How is it that my two favorite movies of the year so far both star Jack Quaid?

Genre: Action
Premise: (from IMDB) When the girl of his dreams is kidnapped, a man incapable of feeling physical pain turns his rare condition into an unexpected advantage in the fight to rescue her.
About: Do not sleep on Jack Quaid, people. This dude understands material. He knows what a good script is. First, Companion. And now this. This is a great script to study for any spec screenwriters. This is how you do it. A low-budget action movie. This is exactly what I was talking about in my post this Friday – where Hollywood is headed. Novocaine did not light the box office on fire. But it deserves your attention on streaming. So go watch it! In fact, watch it before reading this review, preferably without watching the trailer either. The movie evolves in a really fun way.
Writer: Lars Jacobson
Details: 110 minutes

Having exhausted all movie options, I reluctantly rented Novacaine last night and ended up absolutely loving it. What’s interesting about this movie is that, one the years, I’ve read about a dozen screenplays centering around someone who isn’t able to feel pain.

That’s the thing with the spec world. Everybody pretty much as the same ideas. So you need to be able to find an angle that idea that separates you from the pack. What complicates this is that, sometimes, one of these scripts gets through solely because a great producer shoved it through and somehow got it made. That’s why sometimes bad versions of these common ideas become movies.

But in the case of Novocaine, the opposite happened. Someone finally wrote a great version of this idea. Actually, let me rephrase that. They executed the hell out of this idea. I don’t think anyone could’ve written a better version of a “dude feels no pain” movie. I honestly don’t. The writing is so sharp and seasoned here, that I was constantly impressed. I’ll give you a couple of examples of what I mean, but first let me summarize the plot for you.

By the way, I am going to be getting into spoilers because some of the teachable moments here include spoilers.

Nick, a loner assistant bank manager, has a rare condition that prohibits him from feeling pain. This means he stays away from all social interactions, save for his online gaming escapades.

One day, a beautiful young teller named Sherry starts working at the bank. Nick is obsessed with her but too afraid to ask her out. But one day, the two bump into each other in the break room, sparks fly, and she asks him to lunch.

Lunch turns into a date, date turns into a sleepover, and all of a sudden Nick has his first girlfriend ever. He’s in love. But the very next day at work, three Santas come in with guns (it’s the day before Christmas) to rob the place. They kill the bank manager, and as soon as they figure out that Nick loves Sherry, threaten to kill her unless he opens the safe. Nick gives up the combination, they level him to the ground, and take Sherry with them as a hostage for the pursuing cops.

When Nick wakes up, he’s determined to save Sherry. He’s shocked to find all the cops outside dead. These robbers are no joke. He then steals a cop car and begins his investigation into where these guys are going so he can get there and rescue Sherry.

MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOW

The first moment that came where I knew this writing was at another level was the big twist. Sherry was working with the bank robbers all along. She played Nate.

I was SHOCKED by this twist. I had NO IDEA it was coming. And you guys know how long I’ve been doing this. I read a billion scripts. I can always sniff out a twist a mile away. So, I had to stop and evaluate how I missed this one so badly.

Here’s why it happened. Because the writer fully committed to the love story in the first act. There’s this really deep intense moment where the two of them are at Nate’s place and they’re taking their clothes off. For Nick, his secret is that, under his clothes, he’s self-tattooed almost his entire body. And then for Sherry, when she takes her shirt off, we see all these cuts on her. It’s a very vulnerable moment, and we can tell that it’s really hard for Sherry to share this part of herself. She doesn’t usually tell people this. We’re convinced this is deep love at this point.

In a typical script where you’re going to later reveal that that girl was playing our protagonist the whole time, the writer wouldn’t have written this scene. They want it to make sense, later, when Sherry turns on Jack. They would’ve thought there was too much closeness here to get away with that twist. But that closeness is exactly why I was fooled.

As screenwriters, we sometimes get lost in the puzzles we create, thinking too far up the line before we’ve put the puzzle together. Good writers write for the moment. They try to create the most powerful present moment and don’t overthink things to make sure that, later on, it’s all going to fit. Because if the writer would’ve made Sherry a little less committed in the moment, I would’ve seen that twist coming 30 pages early.

