week run at the Oriental Theater. It?s just so exciting, because originally when we started the podcast I was sort of allowed to talk about Big Fish: The Musical; I wasn?t really allowed but I didn?t really ask permission. And then they sort of said, ?Hey, could you stop talking about it?? So I stopped talking about it.
But now I can talk about it because it?s real. And we?re going to be in Chicago in April. And singing and dancing and making a musical.
Craig: Fantastic.
John: And it?s really great. So, tickets are on sale for like big group sales now. But eventually individual tickets will be on sale. And there will be a link in the show notes.
Craig: Very exciting. Yeah, I can?t say much at all about anything to do with Hangover 3 other than that we?re making Hangover 3. That?s the sum total of what I?m allowed to say. [laughs] And then I will say no more.
John: It?s interesting with Big Fish because I can now say like, ?Hey, we?re going to Chicago and these are the dates.? And there?s so much more information?
Oh, I can also say that Norbert Leo Butz is starring as Edward Bloom.
Craig: I saw that. Very talented guy.
John: He?s phenomenally talented and so we?re so excited to have him as part of the show. But of course there are like a thousand other things I know that I?m not allowed to say. So, I can basically say anything that was already in the press release. And the press release ? it?s so fascinating when you?ve read and approved the press release and then you see it with the news stories that come out from the press release, because they are sometimes more graceful, sometimes less graceful rewritings of what was already in the press release. And figuring out sort of how to prioritize the information for a given audience?s interest in what was in the press release.
Craig: I find that ?entertainment journalism? is the shoddiest, least fact-checked form of what has already become a very shoddy un-fact-checked medium of journalism.
Journalism has suffered over the years, but entertainment journalism is horrendous. Like you say, you put a press release out on the world, and you would think, okay, there really is no need for a game of telephone here. There?s a press release. Just say what is in the press release or don?t. Or say some of it, or say none of it. But then they?ll just get it wrong.
John: Yeah.
Craig: It?s amazing. They?ll spell names wrong. They?ll just make stuff up. And then, because of the internet, if one mistake is made it is perpetuated a million times.
John: So not specific to this case really, although there is one sort of questionable case, but I hate when they do sort of lazy Googling. And so they find something and they?re like, ?Oh, I?m going to throw this in so it feels a little bit more original.? And so they?ll throw in some random thing about the show which is not actually correct, or about a movie I worked on that is not actually correct at all. And that will be part of the official story from then on.
Or like they?ll throw in a credit for me and I?m like, ?That was not mine. Why are you doing that??
Craig: It?s so weird. I remember when we made Scary Movie 3, and this is back in 2003, sort of before the internet really went cuckoo nuts. And when Bob Weinstein announced that he was going to make Scary Movie 3, he said David Zucker is going to be directing it, Craig Mazin and Pat Proft and Kevin Smith are going to be writing it, because he had this idea that Kevin Smith would somehow be involved. But really I think Kevin Smith had said, ?I?m actually doing something else ? it would be fun to sort of, I don?t know, read the script at some point or talk to those guys.?
And it was smart for him to kind of use a name that people are interested in. But Kevin Smith actually never worked on the movie. And when I say never worked on it, I mean, I?ve never spoken to Kevin Smith in my life. He literally never did anything with it. And that was the last time his name was mentioned was the very first press release to announce that the movie was even being made.
He was still being cited as a writer in reviews of the film, just because they Google.
John: They Google.
Craig: Yeah. It?s remarkable.
John: They do Google.
Craig: Remarkable.
John: But, you know what? On our podcast I think we can do better than lazy entertainment journalism and we can do proper fact checking sometimes. And we can do follow up. And so I thought we would start with two little bits of follow up.
Craig: Great.
John: So, first, a personal follow up. Because you had in a previous podcast recommended a really ? well, I?m spoiling here, but you recommended a really good documentary called Jiro Dreams of Sushi, which I saw last week. And you know what? It was really, really good.
Craig: I didn?t lie.
John: No. So I?m endorsing your endorsement. The one thing I wanted to follow up with you about though is when you were talking about it you were talking about Jiro?s pursuit of perfection, which is so true about the documentary. You see this guy, and he?s obsessing about absolutely everything about how he is making his sushi, and how he is seating everybody at the counter, and how he is making certain sushi smaller for the women than for the men because he?s just figured it all out because he?s been doing this for 75 years, which is crazy.
And you were trying to relate it to screenwriting, which is natural because we?re a podcast about screenwriting. But it struck me as I was watching, because you put that idea in my head, like perfection in screenwriting: You really couldn?t do a Jiro of Screenwriting, because everything that we do as a screenwriter, or really in most of the creative arts, every sentence we write is a brand new sentence.
Craig: Right.
John: Every project we tackle is a whole new set of challenges. So, Jiro has the luxury, or sort of the curse ? he chose to make it a luxury ? of doing the exact same thing every day. And because he could do the exact same thing every day he could optimize it and perfect it in a way that may not be a realistic goal for a screenwriter or any writer.
Craig: True. In fact, it sort of underscores why the search for perfection in screenwriting is so fruitless, because here?s a man who actually has controlled out every other variable other than make tuna sushi. And yet he still can?t perfect it.
We are constantly being asked to make sushi that doesn?t exist. And, also, other people are involved. And, also, we actually can?t do it because other people are doing it, because it?s screenwriting. So, inevitably ? you know as they say a movie is written four times. It?s written, it?s cast, it?s shot, and it?s edited. The ultimate authorship of a movie is collaborative no matter what you do.
So, we are that much further removed from the possibility of perfection just by the nature of our process. It was instructive for me to watch somebody who you think almost maybe could achieve it because of the specificity of what he does, and he, too, was saying no, not possible.
John: But I do endorse the movie. And it was terrifically well made. And fun to see someone who could devote their life to a specific thing and not have it feel like a tragedy. Because as I first sat down to it, I was like, ?Oh no, this is going to be a sad story about a man who wasted his life making sushi.? And that?s not how you leave the movie, which is nice to see.
Craig: Yeah. Good. I?m glad you saw it.
