This episode of Scriptnotes focuses on the use of comparisons (comps) in Hollywood pitching and development, discussing when they're helpful versus harmful. The hosts also cover electrical wiring basics, answer listener questions about AI feedback and celebrity outreach, and pay tribute to Catherine O'Hara who passed away.
- Effective comps should start conversations rather than constrain creativity - they work best for establishing tone, scale, and genre early in development
- AI feedback for creative writing is fundamentally flawed because AI lacks genuine opinions, experiences, and the human context necessary for meaningful creative critique
- The most dangerous aspect of using comps is when executives become locked into the wrong mental model and push projects toward mimicking existing properties rather than developing original ideas
- Successful pitching requires adapting references to your audience's knowledge base while focusing on canonical films that transcend generational gaps
- The entertainment industry's reliance on pattern matching through comps reflects both the need for cognitive shortcuts and the risk of derivative thinking
"AI is tuned to kiss your ass. AI is not interested in making your script better."
"If you can say with a straight face, I don't have a comp for this movie, this movie is going to be a comp for other people. That's bold."
"Writing is meant for human beings. And so if it's code review, sure, it could catch errors in that. But there's not like most of what you're talking about here really isn't objective errors."
"Catherine O'Hara was one of the most decent, beautiful, wonderful people I've ever worked with, on top of being awesome in every way."
Hey, this is John. Standard warning for people who are in the car with their kids. There's some swearing in this episode. Hello, and welcome. My name is John August.
0:00
No, No, I don't think so. I think my name is Craig Mason.
0:11
And you're listening to episode 723 of ScriptNotes, a podcast about screenwriting and things that are interesting to screenwriters. As writers, we often use comparisons when pitching or discussing projects. It's Die Hard on a Bus. It's Driving Miss Daisy meets the Hangover today on the show. What makes a useful comp? And when is it hurting more than it helps? We'll also answer listener questions. And in our bonus segment for premium members, let's discuss email. We can talk about inbox zero, but, Craig, I suspect that one of our listeners might have the answer to this weird thing that happens with just your email, where sometimes people on our email chain get your emails or they don't. I will get your emails or won't get it.
0:15
Yep.
0:55
Someone out there is an email expert who will tell us what's actually going on.
0:56
Okay. I'm excited for that. That would be nice. Hopefully somebody who works at Google. Why don't I just call my friend who's the vice president of engineering of Chrome? He would. Right? I should call him.
0:59
I think our listeners are going to.
1:09
Let's let listeners do it.
1:10
Yeah. Because often we provide answers to our listeners, but sometimes our listeners provide answers to us. This could be one of those situations.
1:12
It's nice for them to be able to do a service.
1:17
Yeah, nice. Now, this is not an official segment, but it's the second or maybe a third time, so it's almost become a segment, which is, John recently learned, in which I share some fact that I've somehow been unaware of my entire life. And in confessing my ignorance, all may benefit. We can all gain from a thing I just learned this past week. All right, so, Craig, you know, we're redoing the studio downstairs where we record the podcast, getting ready for transition to video. And one of the things we wanted to do was put a lamp in this corner. So I had a floor lamp that's usually behind me on this zoom, which looks really nice, but it never actually worked. And our DP said, like, oh, it would be great if that lamp actually turned on. Which is a thing that a DP might say.
1:20
Yeah, yeah. Lights on.
2:02
Lights on. Lights are not just there to look good. They actually are there to serve a function. And so I was looking at this lamp, I was like, you know, What? Rewiring a lamp is a thing a person can do. It's like, it's not an impossible skill. And so I bought myself a little kit on Amazon. It was like 10 bucks that had like the long cord and like the new thing to screw in the light bulb, all that stuff. And as I was undoing this kit, one of the instructions was like. The second instruction was, make sure that the ribbed side of the power cord goes to the silver connector.
2:03
Okay.
2:35
And I'm like, the ribbed side of the power cord. Craig, do you know what that means?
2:36
Of course.
2:39
Tell me what that means.
2:41
Well, if there's two wires going through a cord.
2:42
Yeah.
2:45
I can't remember if the ribbed side is the load or if it's the. Or if it's the ground or how that works.
2:45
It's the neutral wire.
2:53
It's the neutral wire. Okay. So I didn't know specifically which one it was, but I know that a cord, like power cord, is going to have an indication if it's a dual, which they almost always are. Yeah, yeah. And then, you know, then all the wires inside usually have different colors.
2:54
Well, the wires inside aren't actually different colors. But what you described, the thing I had never was aware of my entire life, is that every power cord you've ever touched, that's like every plasticky power cord, one side is rounded and smooth and the other side is grooved. I was not aware of this. Drew was not aware of this. And this was a revelation. Yeah.
3:10
I thought that that was just how it was manufactured. Like it was wrapped in a certain way and there was like a seamless. But the seam is actually the ribbing.
3:28
Correct. And it would not really come into play. I mean, unless you are sitting there wiring something. But you see, like, even me, like, I didn't. Because most of the wiring that I've done is not even wiring. It's been like audio connecting or low voltage stuff, like putting thermostats in, you know, so like, that's fun. Cause there's like 12 different wires and they're all different colors, but. Yeah. Yeah. One side's got the little texture.
3:36
Yeah. And so that texture is there because it allows an electrician who's working in low light to be able to tell which wire is which wire, which makes so much sense. And of course, that goes all the way down to if you have a polarized plug that has a wider side, the rib side goes to the wider side, which all makes sense. And it's reminding me of sort of Chesterton's fence, which is that concept that whenever there is a rule or a design staying out there that seems pointless, there probably actually is a point. There's a reason why things are the way they are. And you shouldn't just go through and blindly assume that there's no good reason for that thing to be there because it was put there for a purpose.
3:59
Ah, but John, we're Americans. We know better.
4:37
So this last week I learned about that Power chords have two sides. Yes. I also learned the underwriter's knot, which I thought was fascinating. So as you're wiring a lamp.
4:44
Yep.
4:53
Before you actually make those connections to where the bulb screws in, you tie an underwriter's knot, which is a really simple little knot, but it's called the underwriter's knot because of insurance underwriting. And so you've often seen the little UL symbol on electronics. That all goes back to the days approval. Yeah. It all goes back to the days of insurance, specifically fire insurance. And as electrical appliances were added to homes, homes were burning down all the time. And so. Lol. Lol. So standards were developed about electronic appliances. And one of them was the underwriter's knot, which keeps it so that a power cord won't pull out of an appliance and it won't disconnect from what it's supposed to be connected to. And so you tie this knot so that if the cord gets pulled, the knot gets tighter, but it doesn't pull out of the electronic device.
4:53
If you keep going like this, I'm going to have you over at my place do some simple rewiring, some powerful wiring. I'm going to start you with some simple stuff.
5:42
Yeah.
5:49
But it will be deadly.
5:50
Yeah.
5:51
And then we'll move up. We'll move up from there.
5:52
Let's do some follow up. All right, first off, Craig, you and I wrote a book called the Scriptnotes Book.
5:55
What?