The second moment where I knew the writing was great occurred not long after that twist. As we know, movies like this require a lot of urgency. Initially, Novocaine’s urgency is obvious. The bad guys have the girl. She’s disposable. It’s only a matter of time before they kill her. So Nate has to find out where she’s being kept and get to her fast.

But then, we get the big twist. Sherry was working with the bank robbers all along. She played Nate. Note how as soon as this reveal is made, THERE IS NO MORE URGENCY IN THE MOVIE. Doesn’t matter how fast Nate gets there. She’s working with the bank robbers so she’s going to be safe.

At the time this happened, I thought to myself, “Ooh, the writers are in trouble now. How are they going to adjust for this?” And then, we get one of the best set pieces in the script. Nate goes to the house of one of the bank robbers (to try and find out where their workplace is) but the whole house is boobytrapped. He gets his leg snagged in a ceiling rope contraption and finds himself hanging upside down.

So he calls his only friend and begs him to come cut him down. The friend says he’ll be there in ten minutes. Now, before I even get to the lesson here, there’s ANOTHER screenwriting tip to come out of this. 90% of screenwriters would’ve cut to the friend showing up and helping him down.

But good screenwriters ALWAYS MAKE BAD SITUATIONS WORSE. So, what happens right after Nate calls his friend? One second later, Nate hears the front door open. It’s one of the other bank robbers. That’s good screenwriting! Never let your foot off the gas. Always make things more difficult. Even if you’re not sure how you’re going to get your hero out of it.

But back to my point. As soon as Nick gets off the phone, he sets his watch timer to 10 minutes, in anticipation of his friend coming (by the way, if anybody thinks this is strange, Nick uses his watch timer constantly throughout the movie – it’s not random). In other words, THIS PROVED TO ME that the WRITER KNEW he lost his urgency once he revealed that Sherry was a bad guy. Therefore he knew he had to add urgency somewhere else. So he creates this entire set piece around urgency! Nick has to convince this bank robber not to kill him before his friend shows up (in ten minutes).

That’s clever stuff.

And the script is filled with good screenwriting. Nick is NEVER helped by the screenwriter ever. He always makes it hard for Nick. This is one of the best screenplays I’ve read about a normal guy (somebody without black ops or military training) going up against much stronger bad guys. The writer never cheats regarding who Nick is. Also, I always tell you guys, LEAN INTO WHAT’S UNIQUE ABOUT YOUR CONCEPT. What’s unique in this concept is a guy who can’t feel pain. There are literally 75 different moments in this script built around the fact that Nick can’t feel pain.

The only weak part of the script is the fact that cops had been killed and there were only 2 cops chasing Nick around the whole time. But EVEN THEN the writer didn’t ignore that. He tried to explain it by saying it was Christmas and they were short-staffed.

I love movies like this because they show what the power of a good script can accomplish. It will get a movie made. And a good one at that! Highly recommend this one.

[ ] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the stream
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Commit to the emotional beats of your screenplay even if you’re writing in the action or thriller genres. This movie DOES NOT WORK if that love story isn’t perfectly set up in the first act. We wouldn’t give a shit whether Nate saved Sherry or not.

And screenwriters are going to take over

Every time I go out and meet new people these days, one of the first questions I ask them is, “Do you go to the movies?” And the inevitable answer I get is, “No.” The explanations I receive break down into two demographic categories. If the person is younger than 30, they almost always complain about the price being too high. If the person is older than 30, they usually say that life got more complicated (marriage, kids) and they don’t have as much free time as they used to.

With Marvel, the current leader in box office receipts, making half as much as they used to with each release, it is safe to assume that the industry is about to go through a major change. I believe that we’re 3-5 years away from a cratering in the theatrical movie business. But unlike a lot of people in the industry, I don’t see that as a bad thing. I see it as a good thing, especially if you’re a screenwriter. Let me explain.

The thing that is most at risk of dying here is the giant blockbuster. These movies don’t have the box office juice that they used to and it’s causing studios to lose a lot of money. You don’t get to keep spending money forever if you’re losing it so, inevitably, they’re going to have to pull back on these budgets.