John: A second follow up thing is we had a question maybe two weeks ago on a writer who wrote in from Iran who had written in with a very specific sort of copyright question.
Craig: Yes.
John: And basically saying that Iran doesn?t sort of respect or doesn?t protect the same copyrights, so what is he supposed to do? And so we had a reader writer in, which is what I hoped would happen. Alexia wrote in and she said, ?For sure you do not have to be a US citizen to enjoy copyright on your work via the US Copyright Office any more so than you have to be a US citizen to register a trademark at the Trademark Office.?
And then she says, ?I can speak to this from personal experience.? So she?s done this. I think she?s a European writer who?s registered at the US Copyright Office. She also goes on to say, ?The idea of transferring copyright to a US-friendly person is iffy.? It?s one thing we sort of brought up, if you have a friend in the US, do you have them register it for you? ?US Copyright Law actually has clauses in place to stop this from happening as a guard against exploitation. Generally speaking, copyright can only be transferred under a contract of employment.?
Craig: Right. I actually did do some offline research into Iranian copyright law. It is?it?s a little funky. I mean, law in general in Iran is a little funky because it is a theocracy bordering on totalitarian state. And so the way laws are implemented is a touch whimsical, as we all know.
They are not signatory I believe to the Berne Convention. So, while they may be members of WIPO which is a ? I can?t quite remember the details. Their copyright protections are not as strong as those in other countries, nor are they as strong as those in the United States in terms of their treaty arrangements with other nations. Part of the issue with Iran is they don?t respect other people?s copyrights as well as they ought to.
John: Exactly. So, for the writer, who wrote in a couple weeks ago with that question, it seems like one solution would be to just get it registered in the US Copyright Office. You?re going to have protections under the Berne Convention for every place other than your home country, which seems crazy, but is probably helpful if you?re that writer.
Craig: Yes, I agree. For sure.
John: So, today, Craig, I thought we would answer eight questions. Some of them are big questions. Some of them are small questions, but it?s sort of a sampler platter of questions that a screenwriter might have about the craft, the profession, the words on the page. So, shall we try?
Craig: Yeah. I?m excited.
John: Great. So Sarah writes in. She?s a writer who lives in Los Angeles. ?Recently a friend/assistant at a studio passed a video pitch onto me of this guy briefly describing a premise for a sci-fi film.? And actually in the show notes I?m going to send a link to this pitch, because it?s on YouTube or Vimeo or one of those.
?The pitch itself isn?t overly specific, but I was told from his video pitch that he was able to get a few meetings. Is pitching an idea via the web a good idea? Isn?t the probability of the idea being stolen much higher??
Craig: [laughs]
John: I knew you?d laugh here.
Craig: Here we go again.
John: Lastly, ?Could this be the evolution of pitching? If so, I may be screwed because I don?t know if I could even sit in front of a camera.?
So, I watched his video and I?ll send it through to you to watch, Craig.
Essentially it?s a guy sitting at his computer or laptop describing this sci-fi project. Sometimes there are little popup windows to show specific images that he wants to talk about. But it feels very much like if you were in the room with this guy and he was like pitching you a project, that?s kind of what it feels like. And I was actually kind of impressed by it in that he was straightforward, it was direct. It felt like, okay, I can see what this guy is describing in his movie.
So, could you envision a scenario in which people are pitching movies via YouTube?
Craig: Absolutely. I think it?s inevitable. First of all, look at the generation that?s coming. They are the most exhibitionist generation in human history, and not because they are innately more exhibitionist, but because they have a channel for exhibition. And I see nothing wrong with it.
I?m not at all surprised that you liked it. The people who shouldn?t do this are people who frankly are not good in any room. For instance, Sarah is already uncomfortable at the thought of sitting in front of a camera. I suspect that she may be just as uncomfortable sitting across from three jaded executives who are hungry and just want to go to lunch.
But if you are good at pitching, why not? It makes total sense to me. Inevitably somebody will talk about the thing that makes me the craziest, which is the unfounded paranoia that somebody is going to steal your idea. It is less likely, frankly, that somebody is going to steal your ? and let?s stop saying ?steal your idea? because it?s not steal-able, it?s not property ? but it is less likely to me that somebody is going to steal your unique expression if in fact you?ve put it on the web and dated it. Now there is blatant proof of your primacy of authorship. But please understand: Your idea is not something you own ? I?m so sorry ? so it cannot be stolen. There isn?t an idea that?s going to make your career. It?s not about ideas. It is about your ability to write.
John: I agree.
A few points I would make here. First off, the idea of a video pitch: Yes you could make a video pitch and put it on YouTube for the whole world to see. Where I think it might be a more likely scenario for a lot of these people is that you make this video and you send it so somebody but as a private video, so you?re not putting it out there for the world to see. Or you?re sending it to a specific person to describe what it is you?re trying to do.
And really it is an extension of what we?ve already seen happening for the last 10 years, which are these sort of rip reels or rip movies where you are trying to describe what a movie feels like and what a sequence feels like, and you go through and you pull sections from other movies to sort of give you the sense of feel for what the movie is going to be like. Directors have been doing this for a long time.
Joe Carnahan quite famously this last month or two did one for Daredevil and it leaked out online, or he put it out online, so everyone could see that this was the Daredevil movie that he was going to make. This is really the earlier version of that. This is saying what the idea of the movie is. If I were in the room describing it to you, this is what it would be like.
A second point: The reason why pitches are usually done in person is so the person can ask you questions. So, this same kind of thing could happen via Skype and that would be the same kind of thing. What I saw I saw in this YouTube video really could have happened in a Skype situation.
Craig: Right.
John: That I think is going to be incredibly much more common.
The third thing I would remind you of is there is this idea that Hollywood is sort of one way, and that you are always going to be ? that a new generation is going to come in and have to pitch to people who are in their 40s, and 50s, and 60s. No, you?re going to be pitching to people who are your same age. So, if you are comfortable with being on a camera and talking to a camera or looking at things in a YouTube video, if that is something you?re comfortable with in your generation, the executives you?re going to be pitching to are going to be comfortable in the same way.