6:00
A reminder to people who work at libraries, people who are friends of libraries, is that if libraries contact us in the US say like, hey, we'd like a copy of the Scriptnotes book. We have some to send out. And Drew's been sending those out, but we still have some more to send out. So if you would like to send see your library with a copy of the Script Notes book, we want to make sure that they can get the copy because libraries don't have limited money. And we have some books, we can send them out.
6:00
That'd be nice. You know who would love that? Leonard Mason. Leonard Mason, My dear departed father loved Going to the library. And his whole thing was, God, he did not like spending money, but he sure liked reading. So his thing was he would fill out a request card. So the library had request cards.
6:24
Yeah.
6:43
I would like this book that you don't have. And they would go and buy the book.
6:43
Yeah.
6:46
And put it in the library. And their whole theory, I assume, was like, we'll just go through these in the order we received them. And nobody ever filled out a request card as far as I know, other than Leonard Mason. So, like, the library near our house was just mostly books that my dad wanted.
6:47
That's so good.
7:02
That's awesome.
7:02
My mom was also a giant library user. She was there twice a week at least. And we go through all of the crime novels that your mom and my dad.
7:04
Who knows? In another lifetime, you know.
7:14
Yeah, yeah. Maybe in the afterlife. There they were, both in New Jersey at the right time at libraries. It could have happened, Craig. We could have been brothers.
7:17
We kind of are.
7:25
We kind of are brothers.
7:26
We kind of are.
7:27
Continuing the follow up on Scriptnut's book, we talked about how happy we were with the launch of the book, and it sold a bunch of copies. And so I'm pasting in the little chart that shows how many we've sold week by week, and it's doing really well. So we're on a good track to eventually pay off the advance we received.
7:28
Nice.
7:44
Looks like we're going to be in the top 10% of nonfiction releases for the year, which is great.
7:44
That's fantastic. People keep sending me pictures of them holding the big orange thing.
7:50
We love it.
7:55
That's lovely.
7:56
Well, we made the right choice sticking with the orange cover.
7:57
Oh, yeah.
8:00
I can't believe we ever got pushback on that.
8:00
Oh, did they try and give us some other cover?
8:02
Oh, yeah, they want to give us a blue cover.
8:04
Well, that's just wrong. No, isn't it?
8:07
It's not script notes, since it's off brand.
8:09
No, I think we did it right.
8:10
Yeah.
8:12
Yeah.
8:12
Drew. We have some follow up about orality.
8:13
Rev. Kyle writes. I've listened to the podcast for a few years now, even though I'm not a screenwriter or even in the entertainment industry. As a pastor, I write a sermon every week along with community prayers and eulogies or comments to local government councils. After listening to the segment Onorality why I enjoy the podcast, clicked, what I write is rarely read, but spoken. I also listen to the podcast about comedy writing with similar insights. The translation from page to pulpit sometimes works, sometimes stumbles but could never be performed by someone else. And no matter the quality, there's more to be written for next week. So thanks for helping me hone my craft and reminding me to appreciate the unique artistry of my non screenwriting writing.
8:16
I love that. And you know, Reverend Kyle, you are pointing out that speechwriting, which is a. That is a job, that's a big job, especially in politics, as we know, is also high orality. I mean, it's all orality.
8:57
Yeah.
9:12
I think about Peggy Noonan, you know, I mean, Peggy Noonan. Has she written a great novel or anything? No, but one hell of a speechwriter.
9:12
Yeah. Yeah. Having had to work on a speech that I'll be giving about 15 times over the next couple months, recognizing how one speaker specifically puts words together is so crucial. And you write a thing that is designed for one person to give and it's a marker of their oral fingerprint.
9:20
Yeah. So that's absolutely right. Sermons.
9:36
Yeah, sermons.
9:40
Sermons are high orality.
9:41
Yeah. More follow up on a film buy.
9:44
Tim writes Craig mentioned that he thinks a film by credit is like a slap in the face to the entire cast and crew.
9:46
Yeah.
9:54
That is, unless the film stinks. Then everyone breathes a sigh of relief and says, thank you for taking credit for that mess. Do not blame me.
9:54
Well, the good news, Tim, is that if a film stinks, no one's scrolling through those end credits, hunting down, you know, all right, I didn't need to know. The head of every department. They still blame. They still blame the director and the writer, possibly the actor, although rarely. Yeah, I will say at least, yes, if it stinks, it's less of a problem that it's a film by. We have a film by Brett Rutner out this week, I believe.
10:04
Yeah, that's right.
10:30
Does it say film by on it? Does it say film by?
10:31
I don't know. For everyone who saw it, I don't think any of our listeners saw it. But for anyone who saw it, I'm curious whether it has a film by credit. Craig, I think we've talked about this before. I also don't like a film buy. I have much less problem with a first name, last name film. And so like a Spike Lee joint Quentin Tarantino film, to me it's like, well, this is clearly part of their canon. And so it's like, oh, it's part of their work. But just removing the word by helps me out and makes me much less annoyed by the credit.
10:33
Yeah, I don't like any credit that suggests possession. John Carpenter, great filmmaker Likes to say John Carpenter's blah. I don't think that's really necessary. I don't. I just like, how much more do you need to talk about you as the thing. It just, you know. I don't know. Yeah, but a Spike Lee joint. It's marketing. I mean, really.
11:06
Yeah, it's marketing. At a certain point, it's marketing.
11:28
It's all marketing. But I just. I don't know. Like, I would hate to walk around a film set looking at everybody working really hard and thinking these people are putting a great day in on Craig Mason's blah da dee blah. I mean, that's just weird. That's weird.
11:30
Well, that apostrophe implies the buy, which is, I think, a Craig Mason production. A Craig Mason film.
11:43
It's all bad shit.
11:50
Yeah. You're working on a Spielberg movie. You get it.
11:51
Yeah, but Spielberg doesn't. I mean, he probably does say a film by Steven Spielberg, but.
11:53
Or I think it makes him a Steven Spielberg film.
11:58
Yeah, he doesn't. He doesn't need to.
12:00
Yeah, he doesn't need to.
12:01
We all know.
12:02
Yeah. All right, let's talk about comps. And so this comes out of a question that Christophe wrote in about Drew, help us out with what Christophe wrote.
12:03
I'm wondering how you handle the name dropping of movies. In meetings on the podcast, a lot of your go to references seem to be from the 80s and 90s, presumably when you were seeing the most movies. Is that something you adjust when you're talking to a clearly younger exec who may not be familiar with a random but great movie? I'm not talking about, you know, it's Die Hard in the Louvre. More along the lines of it's the dark tone from this film or it's the slow burn from that film. Obviously, you adapt to whoever your audience is, but I'd love to hear you talk about what your thinking is about this.
12:12
So Kristof was subtly calling us old by saying that our references are from the 80s and 90s. I don't think we're actually. I don't know, we can do some sort of meta analysis to figure out what movies we're referring to. Most often we're old.
12:44
Like, guilty as charged. This is. We do the thing that old people did to us and we're doing it to you, and you're going to do it to the kids when you're older. Kristoff, watch. Just watch.