This is great news for screenwriters because the less a movie can depend on spectacle, the more it must depend on good storytelling. Movies will go back to the “word of mouth” days of the 70s where, if someone writes a great movie, it will play on and on in the theaters. And even if it doesn’t, it will do well on streaming, because in a world where you don’t need to make 500 million at the box office to break even, it’s perfectly okay to send your movie to streaming early.

What does this mean for screenwriters? What it means is, everybody here is going to have to become a better character writer. The less a movie costs, the more dialogue scenes you’ll be writing into your script. So you need to get good with character in order to write those scenes. Also, the movies themselves will be more character-driven because they have to be. Without spectacle, you have to explore characters internally, explore them in conflict with other characters, and explore them in conflict with the world.

By the way, this does not mean every script now has to be Manchester By The Sea. Far from it. You can still write genre films (horror, thriller, low-budget action). Sinners is actually a good example of what one might write in this new era. It’s character-driven but it still has a genre element to draw audiences in.

Other movies that will do well in this new era (assuming some of them were written better) are: It Ends With Us, A Quiet Place, Longlegs, Heretic, The Beekeeper, Get Out, Air, Bullet Train, and The Menu.

What does this mean for IP? IP will still be valued, of course, but this is also going to benefit screenwriters because the costs of these movies are going to plummet. So they’ll be looking for writers who actually know how to write, since they’ll need you to come up with a fresh cheap take and be able to execute it. A good example would be “Prey,” on Hulu. Big franchise – contained low-budget take.

Again, with less action, you’re going to have more character moments. So screenwriters have to be able to handle those. Thunderbolts is a good example of this. That movie had a lot more character development than your average superhero movie. This tells me that Hollywood may already be moving over to this model.

The next thing that’s going to be important in this new era is separating yourself from AI. AI will get better at writing but it’s only going to get better at the most populist version of writing. It’s going to be able to write a generic sequel to The Rock. But it’s not going to be able to write Everything Everywhere All At Once.

So, in addition to learning how to write strong characters and strong character-driven stories, you need to infuse your own voice as much as possible into those stories so you stand out.

Now, what I’ve learned over the course of reading 10,000 scripts, is that there’s “forced voice” and “natural voice.” “Forced voice” is when you try to ape somebody else’s voice. You’re trying to write all this wall-breaking commentary directly to the reader even though you’ve never done that before in your life. There’s a clear inauthenticity to it.

“Natural voice” is when you take the elements that make you unique as a person and accentuate them. So, if you like dry humor, you up the dry humor in your script. If you love long scenes, like Quentin Tarantino, write long scenes. If you like non-sequiturs, add them. If you’re weird as hell and think about bizarre stuff, include it! If you like telling stories out-of-order, do that. If you naturally love talking to the reader, you can do that as well. Just as long as that’s truly your thing.

Scripts like Civil War, Challengers, Leave The World Behind, Anora, and Missing, will do well in this new era.

This change will not be all-compassing. I think animated movies, like Inside-Out, are still going to do well because parents will want to get their kids out of the house. There will still be outliers, like Barbie and Minecraft, every couple of years. But even those films will take a hit at the box office. They’re not going to become phenomenons anymore, as more and more stuff moves to streaming, keeping even more people home.

But that’s good news for screenwriters as well. The nice thing about streaming is that the admission price is zero. It’s basically: point a device at your TV and press a button. For that reason, the audience doesn’t have nearly the same standards as they do when they go to the theater. I mean I just watched the first 20 minutes of this movie called iHostage on Netflix, about a guy who holds up an Apple Store. It was easily one of the worst movies ever made AND IT WAS #3 ON NETFLIX’S MOST WATCHED MOVIES LIST!

In other words, you don’t have to be the greatest writer to write streaming movies. As long as you’ve got a strong flashy concept, you’ve got a shot. And they need ENDLESS content over there. So there are opportunities to be had.