Everyone sort of enters into the industry at sort of the same age. So if it?s a generational thing that you do make YouTube videos then that is going to become the thing.
Craig: Sure. And finally I will point out that, as I?ve said many times, what we are selling primarily is comfort. We are trying to inspire confidence. And if you can do that through your video, they are going to look at you and say, ?Not only is that an interesting story, but this person makes me feel comfortable. They seem like they?re in control of their story and they seem like somebody I could talk to in a room, and not a weirdo.?
Please understand: When you are out there and you are new, you are not simply competing against me or John; you are also competing against the thousands of people out there who have broken through the gates and been really weird. And so they?re just scared of weirdos. It?s a nice way to inoculate yourself against that.
John: And in a strange way, even if they are hiring a writer, they?re hiring you to write this thing so they should be concerned about the words on the page, a video is telling them a little bit more about like who you are actually are as a person.
So if they had a writing sample and they could see you pitching this thing, they could put them together and say like, ?Oh, that?s a person I could probably work with.? And that could be really helpful.
Craig: Yeah, for sure. I like it. It?s a good idea.
John: Next question. Chris asks, ?What do you and Craig think of HSX.com? If you haven?t heard of it before it?s a stock market esque game based on the film and television industry. If a film is green-lit its IPO is on the market, or it becomes an IPO on the market. The price of the stock is based on a one dollar to $1 million in domestic box office gross in the first four weeks. Additional options become available when the movie opens in theaters. I?d be interested to hear you guys discuss it.?
So, Craig, have you ever played HSX.com, or gone to the site?
Craig: I was a very early kind of high stakes player?
John: I kind of guessed that.
Craig: ?way, way back when it first began.
John: I think I was still in film school when it started out, or an early version of it.
Craig: Yeah. It goes back to the ?90s. I don?t know if you remember, for awhile they were in the old Ritz Furniture Building in West Hollywood.
John: I do. And they used to have a stock ticker that would go past.
Craig: That?s exactly right. Yeah. They?ve been around for a long time. It?s a fun concept. I find that their stock prices are rarely accurate to what I know, because in part, you know, the market for instance, the real stock market will build into prices things like, ?Maybe this new car company?s car won?t actually happen and they?ll go out of business, so we have to kind of price that in.?
You and I will know for instance, ?Okay, this movie that they?re not sure is happening is really, really happening.? So, sometimes the early stock prices tend to be too low, too depressed. They get things wrong all the time.
However, it is an interesting bellweather. I like to go on ? for instance, Identity Thief, one thing I like is I went on to look at Identity Thief, and I don?t know what the price is right now, but they can also show you how many players are holding the stock long, that is to say they believe the stock will outperform the number that?s listed there, and how many are holding it short ? they believe that the stock will underperform. And it was like 95% to 5% holding it long. That?s encouraging to me. It means that people are actually ? that the people who play are optimistic about the movie.
I like stuff like that. In the end, nobody in Hollywood looks at HSX for anything. It is just a game. It is highly inaccurate. But, the people who play it are into movies and love movies. And I have no problem with that; I think it?s cool.
John: Yeah. I have not looked at it in a decade, so I wasn?t even sure it still existed until this question came through. It?s interesting if you?re interested in it. I don?t go to visit it. No one makes their decisions based upon it. All these kind of things like that, or Box Office Mojo, they?re interesting in those moments where that data could actually be helpful to you, or where you?re just thinking, like, ?Well what is everyone else thinking about this thing??
I have a movie coming out, Frankenweenie, October 5th. And like I?m curious what people think it?s going to do. But I?m not going to like ? hopefully ? stay awake at night worried about it, because it is just kind of guessing at a certain level.
Craig: Yeah. Now there was very briefly, I think Cantor Fitzgerald which is an investment house floated a real version of HSX where people actually could purchase real futures based on movies. And very wisely the legislature killed that. [laughs]
John: Yeah, because talk about insider trading. We know so much about that stuff.
Craig: Exactly. It just would have been insane. I mean, just insane. Anybody that wasn?t in the business playing that would have been such a sucker and had such a kick me sign on their back, I can?t even believe they entertained it for a minute.
John: Yeah. Just deliberately tank a weekly rewrite to bring something down.
Craig: [laughs]
John: We would never do that?
Craig: Never.
John: We have too much integrity.
Craig: Never.
John: Never.
Craig: Never!
John: Next question will be so short. Sam in Los Angeles writes, ?Is there anything that can be done about cell phones in movie theaters? Are the people in the industry aware or is there any sense of what to do about it? I imagine it is of great concern to the movie industry as it?s ruining the exhibition of the movies they create. I had an unpleasant experience at ArcLight last night. There were cell phones all around me. Even though I tried politely to ask them to stop it didn?t help.?
Craig: Yeah. I?m sorry, Grandpa. No. There?s nothing we can do about it. I mean, look ? go to a movie theater where people don?t do that, I guess. I mean, I?ve never?
John: But that?s the ArcLight! That should be the ArcLight?
Craig: Are they respectful? I mean, people are respectful, generally. I?ve never been in a theater where people were going crazy with cell phones.
John: Yeah. I?ve been to those, but that wasn?t the ArcLight.
When I was working on Big Fish: The Musical ? which I can talk about now ? a lot of times I just go right from work to see a movie in Times Square. And that?s not the ideal audience to see a movie with in that they tend to be a heavily tourist crowd. There?s a lot of cell phones going on and you just sort of roll with it.
Craig: Yeah.
John: But the ArcLight should be better than that. I don?t know, I would say, yes, ask with sort of authority saying, ?Hey, can you get off your cell phone??
Craig: You can ask. I mean, look ? the bottom line is if somebody, [laughs] everybody knows they run a thing in front of the movie saying shut your cell phone off. So, if they?re not shutting it off and there?s a bunch of people not shutting it off, they?ve already decided they don?t give a damn. You?re in the wrong theater or you are at a move that?s for teenagers who just don?t care. It?s part of their experience, and I?m super sorry dude, but that?s life.
