Make the concept of minimum effective dose integral to your screenwriting. What is the minimum number of words required to achieve the desired result? The minimum here is for the reader, not the writer. For the writer, minimum effective dose often means maximum effort.

FURY is one of the best war movies ever made. Which means it is one of my favorite movies ever made. I am 100% down to see the crew back together. I am not even going to watch the trailer. Going in fresh in September.

Old Thinking: This screenplay idea is too complex and nuanced to lend itself to a good logline, so loglines are stupid. New thinking: This may not be the best idea for a screenplay just yet.

Every step forward in my career was made possible by a relationship. Every step back came from damaging one. Screenwriting is not about who you know. That's a result. It’s about who you meet, which relationships you nurture, and how you add value to them.

Ask the crew of a $750k indie film whether they would trade half their salary for meaningful points, and see how many say yes. I once gave an actor her points deal, and she never even signed the paper, she thought it was so worthless. It's only worth something in hindsight.

If you keep asking for notes, you will keep getting them. The world will never run out of notes for your screenplay. Know when to move on to the next. Early on, that gap between projects is where you take the biggest leap in your screenwriting,

Could someone who knows more about this topic help me out? I don’t like AI from a creative standpoint because it’s just not very good yet. I’m not threatened by it. It can’t write or teach as well as I can, and I don’t think it ever will. Honestly, I don’t think writers and actors have much to worry about (with the possible exception of background actors). As an assistant, I don’t mind AI. It’s cocky and stupid, but it makes up for that by being tireless, and I never feel guilty asking it to handle something tedious. Entry-level jobs and internships are in real trouble. I’m extremely worried about the generational loss of knowledge in 15 or 20 years as the traditional pathway to skill positions are eliminated. When it comes to visuals and visually generative AI, I dislike AI because it has to steal from the work of others without compensation. I understand the common argument that all artists are influenced by other artists, but I see a clear moral difference between the analog, “wet” absorption that happens in a human brain and the binary-code duplication that AI performs. I am very comfortable with this distinction. Here’s where I’m genuinely unsure and would love input on people’s positions: If human artists design the core elements that go into an AI-assisted creation — for example, the set design (full or partial), the original creature design, or the world-building — and then use AI only to render movement, animation, fill in green screen, etc., with the director making all final choices and addressing notes… How is this terribly different from the visual effects workflows of the last 30 years? What am I missing? My instinct is to reject AI in anything creative, yet I struggle to find a solid logical line here. Is this just drawing an emotional line in the sand, or is there something more concrete that I don’t fully understand?

At its heart, every great story is the battle over someone's soul. It may sound like hyperbole. I get it. But the more years I write, the less I think it is. Whether it's a comedy, action, or horror, if you can figure out this battle, the stakes are always high.

Better to worry far less about getting an agent for your screenwriting. Reps are usually a result, not an objective in itself. Focus more on creating something that representation can use to sell you to others. Make yourself valuable. Do that, and reps tend to come.