People have been saying that screenwriting is going to fall to AI over the next few years. I think the opposite. Hollywood is going to need writers more than ever when the mega-franchise collapse happens. So buckle up. It’s about to get fun. :)

Genre: Superhero
Premise: When a group of misfit semi-superheroes are betrayed by their boss, they band together to take her down, but in order to do so, must defeat her ultimate creation, a supervillain “more powerful than all of the Avengers combined.”
About: Thunderbolts, the latest offering from Marvel, came out this past weekend and earned 76 million dollars. Depending on who you talk to, this is considered either a decent or poor result. Thunderbolts was conceived during an era of Marvel making a Marvel movie (and show) for every subset of people. Not every film had to have super-wide appeal. Therefore, the movie is catered to the indie movie crowd (it actively promotes how many people from A24 films are on the Thunderbolts payroll). At the time, when Marvel could do no wrong, that sounded brilliant. These days, it sounds like a way to lose money.
Writers: Eric Pearson and Joanna Calo and Kurt Busiek
Details: about 2 hours long

As I’ve stated here already, I’ve been on the fence about whether to see this film. I was waiting for the reviews to come in and, even though I was hoping for a better RT score, I could tell that this wasn’t one of those disposable Marvel films that don’t have anything new to offer. At the very least, they were trying to do something new here.

The plot is surprisingly simple. Yelena, who is the sister of Black Widow, is in a dark place. She feels alone. She feels sad. She doesn’t have any purpose in life. She takes a job from Val, an evil politician obsessed with power, to assassinate a superhero known as “Ghost,” at a remote facility.

Yelena heads there to do the job but is accosted by former Captain American, John Walker. Then Taskmaster shows up to attack John Walker and everybody realizes that they’ve been sent here to kill each other so that Val can rid herself of all her dirty laundry (since everybody here has done sketchy deeds for her). They also realize that the room they’re in is a giant incinerator which is about to begin its incinerating in two minutes.

Complicating matters further is some dude who appears in a hospital smock named Bob. Nobody knows how he got here or who he is, including Bob! Fast-forward, the group breaks out and battles an awaiting army. They get separated from Bob. Val realizes Bob is the lone survivor of a failed project to turn humans into superheroes. She labels him “Sentry” and teaches him how to use his powers.

Meanwhile, a still despondent Yelena, who had a brief connection with Bob because they both felt the pits of depression so deeply, receives a visit from her father, The Red Guardian, who is thrilled to finally fight bad guys again. Along with Bucky and the rest of the crew, they gear up to take down Val. But in order to do so, they’ll have to defeat her own guardian, a newly all-powerful Sentry, who is stronger than all of the Avengers combined.

Thunderbolts is the most character-driven Marvel movie ever made. If you understand that going in, you have a better chance of enjoying this movie than if you don’t. Because if you’re coming for a superhero action movie, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. There’s a 20 minute set piece in this film of people trying to get out of a room. That’s the level of set pieces you’re going to get here.

So, did I like it?

Let me start by saying this. I now understand why they cast Florence Pugh in the lead. It’s because she’s a great actress. When your movie is dependent on the characters over the action, you better have good actors. And Florence Pugh is as good as they come. She’s such a star. She’s got that inexplicable quality where you can’t look away from her whenever she’s onscreen. She’s what makes this movie watchable. If you would’ve cast Scarlett Johansson in this role, it would’ve been considerably worse.

And they did something really daring here. They made a movie about depression, which is on-brand for the “Beef” team. This is a HEAVY movie. And I’m not convinced it works. Superheroes and depression… that’s something you can maybe explore on a TV show. But a movie? A superhero movie is supposed to be a good time.

I suppose the counterpoint to that would be, “Everybody says they want superhero movies that are different. They’re doing something different!” True. But that doesn’t mean it will work.

Truth be told, I thought the first two acts of this movie were strong. The characters were a lot more interesting than I thought they would be. The chemistry within the group was better than any Marvel movie I’ve seen since the Avengers films. And the writing was strong.

One of the most clever things that they did was introduce Bob (who becomes the villain) WITH the rest of Thunderbolts. They all get caught in this room together and Bob happens to be there. This allowed us to get to know Bob ALONG with our heroes, which prevented the writers from having to do what every other Marvel movie does, which is build this separate origin storyline for the villain.

When you do that, you’re cutting away, which means you’re breaking up the momentum of your main storyline. It’s time consuming and, essentially, visual exposition, to set up your villain, all so you can have a point to the story (for the good guys to have someone to beat). But here, we meet them together, which keeps the narrative simple. And, also, it allows Bob to develop a bond with the Thunderbolts, which creates a more emotional encounter later on, when they duke it out. As a result, he’s one of the stronger villains in the Marvel Universe, especially in the most recent movies.