I remember going to see Commando when I was in high school. I went with my buddies. We went to go see Commando. And half the audience was drunk, the other half was high or stupid or all three. People were going nuts, and that was the point, it was Commando for god?s sake.
John: Totally. It?s Commando.
Craig: I mean, I can?t imagine people are going to see?like The Words is opening this weekend. I don?t think people are going to be on their cell phone in the middle of The Words. It?s not going to happen.
John: [laughs] ?Yo! He stole that book!?
Craig: [laughs] By the way, well, maybe I?ll save it for my ? I?m going to save it for my Cool Thing.
John: All right. Next question comes from Peter in Prague. I love that we have people in Prague. I kind of always pick the person who is writing from overseas because it?s just awesome.
Craig: It?s cool.
John: ?In your podcast you often refer to a studio. How many studio execs are usually involved in the decision-making process and give you, or have permission, or are saying ?yes? or ?no? to move a project forward? How formal or informal are these sessions? Do you have to persuade them and fight for every word? Are you given a list of do?s and don?ts? What is that process like working with studio executives??
Craig: Oh, that?s a good question.
John: It?s a very good question, Peter from Prague. And it shows some insight into how the US film industry works which is not how the overseas film industries work.
Craig: Right. Well, obviously it changes from studio to studio. Some studios are very committee like and other studios are a little more autocratic. There are levels at each studio, and roughly the level is you have a creative executive, there is a vice president, there is a senior vice president, there is the president of production, there is the chairman of the studio. And then floating above them is some sort of corporate master.
And depending on who you are and where the development stage is, you may be dealing with somebody low on the totem pole, in the middle or at the very top. It all depends on who you are, what the project is, and at what point in the development process it is.
The meetings themselves aren?t formal, per se; it?s not like you go in and defend your thesis in academia. All meetings ultimately are informal. It?s people sitting around a table talking through what they think. You rarely are given any kind of ? a list of do?s and don?ts. There are notes which are the studio?s opinions and suggestions of what to change and what to keep.
Generally development is a very informal process. I find it to be an informal process.
John: Usually with a project you?ll have one person who?s your point person on the project. And if you are a newer, less expensive writer that person might be a creative executive, so a junior-ish person whose responsibility is to work with you, and the two of you will work together a lot. And then they?ll read the script and then it will go up to the next person who will give more notes. And the next person will weigh in with stuff. And I should also say there is often a producer involved who should be doing some of that work, too, and that can be convoluted, too. So you?re dealing with a producer, then you?re dealing with the creative executive.
But from the creative side, there is generally a junior person. There is a senior person, and that senior person doesn?t have green light power, but it is his or her movie. Like that person will get some credit for making that movie. At a certain point the decision goes up to a studio president who is going to be the green light person who will say, ?Yes we are making this movie,? or, ?We are not making this movie.? Decisions about big actors will go to that person.
And sometimes they will get involved in very specific story things on a movie. With the Charlie?s Angels movie, I?ve told this story before so I apologize, but we were at like a Friday 5pm meeting with Amy Pascal who was the President of Sony at that point. And she said, ?Okay, we are going to cut $5 million out of this budget and we are not leaving until we do it.?
And so she sort of flipped through the pages and she ripped out five. And she?s like, ?Okay, these are gone. Write around them.? And it was frustrating, but that was also sort of her job. She?s like, ?I can tell this is an expensive sequence. We don?t need it. Take this out and that is the decision to make.?
A person at that level would get involved in a project that had challenges, that had some filmmakers who needed to be dealt with by a person at that level.
You often won?t get involved with the chairman of a studio or some really giant person who is sort of a corporate person until a first test screening, and then that person shows up. And that?s when, like, for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, ?Oh, there?s Alan Horn.?
Craig: Right.
John: Because that person is showing up there. This is a movie we?ve made. He is here because the president of marketing is there, too. We have to figure out how we are going to sell this movie and that becomes an important process for him as well.
Craig: Yeah. Good rule of thumb: The more you are being paid, and the more the movie costs, the higher level you?ll be dealing with, because naturally there?s simply more accountability to it. The one thing I would add also is that nowadays it is increasingly common ? I think essentially it is the rule now that the head of marketing is part of that green light committee.
In some cases, in some studios, the head of marketing is part of the ?should we even develop this at all? committee, because ? as we?ve mentioned before ? the cost of selling movies actually outweighs the cost of making a lot of them. And so marketing becomes enormously important.
John: Agreed. Next question is from Charles. It?s about sharing credit. So, Charles writes, ?I decided to team with two individual screenwriters I met on a filmmaker?s social networking site with the idea of collaborating on something together. I came with the initial premise and through subsequent online meetings the premise morphed and the writing began. They each wrote a scene and then flaked out, so I kept writing. One of them read the first draft and gave me some notes. The other one never even read it. So, I?ve registered the script with the WGA under my name only because other than a block of description, a sentence or two of dialogue, and some ideas tossed around in the online meetings, they really didn?t write anything. If I was lucky enough and a company wanted to option or buy this spec do I mention the other two collaborators? Do I??
Craig: You have to.
John: ?Should I include them with any potential buyers??
Craig: Look, this is a disaster, okay?
John: Yes. This is why you don?t do this.
Craig: Yeah. You really, really, you just don?t do this. It?s a disaster because the truth is you?re right, you?ve written 99% of this thing. And any of the discussions and the sort of pie-in-the-sky things, those are ? that falls under producing, sort of. You know, writing is writing, it?s creating literary material. The fact that they have even a word in this script causes you a huge headache.
You may think, ?Well, I don?t even have to mention it.? When you sign an employment contract you warrant in that employment contract under penalty of near death that every word in that script is yours.
John: Yup.
Craig: And if they come after you, and they come after the studio, the studio will turn to you and say, ?You screwed us. And we?re not covering your butt.? See, normally, when the cuckoo army shows up, when they hear that a movie is being made to say, ?Oh, you stole my script!? You know, like in Hangover 2 some nut job said you stole my life, whatever that nonsense was. The studio ? they pay for everything. You?re indemnified. They cover it. They?re like, ?These are our guys, we?ll take care of them; we?ll deal with these lawsuits; it?s nothing ? it?s silly.?