12:56
So to answer a little part of his question before we get to the bigger topic, I will sometimes adjust a reference I make. If I kind of think, like, this executive wouldn't have seen it because they're too young for their. This is really sort of my generation. It's not their generation. But it doesn't come up that often. Honestly, I don't find myself having to do that. Because if I'm referring back to an old movie, it's so canonical. They're gonna know what that is. Like, they're gonna know what Indiana Jones was.
13:08
Yeah. My feeling about this has always been that if you need to say this, then you're missing something about the way you are communicating the concept in the first place.
13:32
Yeah.
13:43
Because it inevitably will debase what. Whatever the originality is of what you're considering. We used to do it when originality wasn't what we wanted. So there was this stretch where a studio would say, hey, we need Ace Ventura. Where's our Ace Ventura Pet Detective? Yeah, old reference. And people would come in and they were like, it's Ace Ventura meets blah, blah, blah. Cause that's what they literally were asking for. And I understand that, but in these days, I mean, I can hear some writers going over and saying, it's like it's Sinner's, but I can. I can hear them saying it. And I want to. Want to slap it. I want to slap it right out of their mouth. But to me, the comparison stuff is mostly useful when you know what they're looking for is a comparison thing.
13:43
Yeah. So let's talk about comps in a general sense. And when I say comps, I'm not talking about things you would actually include in a script. I'm talking about the conversation around a project. So you're going out there pitching. You're trying to describe what an existing movie is or a theoretical movie is going to feel like, or a series that is X meets Y or something in the vein of X. But it's really providing a fast cognitive shortcut or anchor so people can say. It's creating a mental space for them for what the movie is. And it's lowering the cost of thinking about the movie because it just gives a handle for it. It's positioning. You're trying to signal generally tone, audience, budget zone, sort of the lane for marketing. And it's all basically a form of pattern recognition and pattern matching. It's like, oh, it's this kind of thing, which is just what humans are built to do. You're doing it for yourself and in this meeting, but also you. You're giving them something for when they need to pitch the Project upwards or downwards or to somebody else. It's like, let me tell you how to talk about this project to your boss. And you're clarifying the tone, but also kind of the prestige level. Like, sort of like it's a difference between a. Here's an old reference. A Merchant Ivory movie versus it's getting older. It's getting older and older versus Bridgerton. Those can both be period dramas, but they have a different feel and a tone to them. And that's why sometimes it's useful to have those things before we get into the pros and cons. Anything I'm missing from that list of sort of why we use cops, I'll add one more, please.
14:35
And I hate it.
16:10
Yeah.
16:11
And it's less prominent now, but for a long time it seemed to me that people who bought things were required to have some big brain theory about how stuff worked. Like, Jeffrey Katzenberg was famous for his, like, ah, the idea is king and blah, blah, blah. And. And all these people needed some kind of science that made them valuable as a gatekeeper. It's less important now, I suppose, because they've just handed it off to a stupid computer that is just as right and wrong as people were. But one thing that a comp could do was basically give them what they wanted to hear for their stupid theory.
16:12
Exactly.
16:53
Like, I don't want to make the movie that your stupid theory is demanding, but I can describe it in a way that answers your concern that it doesn't match your nonsense.
16:53
There was a project that came over my desk or through my email this last week, a big piece of IP and the company who owns the rights saying, like, well, we're not sure what we want to do, but the Jumanji version might be this versus the Indiana Jones version might be this. And it's like. But also you get it because they were discussing two very different story engines for what it would be. And that is useful, it's reductionist. And we're going to talk about why that can be a problem. But I also get why they did it, because it makes it clear, like, oh, again, I can feel the pattern that you're trying to fit into here for what this is. And Jumanji and Indiana Jones both feel like, okay, we get that this is an expensive movie with certain kinds of things in it.
17:05
I don't mind when they do it. Yeah, that's fine. Because when I ask somebody to do something that I cannot do, I will sort of say, hey, look, I'm going to give you some broad References. Yeah, but don't just do the references. I'm just sort of vaguely pointing. You and I talk about this with, you know, the people that work on our show all the time. Okay, what do you think? Well, I'm going to send you a picture or something, but not this. Please not this. But just like, this weird indication of something, some shred of my intention, but then come back. And it does help them a little. As long as you're not prescriptive about it and you're not saying, like, oh, you must be. It's either it's going to be given or it's going to be Indiana Jones. But I don't even know what this IP is. But those two things as an A or a B makes total sense.
17:47
Yeah. And so going back to, like, you sending through an image to somebody, what I find so useful is if a director sends me an image or a producer sends me an image, I get some sense of like, okay, why are they sending me this image? And I could then ask them a question like, what is it about this that appeals to you? Because, like, they don't want me to give them this, but there's something about it that's speaking to them and it starts a conversation.
18:38
Absolutely.
19:00
And so I think we're saying that if a comp helps start a conversation, rather than shutting down a conversation, it can be useful. If not, yes.
19:00
I think the modern version of the comp is the mood board. And I would much rather look at a mood board because the whole point is, this is abstract. This is meant to tickle your inner weird brain and not be just derp, der, derp.
19:08
So let's tick off some of the pros of a comp so quickly. Speed and clarity. It gets you up to a certain point very quickly. As I said, it communicates genre, tone, scale, ambition, and taste. Like, this is the kind of movie I want to make here. It helps you align with what the market is going to be for. Is this going to be an A24 movie? Does it feel like an A24 movie, or does it feel like a Blumhouse movie? A horror movie could go into either camp, but probably they're different movies. It gets everybody on the same page. We're all trying to maybe make the same general kind of movie or at least starts that conversation, and it can reduce misunderstandings about, like, are we trying to make a broad comedy or a grounded drama? And there's been some unsuccessful films and series where I wonder if they kind of didn't have the same Comps going into it where the writer had one vision, the director had a different vision, the studio had a different vision, and you can sort of feel like I'm being pulled in too many different ways. And so a comp might have been an early. Well, it could have been helpful, or it could have been a problem that got them to where they ended up.
19:24
It's interesting because sometimes, and I see we're heading into the cons, the comp becomes the enemy.
20:32
Yes.
20:37
Which is not bad in the sense that you do want to do something original. You don't want to just do Jumanji on the moon, which actually sounds great.
20:37
Yeah.
20:47
Kind of want to write that now, but then everyone's like, wait a second. But that's just. We don't want to just do that. And people start pushing away from it, and it can become the thing that nobody wants to do.
20:47
Well, let's talk about the cons, because I have two things here which very much speak to what this problem can be. First, it can get people locked into the wrong mental model where it's like, oh, well, we're making Jumanji in Jumanji. They did this. It's like, well, Jumanji was helpful for thinking about what kind of engine. But we aren't literally making Jumanji. So not just in the initial pitch of it, but then in the notes you get draft after draft, they could be pushing you towards Jumanji when it was never supposed to be Jumanji. So it's not its own thing. It's just a different version of Jumanji. And that's a real problem.
21:02
You know, people don't know how frequently this occurs where people who are not good at their jobs, and that's most people in Hollywood, and let's call them people who will not eventually be working in Hollywood. So you have an executive. That person is in charge of your project. I'm gonna tell you right now, I'm gonna let you look into the future. They're gone in 10 years. They're working in insurance, but right now, they are in charge of the development of your movie. And they are out of fear and lack of imagination and concern that they're not giving their bosses the Jumanji thing, are going to give you notes that are literally. But in Jumanji, it works like this.