My big issue with Thunderbolts was its third act. It fell apart. And I’m trying to figure out if behind-the-scenes shenanigans were responsible. On the one hand, this movie was trying to be different. So the choice to embed the climax in a bunch of dream sequences would make sense. It’s certainly more original than yet another superhero showdown in the middle of a city.

On the other hand, I get the impression that they ran out of money. Or this movie was in production during a major Marvel bomb, possibly The Marvels. And they freaked out and cut the budget significantly, which is why we got this weak ending.

And look, if I were in that room for the pitch about the third act, I could see myself buying into it. Cause the pitch is kinda compelling. Everybody has these thought loops where we get sucked into our dark thoughts or dark memories and we play them over and over in our brains. Pearson and director Schreier posed the idea, “what if we visually went into those loops?” And it’s like, sure, that sounds cool. But, in the end, you have to know your audience. This is a Marvel movie. People want a final act that’s big and fun.

I commend Thunderbolts for trying to do something different. I thought the writing was noticeably better than the more recent Marvel efforts, especially when it came to the characters. I just don’t know if you can make a Marvel movie about depression. It doesn’t quite fit the brand. But, look, if you want to see 2 solid acts of a unique Marvel movie, check it out. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

[ ] What the hell did I just watch?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[x] worth the price of admission
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: You should always look for ways to consolidate your script. You can combine scenes. You can combine characters. And you can get creative, like Thunderbolts, by introducing your villain (Bob) along with your heroes. That’s going to prevent you from having to write 3-4 additional scenes setting Bob up separately, which is going to save you 6-10 pages.

Is Zach Cregger now better at writing Stephen King stories than Stephen King?

Genre: Horror
Premise: When every kid from a third-grade classroom runs away into the night at the exact same time, disappearing, the town centers their suspicion on the children’s teacher.
About: Zach Cregger barreled into the crowded horror market after his film, Barbarian, became a surprise box office hit, allowing him to set up numerous movies around town. This was the first big project he set up. It stars Julia Garner.
Writer: Zach Cregger
Details: 118 pages

I’m on a good script-reading run.

I read three genuinely good consultation scripts last week, which is rare.

That streak continues today because we’ve got a kick ass horror script. It’s so good, in fact, I’m thinking this is going to blow up when it hits theaters. Not only that, but I believe it’s going to change the horror game. Because it’s not your average horror film. These days, everybody makes the same horror movies again and again. The whole industry has gotten lazy. Cregger is about to change that.

Justine Gandy is a 3rd grade teacher who’s about to have her life turned upside-down. She shows up to class one morning and all but 1 of her 18 kids is gone. It turns out that, the previous night, every kid in her class (except that 1) got up at 2 in the morning and ran away, their arms stretched out wide, like an airplane, something captured by all the home Ring cameras.

Because the only constant in this mystery is Justine, everyone assumes she had something to do with it. Principal Andrew has no choice but to put her on temporary leave, which means Justine is hitting the bottle every night, trying to make sense of what happened.

The script changes POVs throughout. So, even though we start with Justine, we eventually move to Archer, one of the parents determined to get his kid back. He’s convinced Justine knows more than she’s letting on. We also follow Officer Paul, a married policeman who Justine is hooking up with. And, finally, a homeless drug addict named Anthony.

We’re going to get into some semi-spoilers here so you have been warned. Justine is very concerned about the lone surviving kid in her class, Alex, and goes to his home, only to find that, by peeking through the window, his parents are on the couch not moving at all. They’re alive but, for some reason, they’re frozen in this awkward position. Whatever’s going on seems to be tied to this house.

When Justine and Archer come back to the house later, they’re shocked to see a brain-dead bloodied Principal Andrew charging them. I think it’s best that I not continue summarizing the script because it is built on surprises and reveals. But what I will tell you is that, from that point on, things get craaaaaaaaazy.

The best way I would categorize Zach Cregger is to say he’s the mainstream version of Ari Aster. His movies are way more thoughtful than the average horror film, but he cares more about scaring people than shocking people. Which makes his movies more fun than Ari’s.