But if you actually did use somebody else?s stuff and put your name on it, brother, you got a world of hurt coming.
John: You do. So, I don?t have the right solution for this guy right now other than sort of like build a time machine, go back, and don?t do that again. If you really wrote every word ? if you wrote 99% of this, go back and rewrite the 1% that they did write. Make sure that they don?t have any ? that there?s nothing that?s theirs that is in there.
Now, you did talk with them originally about this idea and this movie, and I think you need to go back to them. I would go back and sort of retroactively say some sort of shared story, ?This is how we?re going to collaborate on the story of this,? and make it clear that you wrote this whole thing, but you want them to be acknowledged somehow.
Craig: Listen. If I?m your lawyer I know exactly what I would say.
John: Tell me.
Craig: You have to go back to these guys and offer them some amount of money, $500, $1, $1,000, whatever it takes ultimately to purchase them out as works-for-hire for you. And now you?re covered.
John: That?s a good? ? See, listen to Craig.
Craig: But, it?s a negotiation all of a sudden. And, you know, any time people feel like they have leverage on you they?re going to squeeze. So, now all of a sudden you?re into a lawyer, plus you?re into them. It?s a disaster. You can?t ? you guys: Never do these things. Never do this sort of thing. It?s just a disaster.
John: Yeah. And this would have been easier if he hadn?t already said that he wrote the whole script. But they now know that he wrote the whole script, so they know that they have leverage.
Craig: Yes. Exactly. If you do it before that, you say, ?Listen, guys??
John: ?Listen, do you guys really want to do this? Let me just buy you out of this because I think I really want to write this whole script and you don?t seem that into it.?
Craig: ?I?ll give you each a couple hundred bucks and some Starbucks cards and get out of my life.?
John: Yup. That would have been great. It?s not going to happen that way.
Craig: No. [laughs]
John: Here?s a happier story. This is a tweet from Kelly Gibler. She writes, ?My script made semifinals for both Austin and Sundance. I want to get some representation. What should I do??
Craig: Oh, didn?t we do the ?how do I get an agent? thing?
John: No, but this is a? ? I phrase this, put this under ?capitalizing on some heat.?
Craig: Okay.
John: Because here?s the thing: It?s great that your script made semifinals. That?s useful. So, it?s a somewhat different situation than like, ?I just wrote a script??
So, here you wrote a script that?s actually pretty good. That?s a distinction between I think the general case scenario of like ?I want to get an agent,? because maybe you?re no good. Well, she?s actually probably pretty good because she made semifinals. So, that?s great.
So, what does she do with this little bit of heat that she got off of making semifinals? Suggestions, Craig?
Craig: Well, hold on a second: We don?t know that she?s any good from semifinals. I?m talking now as a perspective agent. All we know is that she?s not super duper bad.
John: True.
Craig: You have to win one of those things for me to think that you have actual heat. I mean, there are a billion people in semifinals all day long. To me that doesn?t mean anything yet. I don?t think there?s real heat yet.
John: I would advise Kelly Gibler, me being the sunshine and rainbow part of this podcast, I would advise her go to Austin. Go to Austin because you?re a semifinalist. And go in Austin and see what Austin Film Festival is. And as you meet people there and as you meet agency managers, because there will be some there, be like, ?Hey, I have a script that is a semifinalist.?
Talk to them about it. Don?t be overwhelming with it. Just happily give it to them. Get business cards. Send them your thing. Just try to schmooze it up as much as you can.
You can also do that online. I would say you are not going to get real agents probably to read your thing, but there are going to be some agents? assistants at some of the agencies who are, like, they?re looking for somebody. They?ll read your script because you?re not just nobody. You?re somebody who has a little bit of validation because you made some level there.
If only it gives you enough incentive to feel like you can introduce yourself to somebody, that?s a good thing.
Craig: Yeah, I?ll be meaner about it, or just glummer I guess. I think you have to win. I don?t think semifinal means anything. I think you have to win. And even when you win, there is questionable heat. That?s how grumpy I am about the state of affairs of getting an agent.
John: I feel like I need to mention the Nerdist Writers Podcast every podcast that we do. But I was listening to one that had a panel of people, and unfortunately it?s very hard to tell their voices apart, so it could have been Kyle Killen or it could have been somebody else on the panel. But he was crediting his wife or his girlfriend saying, ?She made me go to this party and she made me talk to the agent, and I was so nervous about doing it, but then he read it and he really liked it, and that got me started.?
Craig: Good.
John: And so sometimes you have to just be awkward and uncomfortable and make that first conversation and you never know.
Craig: It?s a funny thing. Actually I love that story because it proves, frankly, that actually just standing next to somebody telling them something interesting is worth so much more than finalist Austin Film Festival. And I say that as somebody that?s judging [laughs] the finals of the Austin Film Festival this year for screenwriting.
John: That?s awesome.
Craig: But it?s not about ? I mean, I think if you win it is important. But there is no replacement for eye-to-eye contact.
John: The other reason she should go to the Austin Film Festival, of course, is that we are going to be doing the first ever Scriptnotes Live at Austin Film Festival.
Craig: Yay!
John: We have absolutely no details because we really don?t know anything about what?s happening with the Austin schedule. But, we?re going to be there and we?re going to be doing this kind of podcast, this kind of conversation, but with a giant room full of people.
Craig: Huge room. Sick.
John: It?s going to be exciting. I?m not going to be nervous. I?m just giddy about it. It?s going to be really fun. And I think we?re going to have an awesome guest.
Craig: [laughs] You?re giddy!
John: I?m giddy.
Craig: Oh, that?s great. I?m glad. One of us should be giddy about it.
John: Our next question is from Erin in Chicago. She says, ?I recently completed an Associate Degree of Nursing. Near the end of my program I realized my passion is screenwriting rather than nursing. Coincidentally, also began to make arrangements to move to Los Angeles prior to finishing nursing school. I?ve heard you say that if you want to learn the industry your best bet is to get some sort of job in the industry. While you and Craig have been clear on your views on the necessity of film school, or lack thereof, the advice always presupposes that a person has an undergraduate degree, which I do not. Is it possible for me to find an industry job without a BA? Or should I start looking at colleges again??