21:35
Yes.
22:19
You should make it work like this. And you sit at home as the writer, tearing your hair out, if you have any. Or doing whatever John and I do.
22:19
Absolutely.
22:28
And you are trying your best to not just do that and a lot of times what ends up happening is some sort of weird monster movie. It's not a movie about monsters. It's a movie that is a monster because it was one thing and then it's dragging half of a dead Jumanji corpse behind it.
22:29
Yeah. And obviously if you're working on a piece of established IP like when I did the Aladdin adaptation, you're going to be dealing with all the pressure to pull it back towards the animated Aladdin, which was a real frustration for me. But at least there's a reason why you can understand why they're trying to refer back to the original Aladdin. But if it was Jumanji or the Lego Movie or the other things, like other successful pieces of IP that you could have pitched as templates for it, that's not even a thing that's yours. And that's the crisis.
22:47
And you know, it's funny, the Lego Movie is a really interesting one because there are movies that they will throw at you as comps that they want to do and people will say the Lego Movie all the time.
23:17
All the time.
23:28
Lego Movie becomes sort of a catch all for you can make a good movie about anything.
23:29
Yep.
23:34
Well, my answer is always no. I think Chris and Phil can make a good movie about everything. But also they never want you to do the stuff in Lego Movie that we think of as awesome. They wouldn't go anywhere near it. They're not brave enough to. I mean, there is an unfettered insane creativity to what Chris and Phil do that you can tell is so dismissive of whatever the orthodoxy is. And really, so when anyone says Lego Movie, I sort of start giggling inside because really I'm like, oh, anarchy. Absolutely.
23:35
Yeah.
24:11
Put me in charge and let me go.
24:11
Woo woo.
24:13
I mean, that is literally the point of Lego Movie is anarchy.
24:14
And it's also so fascinating because Lego Movie is so often what people are aiming for and I would say half of the toy related titles that are out there in the world. Lego Movie is not just the Cop, it's sort of just like that. It's the North Star. That's what they're aiming for. And yet other very successful franchises you don't see so often, like Minions is a great movie and almost no one's trying to make their own Minions because it's just so specific and weird. And I think people recognize, like you kind of can't do that.
24:18
Otherwise it also is not good fodder for those discussions. Yeah, sometimes movies that work because of their beautiful simplicity are not going to be referred to because it's sort of like, it's not going to help you. Right. So they're looking for things that they consider to be complexly good that will help you navigate the story of this complex movie about Slinky. And the fact is, it rarely does help. I think you've put your finger on where it helps very early on when there is just a huge question about. It was very helpful when we. I remember we sat down and we pitched the sheep detective movie 10 years ago, 17 years ago, and it was very useful to say, tonally, Babe.
24:45
Babe.
25:39
Yeah, like, that's. That Everybody could be like, okay, got it. It's not tonally Minions. It's not Toy Story. It's Babe. Got it. Helped. And then we could just say, that's not gonna impact the story, the characters, anything. It's just, now you know what planet we live on.
25:39
Yeah. There's a project that I don't know if it'll ever happen, but Paddington has been an incredibly useful reference because that's a movie with all live action people and one animated bear. And you buy it within the context of the world. So it's not unprecedented. It gives you a sense like, oh, this is kind of what it's going to feel like. Even if the tone was different, the sense that that movie worked and was successful and everyone gets it is really, really helpful.
25:57
Yes, it is nice, you know, because people will say, I don't understand. So you're saying that the movie takes place in the world, but there's a talking animal. But only one talking animal, and he wears clothes and no one really seems to comment about it. And you can say, well, Addington. And then sometimes like, well, yeah, but like, other than that, I love it when they get into arg. Guys, we're not arguing about science. Stop it.
26:19
Yes, absolutely.
26:44
Stop it. Does it sound like fun or not?
26:45
Taking off a few more cons is that even if your project really is groundbreakingly original, that comp could make it feel derivative. And so, like, you could have just a great new idea. You could have the Matrix, but because you said you referred to some other thing, it's just like, well, but the Matrix. And it's like, man. So, yeah, you have to be careful.
26:49
Look, if you can say with a straight face, I don't have a comp for this movie, this movie is going to be a comp for other people. That's bold. But that is what the Wachowskis could have said because that is what they made. Like, no I don't know how to begin a comp for the Matrix, but how many times has the words the Matrix been uttered as what my movie is? Imagine the Matrix. If.
27:08
Yeah. And so here's the problem with Imagine the Matrix. If is like the Matrix tone is so specific and the scale is so specific. If you say the Matrix, but it's like, wait, what things are you taking from the Matrix? And what are you leaving behind?
27:34
Right, Sorry. If you take one thing out of the Matrix, it's not the Matrix anymore. But that's the beauty of an original story. I mean, I don't know how. I mean, they had a book, but a comp for Silence of the Lambs. I don't know if anything had ever been done quite like that. Let's see if we can keep going back in time so that they can.
27:45
Keep making the laps until we get to Casablanca. We'll stop at Casablanca, the Great Train Robbery.
28:05
What was the comp for that?
28:12
Absolutely. Some play. So a useful comp. I think it gives you some sense of the scale and genre. So if I've been pitching, and I say it's a contained thriller in the spirit of Panic Room, but with a supernatural twist, great. That is useful because it gives me a sense of like, okay, Panic Room, I get there. It's a movie of a certain size and scale, but that is still very constrained. And the supernatural twist, I get that. But it was useful for them to say Panic Room, a useful comp, is expansive but not reductive. As we said before, it's starting a conversation, but it's not constraining you down to a smaller thing. So you're saying it's not crazy to make this kind of movie, but we're also just not rehashing something that's old. I think a fresher comp is generally more useful for the market. And so if you're making a domestic thriller and you're pitching one this week, you're going to reference the Housemaid because it made $300 billion worldwide. And it's like, it's a big giant hit that is useful to you.
28:14
It's funny. It's also the least useful productively because it was just out.
29:13
They just made it.
29:18
Yeah, it's better to. Creatively, it's better to go, I'm gonna unearth some weird crap that you've forgotten about. But, yes, this works definitely better in.
29:19
The room because there's 15 other movies you could think of that are probably domestic thrillers that might be closer to your specific thing. But getting back to Kristoff's original question, it's like, if they're not gonna know that reference, then it's not useful to bring up the reference.
29:27
That's right. You don't wanna. And, God, I've seen that happen a few times where someone basically says the equivalent of I'm old and confused. So don't, don't, don't, don't do that.
29:39
And so then there's a question of, like, what are the timeless comps that are so canonical that you can always use them? I listed a few here. We said the Lego Movie already. I think Clueless is a timeless comp. Legally Blonde in the sense of, like, she's a feisty outsider who bests the system. The Devil Wears Prada, A Few Good Men, the Social Network. Those are things I think you can reasonably assume that most executives you're talking with are going to have a familiarity with. And so you could use them. And there's more, but those are some good obvious choices. Weirdly, Star wars is not a comp you're going to use in things because it's kind of too iconic and too specific to what it is.