Just yesterday, I was talking about non-traditional narratives and how they’re hard to write. But you wouldn’t know that after reading Weapons. Even though the narrative weaves all over the place, taking on different points of view, occasionally jumping back in time, you’re never lost. And I know exactly why that is.

It’s because Cregger writes full scenes.

Let me repeat that. Cause it’s important. CREGGER WRITES FULL SCENES.

You see, when you do something complicated on one side of your script, you have to balance that out by doing something simple on the other side. This is a potentially confusing narrative with all the jumping around. Therefore, when we do get into these POV sections, Cregger writes long scenes with beginnings, middles, and ends. This allows us to settle into the new POV and get our bearings. Also, it improves the entertainment value, since we’re getting these mini-stories within the larger story.

For example, Anthony, the drug addict, comes to Alex’s house, hoping to steal something so he can buy some drugs. And we follow him as he stakes out the house (beginning), sneaks in and steals stuff (middle), then tries to get out when other people in the house come after him (end).

I don’t see that in enough scripts these days. Every writer has become a scene-fragment writer. So, it was refreshing to be able to sit in these scenes for a while and build up suspense and get pulled in and want to see what happens next. I just don’t see that anymore and Cregger shows you why writing out full scenes matters. Because they’re more engaging! I’m not engaged by a half-page mini-scene where one character tells another character some exposition.

The main reason this movie is going to work, though, is that it’s different. We’ve got a very unique mythology here that I’ve never come across before. More importantly, we’ve got horror images that I’ve never seen. Just these kids running outside in the middle of the night with their hands out is both creepy and original.

You have to understand that in every horror script I read, there’s someone at a mirror seeing a scary person behind them. If you’re writing that scene into your horror script, you’ve already lost. Not because nothing with a mirror jump scare works. But because it demonstrates laziness. You’re just doing what you’ve already seen before.

I don’t see that when I read a Zach Cregger script. I see someone striving to avoid cliché. And it pays off. Cause this script is the best of both worlds. It’s a storyline you haven’t seen before. But it’s still familiar enough that people are going to want to see it. It’s not like Ari Aster’s Beau is Afraid, where you watch the trailer and you have no idea what’s going on.

Finally, this script possesses that rare x-factor *thing* that some writers just seem to have. And I’m envious of it. It’s this thing that you can’t quite put your finger on where they’re able to tell this slightly unique story in a slightly unique way and you mix in these shocks and these scares and this mythology and this imagery, and you still tell a good story with each scene, all of which creates this exceptional experience that can’t be replicated by many writers. We were just talking about AI last post. AI could NEVER write a script like this. Ever. Cause you need to be part fucked up, part messy, part good screenwriter, part oddball. You need to be flawed. And AI doesn’t have that tool in its toolbox.

The only mark against this script is the character writing. Justine was too one-dimensional for my taste. She just drank a lot and lashed out at people. And none of the other characters are that deep. For example, Archer just wants his son. There is nothing more to his character than that.

But, strangely enough, it doesn’t matter. We’re so pulled in by this bizarre mystery that we’re determined to keep turning the pages until we find out what happened. And what happened is crazy. Definitely recommend this one!

[ ] What the hell did I just read?
[ ] wasn’t for me
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Make the mystery at the center of your story more interesting. This is EASILY the biggest lesson I learned from this script. Every horror script I read is a scary monster with a mask, or some kid’s been kidnapped, or some slasher is on the loose. This setup is so much more compelling because it doesn’t make sense. And our minds are determined to make sense of things that don’t make sense. So people are going to show up to this movie just to find out what the hell happened with these kids.

Talk about being a victim of your own success. Thunderbolts had a respectable 76 million dollar opening this weekend. Respectable if you’re any other franchise besides Marvel. Of course the industry is trying to prop this up as a win but when the last Marvel film, Brave New World, universally accepted as a bomb, opened to 88 million, you have to be honest with yourself. It’s not looking good for this band of superhero misfits.

I’m still on the fence about whether to see the film. I may check it out today or tomorrow based on what some of you say. So, if you saw the film, leave me a quick “recommend” or “don’t recommend” in the comments section. If there’s some genuine enthusiasm there, that should push me over the top.