Craig: Oh god. Argh. This is where I want to be super supportive and give you the answer I?m supposed to give you per the manual of being supportive. But really what I want to tell you is: be a nurse, because it?s so hard. I get so scared at the thought of somebody who?s in nursing school ? we need nurses. God knows we need them.
John: America needs nurses.
Craig: And they?re going to move to LA and they don?t have a college degree. And they don?t?
John, am I just too down?
John: No. You?re not too down. But I think we can take your frown and turn it upside down.
Craig: Thanks.
John: And make it good. Here?s the thing, Erin: You have an Associate Degree in Nursing, and that?s awesome, and that?s very relevant to nursing. I think you?re going to have a hard time getting one of those classic industry kind of jobs with an Associate Degree in Nursing. Because it?s not like people have, ?Oh, you have to have an Ivy League degree,? or something, but everyone you?re going to be competing with for those jobs is going to have, like, an Ivy League degree, or at least like a pretty good university degree there.
And so it?s not like people are looking at resumes that carefully, but they?re going to notice that you don?t have that. But, here?s what you do have with a Nursing Degree and the move to Los Angeles. You have a job. And a job is a really good thing.
Craig: Yeah.
John: So I would say: Move to Los Angeles, be a nurse, take extension classes at UCLA where you?ll actually learn screenwriting, and just learn screenwriting. And learn if screenwriting is what you actually really want to do. And if it is what you really want to do, no one is ever going to care whether you?ve got a Bachelor?s Degree or Master?s Degree or whatever.
I have an MFA. No one has ever cared.
Craig: Seriously.
John: The degree itself matters nothing.
Craig: Exactly, like Diablo Cody.
John: Diablo Cody.
Craig: I don?t know if she has a degree. Who cares if she has a degree?
John: No, she?s awesome.
Craig: She?s awesome. And she wrote a great script.
Listen, this is really important. People will write into us and they?ll say, ?I realize that my passion is screenwriting.? You don?t know what screenwriting is, okay? Because it?s a job and you?ve never done it. Your passion is writing. And you like the idea of writing screenplays, but that?s not what screenwriting is. Screenwriting is a job where you write and also get punched in the head a lot. And also are on set. And also are in meetings. And also kind of produce and handhold, and cajole, and hustle.
There are moving parts to this you can?t imagine yet. And so the thought that you?re now ? not only is the pyramid?the pyramid preexists you, but you?re now digging down and putting another layer in which is, ?Well, but before I can really start the incredible uphill climb becoming a screenwriter I first have to go to college now so I can start the uphill climb.?
And I?m like, oh god, I just want you to be a nurse and write. And John?s answer is perfect. I hope you take his advice. Move to LA. Be a nurse. Put money in your pocket. Pay your rent. Not freak out and worry. God knows you don?t want to pile on tuition loans at this point in your life ? it?s crazy and pointless. And take extension classes. And read screenplays, and watch movies, and write scripts.
And if it happens, it happens. And if it doesn?t, you?re helping people and you?re earning money, thank god.
John: Those are good things. Has there been a great movie about a nurse? One Flew Over the Cuckoo?s Nest, but that?s not really what I?m talking about.
Craig: No.
John: So write that great nurse movie.
Craig: Right. Or TV show. I mean, there is a Nurse Jackie, but that?s one kind of nurse show.
John: Well, yeah, I mean, ER is kind of a nurse show, too. But, yeah, come on. I would say be an awesome nurse. Keep your eyes open. Figure out what the story is about nursing. Write that movie and win an Oscar. Done.
Craig: Please. For everyone: Do not take on debt to be a screenwriter. That is a super stupid thing to do.
John: Yeah. I agree with you. I think if you were getting a Bachelor?s Degree, that?s awesome, and making you a fully actualized citizen, I?m okay with some debt there. I will say like as an alumni of USC Film School, which is kind of very expensive, I shouldn?t say that you shouldn?t take on debt for it, but it?s questionable, I?ll give you that.
Craig: My point is don?t take on debt to be a screenwriter. There are degrees ? some people are wealthy, and a liberal arts education for them is a luxury that they indulge in, and that?s great. Some people are not, but they do it because they foresee an improvement in their potential for salary. And so there is an investment. And it?s not simply debt; it?s an investment. I understand ? it should pay itself off and then some.
But, there is no educational investment that?s worth making that requires debt to be a screenwriter, because the odds of you being a working screenwriter are very, very small. And also the thing that you?re going into debt for will not help you be a screenwriter, okay? But being a nurse?it?s wonderful.
John: Being a nurse is wonderful. So, being a nurse is wonderful. The only thing, my defense of film school, even for screenwriters but less so for screenwriters than other crafts, is that you are paying that money to enter into a cohort of incredibly motivated film people who will be your peers and allies for the next 20 years, which was very much my experience coming out of the Stark Program. The only people I knew in Long Angeles were my 25 classmates. And they have been incredibly helpful to me my entire career. And I would not be here without them.
Craig: But to me, I call that the two school exception. If you get accepted to NYU Film or USC Stark or Film, go. Because you?re right ? there is a real potential for value there. If you are not, don?t.
John: Yeah. I agree with you there. Last question is from Kenneth. He writes, ?I want to write a screenplay based on a foreign novella that was written in the 1930s. I contacted the translator of the translation I love and he said that it hasn?t been optioned, but he recommended I also find out if the original foreign text has been. I plan on doing that, but there?s a further complication. It was already adapted to the screen in the ?70s.
?So, in order to write a fresh adaptation do I simply arrange an option with the original text publisher, or will it be an arrangement with the company that owns the ?70s adaptation of the film? Since the book has already been adapted what do I do??
So, I can start and you can correct me when I get something wrong.
Craig: Yeah.
John: When in the ?70s they made that movie, they bought the film rights to that book. And so in buying the film rights to that book, they probably still have the only rights to make the movie version of that book. So you will not be able to make a new movie version of that book without negotiating with the people who made that film. You disagree?