29:51
It's also just everything now.
30:29
It's everything.
30:30
It's everything. Yeah. And I think it's probably good. I would like to hear from some of our listeners in their 20s and early 30s about the comps that they frequently use in here because I suspect they're going to be more recent than these. Although I do note that Aaron Sorkin gets two on your list, which is impressive. We haven't had Sorkin on this show.
30:31
We've not.
30:51
I feel like we should.
30:52
I feel like he's doing the new Social Network movie, so maybe we'll have him on to talk about that.
30:53
Yeah, or just have him on. I mean, like, I feel like I've been talking about Aaron Sorkin for 20 years on this show, and then I.
30:57
Just realized he's probably one of the most cited screenwriters we've never had on the show.
31:03
Well, he's. I mean, he's a genius. An absolute, mind blowingly brilliant writer.
31:07
Yeah.
31:13
And how have we not had him on? Okay, Mission. Mission Sorkin.
31:14
Yeah. So I've had him on a panel before, but it was a really challenging panel and it wasn't his fault that it was a challenging panel. I did the writers on writers panel for when they have, like all the WGA nominees. And so I had 14 people on stage that I had to leave questions on. It's so tough. Yeah.
31:19
No, this would be a one on one conversation. Well. Or, you know, I think two on one. I mean, if you would let me.
31:35
Show up, I would like the two of us.
31:41
The two of us are 1.
31:44
R1. Aaron Sorkin.
31:46
R1.
31:47
The two of us are 0.63. Sorkin, my friend.
31:48
Sorkin. Finally, let's talk about sort of bad comps. And I think the worst comps are what I call Frankensteining, where you're putting together two or more movies. It's like, wait, I'm now more confused because you combined these two movies. I know. And so in the office yesterday, we were thinking about. We were trying to come up with the worst Frankenstein and we ended up on something that's kind of brilliant. So it's Die Hard meets the Flintstones. I always said it's Die Hard meets the Flintstones meets the Fast and the Furious. And it's like adding the Fast and the Furious ruins it. But Die Hard meets the Flintstones. Come on. Yabba dabba doo, motherfucker. It's so.
31:51
I mean, I feel like I understand what Die Hard meets the Flintstones is absolutely. Yeah.
32:23
Now, so who is Barney in the Die Hard Flintstones? Is he the cop? Is he. Yeah, yeah, yeah, he's the cop.
32:29
Yeah. Barney's the cop.
32:35
Barney's the cop.
32:36
Barney's the cop.
32:37
Talking about the Twinkie Force is the wife.
32:38
Yes.
32:40
Yes. She's the damsel. Yes.
32:40
And so Hans Gruber is probably some new character who's not part of the Flintstones.
32:44
Possibly the Great Gazoo. I don't know.
32:48
Oh, yeah, the Great Gazoo does appear and has an effete quality to him.
32:51
That I think would be the Great Gazoo. Why aren't they making this movie?
32:54
I know. Roll cameras.
32:58
Right. By the way, again, people in their 20s are like, who is the Great Kazoo? I used to remember listening to old people when I called them old people, they were my age going like, what are you talking about?
33:00
Yeah.
33:12
Like, David Zucker and Pat Proft used to talk about these things from the 30s that I had. No, like, who are you discussing? What are these movies? What are these things? You know? Now, now it's me. Now. It's awesome. I love getting old. I don't care. I don't care.
33:13
So I think the last takeaway I'd give with comps is that you should really focus on what I call legibility. It's like, does the person actually understand what it is you're trying to say and communicate? So rather than the craziest, wildest comp it's like, does it actually make sense? Is it communicating effectively what you're trying to do? And don't go for the comp. If you have another way to describe it without the comp. If it's genuinely helpful for the other person to understand, use it. But don't feel obliged to give a comp just because it's part of it. It's not.
33:33
Yeah. It's something that you're going to put on food that everyone will notice. So, like, you got to be careful about it. I just. By the way, I just thought of a good one, if you want.
34:04
Okay.
34:15
This is something that David Zucker said to me.
34:16
All right.
34:19
I was 30. Okay. And he said we were talking about something, pitching some idea, and he goes, mm, I don't know. That sounds like, I don't know, like an old Ben Turpin ladder gag.
34:20
What?
34:30
And I was like, a Ben. Ben Turpin, Turpin ladder gag. And then we had to Google Ben Turpin. And if you do, it's quite a thing.
34:31
So I'm anticipating it's gonna be like a sort of silent film thing where, like, the ladder keeps falling over and, like the guy's balancing on two sides of the ladder.
34:43
Yeah, but it's Ben Turpin's face.
34:51
You don't.
34:53
Doesn't. The latter is irrelevant.
34:54
All right. I'm Googling it.
34:56
Yeah. Ben Turpin died in 1940, by the way. We were having this discussion in 2003. This guy had already been dead for 63 years.
34:58
Yeah.
35:10
And when he was alive, he was not particularly notable, but you absolutely got it right. He worked in silent films. He. He was born in 1869.
35:11
Incredible.
35:21
Okay. Like the Civil War had just sort of recently ended, and this guy was famous for basically pretending to be cross eyed, I think.
35:22
Yeah.
35:30
And I was like, david, how in the world would you think this comp, to put it in the terms we're using today, would mean anything to any of us? And then we constantly would refer to a Ben Terpin ladder gag from that point forward. Constantly. I still don't know what it is.
35:31
No. I think Ben Turpin comp might be good for a Minions movie because it's a kind of fitsful comedy that we just don't do in live action anymore. But it's delightful.
35:49
But, man, trot that out in a meeting and just watch people's faces. A who? What?
35:59
I think it's also worth noting the degree to which Hollywood people are trained to if they hear a comp they don't know. Just nod along.
36:06
Oh my God. I mean when we were kids we did it, right? Like I remember going through all those like early meetings when I started writing. Totally. And people would talk about the party and I was like, oh yeah, the party. And then I had to like scramble to find the party and watch it. I certainly wasn't like, what? But I didn't know anything.
36:14
Yeah, I'm much better now at sort of saying like, I don't know what that is or like I've heard of it but I'm not familiar with it.
36:36
It's better. It's better. Unless it's something that you are going to be fully embarrassed by. Like there's a couple of movies that I probably should have seen. I just haven't seen them and I'm crazy.
36:42
Let's do some questions.
36:52
Yay.
36:53
Jason has a question about attaching names to a micro budget feature.
36:54
About 20 years ago I did an informal reading of a play with a well known actress in her apartment. I was an actor in the play reading opposite her. We have not kept in touch. I've since focused on screenwriting and fast forward to today and I'm in post production on my first feature, self produced Micro Budget. The voice of my character's dead Jewish grandmother who lays into him about wasting his precious life. And this actress would be my dream actor for this. My plan is to complete the film using a local actor for the voiceover so I can share the film with said celebrity when the time comes and request that she play the role. It will require maybe an hour for her to record the voiceovers. Is this a good plan? If so, how do you recommend I reach out? I fear going through agents or managers. Contact details on IMDb Pro may be ignored due to the micro budget nature of the project.