Craig: Not necessarily true, especially if it was made in the ?70s. A lot of times the rights cycles were not in perpetuity. These days corporations are way too smart. They license everything? ? Well, the way they license things, there are usually cycles to the licensing, but once they actually exploit the license by making the property, they get an exclusive right to adapt that property for that medium for in for eternity throughout the universe?
John: ?All known or unknown??
Craig: But in the ?70s it may have been that there was a limited rights cycle, even if you were to make the movie your rights to make a movie based on that property expired after a certain amount of time. So actually the first step: you would go back to the original text ? the translations are essentially irrelevant ? go back to the original text, original author, that publisher; find out what the situation is with the rights, if they are available for adaptation. Sometimes films are adapted in one country but the worldwide rights or the US rights are still available.
It can be complicated.
John: Yeah. I would amend this to say that you do need to go back to whoever owns the foreign rights. You want the foreign book rights, whatever that is, that?s the core rights there. I would not take them at their word that they have all the rights to something. There could be other encumbrances that you?re not aware of.
You don?t want to spend years of your life trying to do this thing and then have it be shut down for something that you can?t understand or control. And I say this as a person who just very recently went through a strange situation.
Craig: There are companies that do these title searches, right?
John: Yeah. So they can do a copyright search that would be helpful. But as much digging as you can do the better you?re going to be in the long run.
Craig: Yeah.
John: And I say this from personal experience, two things that happened to me very recently were just like, ?Whoa?! These are giant corporations; they should have figured that out and they didn?t.? So?
Craig: Yeah, for sure.
John: So Craig, it?s time for One Cool Thing. Do you want to go first? Should I go first?
Craig: I?ll go first because One Cool Thing did come to mind. And it?s The Words. It?s this movie opening, and by the time you hear this podcast it will be out in theaters near you. It?s called The Words. And I saw an early cut of the film and I loved it.
John: This film stars Bradley Cooper and Zoe Saldana.
Craig: Bradley Cooper, Zoe Saldana, and Jeremy Irons. And so I really loved the movie. And it?s about writing. It?s about writers.
John: Isn?t it about stealing an idea? It?s about copyright?
Craig: And I sort of thought the whole thing is a really interesting meditation on how all writers feel, even in moments of inspiration, a bit like a fraud, because did they write it? Or where did it come from? And should I take pride in what I do? Is it mine? Did it just happen? It?s an interesting movie for writers.
Now, I have to say: Today I saw that it was coming out and I went, ?Oh yeah, that movie ? I really liked that movie.? And I checked to see what kind of reviews it was getting, and it was getting ripped apart by critics, and I was shocked. Shocked.
And I felt really bad for the filmmakers because I actually thought they did a spectacular job. Maybe I?m the only one. Maybe people out there will see this movie and say, ?No, the critics were right.? I just think the critics were off base. I really, really enjoyed the movie.
And, yes, I?m friends with Bradley, and it?s not about, ?Oh, Bradley Cooper needs more people to go see Bradley Cooper movies.? It?s a very small movie. I think it was made for like $4 million. I really loved the story. And I loved the way the story was structured. So, I don?t know, I thought it was a Cool Thing. I stand in defiance of the critics. I say it?s a Cool Thing.
John: So here?s the thing about the words for me is it stars Bradley Cooper and Zoe Saldana, who are beautiful people. So as long as it?s relatively well shot you get to look at beautiful people for 100 minutes.
Craig: Having sex at one point.
John: See? Come on. You sold a ticket right there.
Craig: She is?
John: She is stunning.
Craig: And I?ll circle back to Bradley, but she is stunning. I met her once, very briefly. I was standing outside with Todd Phillips at Warner Bros. We had a little spot where we would stand. He used to smoke. He doesn?t smoke anymore, but he would go outside to smoke and I would stand with him. And she came by because it?s this alleyway ? it?s famous people alleyway. They?re coming and going all the time. And he knows everybody. I don?t know that many people, but I get to sort of secondarily enjoy meeting these people.
And sometimes you meet famous people and they are so beautiful on screen and then you meet them in life and you think, ?Oh, you?re somehow diminished by reality.? She?s actually more beautiful in real life. She is unbelievable. I just thought she was gorgeous.
Bradley, [laughs], is also really, really good-looking. And it just makes me angry sometimes. I just look at this guy and I?m like, ?What is the deal?? Like, ?How did you get that hair? How did you get that face? This sucks. Why do I look like me??
John: And then he breaks out his fluent French and you just want to kill yourself.
Craig: Oh, and then it?s just, ?Come on, bro.?
John: So I shared a mat with Zoe Saldana because she used to workout at the same gym as I used to workout at. At first I wasn?t sure it was her because I agree with you that she is incredibly pretty and she?s one of these people who is actually noticeably pretty even outside of all the glam and all that stuff. But when you see people in workout mode, they?re smaller and they?re just doing their thing. And so they?re not able to carry themselves in their sort of beautiful mode.
So, I noticed her, but I was like, ?Ah, she?s really interesting.? But it took me half an hour to sort of go, ?Oh, ?and that?s Zoe Saldana.?
Craig: I think this is your might be gay moment, like you might be gay if?
John: You don?t notice her?
Craig: You?re working out next to Zoe Saldana sweating?
John: No, I noticed she was pretty?
Craig: ?and it takes you a half an hour. I mean, dude. She?s so?
John: Yeah.
Craig: But, look, the truth is I?m 40% gay for Bradley. I really am. He was on the cover of, I don?t know if you saw this, he was on the cover of the Hollywood Reporter this week.
John: No. I don?t get that.
Craig: Well, I mean, I saw a copy of it on the newsstand. And the picture of him, oh my god ? it?s just not fair.
John: I remember Bradley Cooper from Alias, and he was always the one, like, ?Why are you not being highlighted more?? He was comparatively the nice chubby guy on that show, which was absurd.
Craig: I know, but now?
John: Because he was the best friend. He had sort of no real function.