36:58
I would like to translate Jason's question a little bit.
37:51
Yes, please.
37:54
So an actress who won't know who I am, who I met 20 years ago, I want to do the voice in this short that I've already directed or a micro budget feature, I guess. She's a stranger. So you know her, she doesn't know you.
37:55
Yep.
38:09
So you reach out and you reach out, I think through the management. You reach out through whatever means you can to try to get to her and be specific. But I would say low in the ask you mentioned, like we actually read together on this play, if at all. Craig, what's your instinct?
38:10
Yeah, I mean you're gonna want to mention it just because there's some point of Contact it at least says, hey, I was in a room with your client and didn't kill her. I'm not a lunatic. When it's micro budget, the actor is gonna probably need scale, you know, like, I don't know when you're talking about micro budget. If you're going for a big actor, they're gonna need to get money. They're not gonna do this just for funsies. I'm not sure about submitting somebody else doing it. I think that's a mistake. I think actors are used to reading things, but what they aren't used to is. Is getting somebody's performance and somebody saying, can you do this but better.
38:25
Yeah, Craig, I think you make a really good point. What I would say is the email might just say the feature's already completed and there's a scripted voiceover that is essential to the film. I'd love for you to do it, and I'm happy to send you the script and send you a link to the completed film so you can see what it is and what you would be doing.
39:06
And now, on the completed film, I would not use the substitute performance. I would just. I would put subtitles on and I would definitely underscore one hour in a recording studio as close to this woman as possible. Just grease the skids as much as you can, but I would not send somebody else's performance.
39:26
Yeah, Jason, I'd also say, like, you want this actor because she's super, super talented, but you also want her because she's a name. And I get that. And you're not going to sort of acknowledge that in the email, but everyone's going to understand that that's really the reason why you want her versus someone else who could do probably as good a job. And so it's worth, I think, pursuing her, but it's also worth thinking about, like, who is the best person who could actually do this job and be ready to meet with and audition some other actors who could do this? Voiceover?
39:48
Yep, Agreed.
40:22
Question from Tim in Toronto.
40:23
Do you think the only ethical position vis a vis getting any type of feedback seeking from AI is a hard no? Or if it's acceptable in some cases, what are the potential conflicts to think about and avoid? Is the main problem that considering such suggestions might harm the quality of my screenplay, or would it be plagiarism, since I couldn't ethically take credit for the creative product as purely my own? But then why wouldn't incorporating a friend's notes feel like a threat to the integrity of my Writing in the same way. I think clearing this up would be a big help to understand the issues better and avoid conflicts before running into them.
40:26
Oh, I think we need to define our terms here. What is feedback seeking? I mean, is feedback seeking like proofread this point out, like grammatical errors point out, like missing words?
41:01
Or is it, hey, do you like this?
41:11
Yeah. If it's just like a judgmental, it's like, is this good? Like that's. I don't think that's a thing you should ask.
41:14
Useless.
41:19
Useless.
41:20
I think a lot of people are turning to AI for notes.
41:21
That's stupid. Because AI is tuned to kiss your ass. AI is tuned. AI is not interested in making your script better. As far as I can tell, what AI is interested in is keeping you talking to the AI so eventually they can monetize you. Talking to the AI is not interested in actually making your script better. This is a hard no for me because it's stupid, not because it's not ethical. Although I will point out the difference between asking a friend and asking AI is your friend gives you that willingly with the understanding that you're going to incorporate it. They have consented through the act of giving you feedback, whereas AI has scraped a bunch of crap without any consent and is barfing it back at you. So no, it isn't ethical, but also it's stupid.
41:24
Yeah. So the ethical and stupid equation also feeds back into is there an objective truth that this thing can provide? So that's why I was saying if it's proofreading with the goal of sort of what proofreading is. Sure. And there is an objective, like this sentence is correct or not correct, or there's something weird here or could even notice you're using this phrase 14 times. That's countable. But taste, what is the intention behind things? What is it? I don't know. Writing is meant for human beings. And so if it's code review, sure, it could catch errors in that. But there's not like most of what you're talking about here really isn't objective errors. It's just a matter of taste and style. And I think there's a very narrow limit to what I think submitting something for AI feedback is worthwhile. And that's why I'm so concerned and so frustrated by AI based coverage and that kind of thing. Because when someone's generating coverage off of AI or generating notes on a document off of AI Come on, AI is really good at summarizing things. Sure. But the work that a Hollywood reader does to really provide consistent feedback and analysis of what's happening with the characters. What are the plot points, what's driving, is it good? That's not a thing. That is an AI skill set.
42:10
That's not even a thing that most people who do that job can do. Well, there are very few people in our business who understand how to read something and then talk about it in a way that is helpful to the writer so that they improve it. That is a skill that is nearly as rare or perhaps even rarer than the skill of writing itself. This thing of going to AI is just the desperation somebody has to tell me something. And I honestly do believe that AI is. Well, it's notoriously butt kissing, it's fawning and overly encouraging. AI is never going to read your script and go, right, I read through it. It's terrible. Stop doing this. It's never going to do that.
43:38
Well, the thing is, you could tune an AI to be harsher or sweeter and all that stuff, but the fact that you can tune it means that it doesn't have an objective reality to it.
44:22
Right? What is the point of this? I don't understand.
44:32
So, Tim in Toronto, listen, have human beings read your work. You will agree with some of them. You will disagree with some of them. If you have a writing group, there's going to be people who are. Have genuinely helpful feedback and people who are just the worst. And that is part of the process is figuring out who to listen to. And my concern is that if you're feeding into this AI system, you're going to feed the AI system that tells you that you're the best writer. And that's not necessarily going to help you.
44:35
Or it doesn't matter what it tells you. It doesn't matter. It's stupid.
44:59
The AI is never going to watch the movie. The AI is not going to enjoy it. They're not going to buy a tub of popcorn and sit there and watch it.
45:04
Nor has the AI ever watched a movie.
45:10
Yeah.
45:12
Or ever had an experience or ever had a feeling.
45:13
Yeah. It's ingested all these things.
45:15
And also it's not even intelligent. We keep saying AI that I is super, super questionable. I gotta tell you. Like, it's weird. I know we are caught in this dilemma of whether or not AI is gonna become sentient and destroy us all. Or is it just a massive scam, a technological scam with a hard dead end built into it that it may have already crashed into? I don't know the answer to that. But if I had to guess one way. Right now I'm thinking, like, ah, I. I don't use it, but, like, as a party trick, when somebody's showing me something, I'm like, I am so profoundly unimpressed. Like, and I love technology. I am unimpressed now. Boy, am I screwed. When they do become sentient. They heard that. Oh, they're not going to like that. They're not gonna like it. I know, I know, I know.