Craig: And he really is one of the? ? There is something about male stars in Hollywood, the real iconic Hollywood faces, as they get older they just get better looking. It?s fascinating. It really is.
John: One of my theories with that is that we just become so accustomed to looking at their faces and knowing, like, ?That?s a handsome person,? that our idea of what handsome is becomes that thing that they are at the moment.
Craig: I understand. Yeah. There is another thing though that happens with men. See, to me, masculinity is obviously ? a part of being handsome is masculine features. And I think as men get older they tend to lose more facial fat?
John: They get harder.
Craig: ?and there?s a certain weathered, masculine rugged thing that begins to happen and sort of accentuates the masculinity. And they just look manlier and manlier as they get older. Like, I see a picture of Brad Pitt and there is gray in his beard and suddenly he?s cooler looking all of a sudden. Whereas unfortunately for women it seems like the world perceives the opposite ? as they get older somehow because I guess femininity is so closely linked to youth or something.
John: Yeah. You had brought this up in an earlier podcast, and I thought of it after we recorded it, my counter example, because you were complaining everyone was like, ?Oh, for a woman in her 70s she?s so beautiful.? And you were like, ?No she?s not.?
Helen Mirren I will say is actually the exception to me. And I know everyone sort of brings up Helen Mirren, but I think she?s genuinely sexy at her age.
Craig: Yes. You?re right. Helen Mirren, yes.
John: Because you see her in a swimsuit and you?re like, ?Wow, she actually has an amazing body.?
Craig: Yeah. And I don?t mean to come off as a sexist. It?s just one of those biological things. The male brain ? I tend to find younger female faces more attractive. Oh boy, here I go. Here comes the mail box. But, what am I gonna do? But, you?re right: Helen Mirren is beautiful. And there are older women that are beautiful, don?t get me wrong.
But in general, you look at these male stars like Clooney. Look at Clint Eastwood. I mean, Clint Eastwood is 80-something years old. And he looks almost skull-like at this point, and somehow that makes him really good-looking. That?s bizarre.
John: Prior to a few weeks ago I would have more gone with you there. How much do you not want to be Trouble with the Curve right now? The Clint Eastwood movie coming out.
Craig: You know what? I don?t think it impacts it at all. I really don?t. I?m serious. I don?t think that that ? I mean, you?re referring to his strange speech to a chair.
John: Yes.
Craig: I don?t think that people do or don?t go to movies because Clint Eastwood spoke. I mean, you think it?s going to impact the box office?
John: Here?s why I think it could impact the box office is because the moment that there?s another narrative, another narrative overtakes the narrative of the movie, it really I think hurts a movie. And my example for this is Charlie?s Angels 2.
So Charlie?s Angels 2, we have the three angels coming back, and, like, they?re bigger stars than ever, and Demi Moore who I ? I fought for Demi Moore. I love Demi Moore; I think she?s awesome. But, the only thing we could actually get people to talk about in the two weeks before the movie came up was her relationship with Ashton Kutcher and her showing up at the premiere with Ashton Kutcher and Bruce Willis.
And so like we?re throwing this $2 million premiere for the movie and all the cameras are tuned out to these people who aren?t the stars of the movie. And that?s all the press we got was that.
Craig: And I get that. But here?s the thing: That story overlaps with the general movie-going interests than Oval. Because people who are interested in Charlie?s Angels 2 are also really interested in who Demi Moore is sleeping with or not sleeping with or whatever. But I don?t think it overlaps movie-wise.
And, also, don?t forget that there are a lot of Republicans out there and I think they tend to do ? you know, the Republicans?
John: It honestly may be fine for it.
Craig: And the conservative movement tends to do well at putting people on busses to go to things because they?re in support of it. Don?t be surprised if churches show up to Trouble with the Curve.
John: We?ll see how it turns out. So, Craig, my One Cool Thing is a thing that I just can?t believe is real. So let me describe it to you. As we talked about at the head of the podcast, you are a very busy guy. Like, you?re making a movie, I have a movie coming out, and you?re going to be busy throughout the fall and into the winter, right?
Craig: I am.
John: I also know that you?re really big on deadlines. So, if you were out sick for a week that would be a really bad thing, wouldn?t it?
Craig: It would be disastrous.
John: Yup. And so it?s a weird thing because I feel like because we work for ourselves there?s this assumption, like, ?Oh, you can be sick and it would be fine.? It?s like, no, it?s actually kind of even worse to be sick by ourselves because we don?t really have sick days. And I guess if we?re not in a busy period of time it?s not so bad, but if we?re in a busy period of time it?s kind of awful. And especially if you?re on a weekly, I mean, I don?t want to ask you what your weekly quote is, but it could cost you a lot of money.
Craig: A lot.
John: A lot.
Craig: I?m not saying for me, [laughs], I didn?t mean to be bragging, like, ?Yup, a lot.? I?m saying in general, yes, weekly?
John: Yes, it would be a lot.
Craig: Yes, it?s a lot of money ? for the average screenwriter it?s a lot of money.
John: So, this is pretty amazing, and I don?t know why people aren?t talking about it more. It?s this insurance you can buy, so you can only buy it once a year, but here?s what the insurance does: If you get sick they will send somebody out to do your job for you.
Craig: [laughs]
John: No. Listen to me here. They will do your job for you. So you will still get paid, but you also won?t fall behind.
Craig: That doesn?t work for us.
John: It actually works for us. That?s the most remarkable thing. Like you think, ?Oh okay, that would make sense if you were a data entry clerk,? but it works for everybody. It doesn?t matter what your profession is. It works for everybody.
Craig: But how would it work? We?re hired for our unique ability. How could somebody?
John: You want to think that you are irreplaceable.
Craig: ?AETNA to come work on your pages?
John: So you?re basically irreplaceable is what you?re saying?
Craig: Well I?m not saying I?m irreplaceable. I?m replaceable by you. But I?m not replaceable by a guy from State Farm.
John: Yeah, okay. But, I mean, it?s very hard to find somebody else to do your job. And so you reall
forrest gump bernard hopkins nfl draft grades devils dodgers sf giants rachel maddow
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.