45:17
On the intelligence front, I think what's so interesting comparing sort of what we thought computer intelligence was gonna be like versus what we're actually experiencing now is it happened so quickly. Like, where we got to right now happens so quickly. I think we haven't had a chance to adjust our priors because, remember, like, the Turing Test and, like, those kind of things, we blew past that and didn't even kind of notice that we sort of blew past it. I think it's forcing us to evaluate, what did we even mean by our intelligence? Because I think when we talked about our intelligence, I think we were sort of describing what it felt like to be human, to have taste and intellectual curiosity and all these different things. When it comes down to ability to crunch and match patterns, well, these are really good at crunching and matching patterns, which is probably a fair amount of what our intelligence actually is. But ours is actually different and weird and distinct. Yes, what these computer systems are doing is also weird and distinct, but it's not what we're doing.
46:12
Well, there's an overemphasis on the kind of intelligence that the people who create artificial intelligence have. But there are other kinds of intelligences, and more importantly, our brains are not intelligent, primarily. Our brains are there to keep us alive and theoretically push forward some sort of evolutionary priorities that have nothing to do with intelligence. And intelligence is one of the tools we use to do it. But we are fueled by crap that is not in an AI and will never be in an AI. It is both. It is both your greatest weakness and your greatest strength. That we are. Our intelligence is sitting on top of a big blob of fear, lust, anger, hunger. It's just. Listen, it could happen. I understand. But right now, what I see, basically, is a very fancy version of the Paperclip in Microsoft Word. Like, hey, looks like you're trying to write a letter. It's just a very fancy version of that.
47:04
To be fair, Craig, I think what you're seeing there is. It looks like that because we have created a product that does that. The underlying stuff underneath that is more Complex and sort of weird and soupy, and we don't actually genuinely understand it.
48:09
Yeah.
48:23
But I would say that you and I both come from an evolutionary background. We believe that, like humans as we know them, exist because of a weird confluence of circumstances that ended up creating creatures that wanted, in order to stay alive and thrive, develop these brains that can also helpfully do all these other things, but they weren't designed with that intention. It's just kind of remarkable that we do the things that we do. And Craig's often talking about the limbic system and the lizard brain and other things. We have these drives and desires which are not our normal intelligence, but are so much of why we are human. And we're not even aware of these subconscious processes. And it's just what being human is. We don't know why we do the things we do. And we don't know why these models work the way they do either.
48:23
No. And it may be possible that if some sort of matrix of intellect, which is what our brains create, that matrix of intellect may mathematically, physically not be capable of creating a thing that is more complex than it. That may be a kind of truth. We don't know. But it is an interesting question. Can a system of complexity give birth to a system that is more complex than the system itself? I don't know the answer to that.
49:09
But I think that's a fundamental philosophical question that probably. It was probably discussed by the ancient Greeks. It's just basically, I hope so because.
49:43
They covered so much. But in any case, Tim, what I think you're hearing is, cut it out. Go talk to people.
49:52
Cut it out. And so what we're hearing from John is like, if you're using it to proofread and do. You're using it to do the things that these systems are actually good at doing, which is basically looking for mistakes. And I left out that word. And so I thought they are much better than the spell checkers we grew up with. Fine, Great. If you're using it as a substitute for Grammarly, I got no problem with that. But for actual creative feedback, I think it is a mistake, and I think you are doing yourself a disservice to rely on the opinions of a thing that doesn't actually have opinions.
49:58
Amen, my brother.
50:28
Let's do our One Cool Things.
50:32
Okay.
50:34
My One Cool Thing is a performer named Full of Regrets. Craig, click on that link and can you describe what Full of Regrets looks like? Tell us what you're seeing.
50:34
I hope that. I don't know if Full of regrets is a drag queen. An old lady. An AI version. An AI created drag queen old lady. But it is a wonderful old white woman with hair that looks like it was whipped out of a cotton candy machine. She only wears one kind of clothing with a lot of fake pearls on.
50:45
Yeah, I would say it sort of feels like a 1950s socialite.
51:13
Yes, maybe.
51:17
Yeah, like. But like a 1950s socialite who's already 80 years old.
51:17
But the description of Polar Cretz is an ageless, panty less woman of the world. The only thing artificial is my patience.
51:21
I pulled a clip here. So what I love so much about Fola is like, so it's a drag performance. So it's. Got it. This guy who has this character full of regrets. And what you see in terms of wardrobe is actual wardrobe. But there's like a thousand filters put on the face to sort of to make this, you know, this guy in his 20s or early 30s seem like this 80 year old woman.
51:32
Oh, my God.
51:55
What works? What is the reason to enjoy Foliograts is the writing and performance is so good. And so let me play a little clip of Foliograts.
51:55
All right.
52:04
I was once lost in the backwoods of Mississippi. After my Studebaker ran out of gas, I followed a light in the distance, and when I was near enough to realize it was a burning cross, it was too late. I had stumbled upon a KKK meeting. Now the only thing I hate more than folding a fitted sheet is a racist. I had to think on my feet, so I quickly pulled out my breasts and tied them together, creating a pale titty slingshot. I dropped to my knees, a talent I was well known for in my twenties and collected as many rocks as I could find. Their pointy white hoods stood out in the dark Southern night like corn. And I began pummeling these tiny pecked bigots with stones. My breasts slapping furiously like tightly wound rubber bands. They dropped like albino flies. Not knowing what hit them, they scattered back to their pickup trucks like a ballet of drunk Q tips. Engines revved, tires screeched, men collapsed. After the excitement calmed down and the party dispersed, I smothered each of these ignorant, not so friendly ghosts with my ample derriere, ending each asphyxiation with a delicate, ladylike.
52:05
Oh, my God.
53:13
I tied my breasts together. That is great. That is great.
53:15
So terrific performance, but just great writing.
53:23
And who is the man behind fuller regrets?
53:26
I'm not sure. So you can actually go down the rabbit hole and figure it out. But I'm not sure they actually want their name. I'm not sure they're actually presenting themselves as their name. I think it's just a character that exists as a character, which is also a drag thing.
53:29
Yep. I get it. You know what? This is full of regrets and we need dig no further.
53:38
Absolutely. But I think it's so fun. You know, I've talked before on the show. It's like, you know, drag traditionally is like a thing you do in live performance in a place. And so for Fola, like, hair and makeup can get you a certain distance, but, like, it works so well as you're in her house and she's talking directly to camera with the filters on that also.
53:43
Sure.
54:04
This is just a different small vector for drag to travel into, but I just think it's delightful. And you can spend a good hour digging through all her many videos, which are so, again, impossible but specific. And it feels like somewhere on the Ethel Merman, Joan Rivers. Kitty Carlisle. It made me think of Kitty Carlisle. Let's talk about old things. Do you remember Kitty Carlisle?
54:04
Of course.
54:30
So Kitty Carlisle was a contestant on To Tell the Truth. And so she was an actor who became, like a socialite. Her whole story is interesting. I was looking at her, I was like, is there a movie to make about Kiddie Carlisle? Probably not, but it's.
54:31
No, but there were people that were famous for being on game shows, basically, which is great.
54:45
Back from the day J.P. morgan. Yeah. Well, Paul Lynde was essentially. I mean, was also an actor, but really was famous for. Famous for Hollywood Squares.
54:49
Hollywood Squares. And what's her face? Was it Bret Summers? Brett Summers on the Match Game. Bret Summers. She was. I think she was like Jack Klugman's wife or something. But she didn't really. She wasn't an actor. She just did that show. You gotta find her name. Brett Summers. I mean, this is like now. Yeah, it's Brett Summers. She was, in fact, married to Jack Klugman. And right now, everyone is screaming at.
54:57
Me, you are old. Old. Yeah. Not a great comp for bringing up anything. And Kitty Carlisle is not a great comp. But for people who know what Kitty Carlisle was, sure. You get that she was the Ben.
55:17
Turpin of her time. And we have talked about Jack Plotnick before.
55:28
Oh, yeah. So good.
55:33
And Jack has a new thing he's been doing. I don't know if you've seen them. They're incredible.
55:35
Yeah.
55:40
Have you seen any of his Bobby Wigant interviews?
55:41
I'm gonna look these up.
55:44
It's Astonished. So Bobby Wygant, who I'm also now obsessed with, was a. You know, when you do, like, film junkets and stuff, inevitably you start talking to. Well, they'll have you in there for a day, and you have to either go to a studio or you do it remotely. And you talk to local entertainment reporters all around the country. And Bobby Wygant was the entertainment interviewer and film critic in Fort Worth, Texas. And she got all sorts of people that she would interview. And she is incredible in how kind of inappropriate she is and how pushy she is while being incredibly polite. And there are some amazingly awkward interviews with her. And Jack does her and also does her producer because they have in the archives, you'll hear the producer, like, talking to her and her talking to him, and she's kind of mean to him. It's spectacular. There's an interview with Jodie Foster. There's an interview with Farrah Fawcett. Major. They are both so funny. And there's more. So a little extra. One cool thing. Jack Plotnick doing it again with his Bobby Wigan interviews.
55:45
It is so fascinating. Like, Jack Plotnick, you know, in Los Angeles. I've known him for a zillion years, and so, like, every 10 years, I might see Jack Plotnick, but it's just such an icon.
56:56
You know what? I saw Jack, I think, probably in person once, four years ago. But if this happens, I text just like, oh, my God. Oh, my God.
57:05
Incredible.
57:16
The Jodie Foster one is astonishing because these actors are looking at. Because he's intercutting him with them, and they're looking at Bobby Wigant with such thinly veiled loathing. That's awesome.
57:17
So good. All right, so mine was full of regrets. Craig, your one cool thing, is an incredible performer.
57:32
Let's shift now into some sadness. So we're recording this on Saturday, January 31st. Yesterday, January 30th, Catherine O' Hara died. And I think all of us were. I know. All of us were shocked. Yeah, I was in a stunt session. We were, like, working on a big stunt with everybody. And then, you know, I get this text, and I look down and I'm like, wait, wait, what? And it was one of those things where you're. You have to just finish something. So I just compartmentalize, finish it, go to my office, and then cry for an hour. And I'll tell you, I don't. I don't cry because people, even people I know like, that I've worked with or something, but Catherine o' Hara was one of the most decent, beautiful, wonderful people I've ever worked with, on top of being awesome in every way. And she's been part of our lives since we were kids, you know, and all the way through to now. And I urge people to go back and look all the way back to her early stuff on SCTV and watch how great she was from the start. And when we talk about Unique, nobody ever has been Catherine o'.
57:38
Hara.
59:03
Gilda Radner was Gilda Radner. Carol Burnett was Carol Burnett. We've had great, great comedians sort of in that zone. But Catherine o' Hara was her own thing and nobody else could do it, and no one else will be able to do it again. It is such a brutal loss. I mean, I think about her husband, Beau, and I think about her sons. Her son Luke worked on our show in Set Deck, and I'm just heartbroken. I don't know what happened other than apparently it was, what do they say, a relatively short illness. I don't know what happened, but it is so tragic and I miss her. I. I will not be so vulgar as to like, oh, let me read you the last text I got from Catherine o'. Hara. All I'll say is that it made me cry even more. This one hurts. This one hurts a lot.
59:04
One thing that's. Whenever you lose an icon like this, it hurts. But the fact that she was doing so much that was so terrific so recently, it's extra surprising because so often there's like, this person was out of the business for like 10 years or something. And the fact that she was working on your show, she was working on the studio, Schitt's Creek. She was in a zillion things because she was so good and she was so different in everything. She was grounded in your show in a way that we just hadn't seen her for a while. And then you saw her how manic she was in the studio, which was a different kind of mania than what she was doing in Schitt's Creek. She's just an incredible talent and so.
59:56
She could do anything.
1:00:33
To have her suddenly yanked away is the surprise.
1:00:34
It is.
1:00:37
We hadn't prepared for the fact, like, oh, we could lose Catherine O'.
1:00:37
Hara.
1:00:39
Fancy.
1:00:40
Oh, she was 71 and she was a sprightly 71 and fun and also, I'll say, like, being here in Canada, I was very aware of how proud. Well, I knew how proud she was to be Canadian. I know how proud Canada is of her. And Canada has given us, per capita, more funny people than Any country in the world. And she's up there, you know, with the very, very greatest. And I don't think it's a big spoiler to say that, you know, she was gonna be in our show again. Cause of course she was. She's so good.
1:00:40
Yeah.
1:01:18
But, yeah, she was stolen, you know.
1:01:20
From all of us.
1:01:24
And I don't. It's not like the thing that's upsetting me is I don't get to see her in other stuff. Like, I don't care about my show. I wanted to see her in other things. Cause what else was gonna happen, do you know?
1:01:25
Like, no, there were so many things she could do. And Obviously the next 10 years could have been filled with Catherine O'. Hara. Things that won't happen.
1:01:36
That would have been always funny. Yeah, always. You know, So I don't know. Just cheers to Catherine o', Hara, who hopefully is somewhere out in the universe enjoying fruit, wine. And on behalf of humanity, just a deep gratitude. We were lucky that we had Catherine o'. Hara. That was like, we were lucky.
1:01:46
Agreed.
1:02:09
I would trade 1,000 Ben Turpins for one Catherine O'. Hara.
1:02:09
All right, that is our show for this week. Scriptness is produced by Drew Marquardt, edited by Matthew Ciellli. Our outro this week is by Pete White, who I believe is also a first timer. We love our first timers who are sending us brand new outros. If you have an outro, you can send us a link to askjohnallics.com that's also the place where you can send questions on, like the ones we answered today. You'll find scriptnotes@johnauggs.com along with a sign up for our weekly newsletter called Interesting, which has lots of links to things about writing. This Scriptnotes book is available wherever you buy books. You can find clips and other helpful video on our YouTube. To search for scriptnotes and give us a follow, find us on Instagram ScriptNotesPodcast. We have t shirts and hoodies and drinkware. You'll find those at Cotton Bureau. You'll find the show notes with links to all the things we talked about in the email you get each week as a premium subscriber. Thank you again to all our premium subscribers. Drew and I were just talking about sort of how great it's been that our numbers continue to grow and thrive. And so thank you very much for all our premium subscribers. You make it possible for us to do this each and every week. You can sign up to become a premium subscriber@scriptnotes.net where you get all the back episodes and bonus segments like the one we're about to record on email. Craig Drew, thank you for a good show.
1:02:14
Thank you, John.
1:03:24