I was a big fan of the show, “Beef,” and I believe that’s the same team that made this movie, right? So there’s got to be some level of quality there. I just feel bad for them cause they’re working with such an uninteresting group of superheroes. When the strongest guy on your team is “Mechanical Arm Guy,” you are playing with a severe handicap. But maybe that’s the point. These are underdogs. They’re not supposed to be the best.

If you’re looking for something a lot more energetic and exciting, I recommend checking out the 2023 show, Rabbit Hole, on Paramount Plus. My buddy Grok helped me discover it. It looks to be one of these shows that was canceled not because of its quality but because they just never gave it any publicity. The show is shockingly good. So much so that I challenge anyone to watch the first episode and not get hooked.

I don’t want to spoil too much but it follows this guy named John Weir (Keifer Sutherland), who specializes in corporate espionage. He finds clever ways for giant companies to take down other companies, or steal from them, or get them to implode. But, as a result of this unique job, John is always paranoid. He doesn’t trust anybody, as he figures everyone is trying to screw over everybody else in some way. Then, a sequence of insane events occurs (I’m talking more insane than in any TV pilot you’ve ever seen) that force him to trust those around him if he’s going to survive.

The reason the series is so fun is that you don’t know which way is up or down. You’re just as lost as the characters. And the writers, Glenn Ficarra and John Requa, always keep you on your toes. This thing has so many twists and turns, I advise not going out afterwards, as you will have real-world vertigo. Now, usually when there are this many twists and turns, the story eventually collapses. If everything is a mystery wrapped in an enigma and nothing is tangible, the wheels fall off. But I’m 5 episodes in now and the wheels are as sturdy as ever. The writers really thought this through.

From a writing perspective, it’s a good example of how to write a compelling TV protagonist. If a character is at war with himself, he is always compelling no matter what scene he’s in. John Weir has lived such a screwed up life that he doesn’t trust anybody. But, because of the situation he’s been put in, he has to trust some people. Cause he can’t do it by himself. Therefore, every scene he’s in, he’s looking at the person across from him and thinking, “Are they telling me the truth?”

And what’s fun about the show is that the person across from him very well might be lying. There’s a female character he teams up with, Hailey, who proves to him time and time again that she’s loyal. And yet a part of us is still looking at her, thinking, “I don’t know. Maybe she is playing him.” So his paranoia rubs off on us, breaking that fourth wall.

More importantly, though, I read a bunch of TV pilots where the main character has no conflict within themselves. And that’s a quick way to write a boring character. To be clear, you don’t HAVE TO inject an inner conflict into your hero. But I find that it helps tremendously in TV because TV is more character driven. There are more scenes of characters standing around talking. So, if there isn’t inner conflict, those scenes can easily become boring.

True, you can create conflict BETWEEN characters in a scene, and if it’s done well, that will be enough. But why have only one source of conflict in a scene when you can have two? Conflict within the character and conflict between the characters.

What sucks about Rabbit Hole is that it didn’t get picked up for a second season and I get the impression that these guys wrote this giant sprawling narrative that I’m never going to see. I’m worried that the final episode is going to be some big cliffhanger to a shocking reveal that was never filmed. But the show is so good that I don’t care. I want to watch the whole season. And, for anyone who likes that buzzy show, Paradise, on Hulu, the writers of Rabbit Hole are heavily involved in that series.

Finally, this weekend, I checked out Four Seasons, on Netflix, mainly because I like Steve Carell and will watch anything he’s in. It was also written by Tina Fey. I’m not a huge Tina Fey fan, but in the working writer community, she’s a God. People absolutely love her. So I was hoping the combination of those two things would make this work.

But there was a third reason I wanted to check it out. Back when I got into screenwriting, this type of narrative was my jam! By the way, Four Seasons is a TV show but it’s based on a feature film from the 80s. So I’m going to speak of it from a feature standpoint.

I used to love weird unique narrative formats in screenwriting. I liked Memento. I liked Run Lola Run. I liked Pulp Fiction. So, a movie like Four Seasons was right up my alley. Instead of a traditional “a to b” narrative, the movie was divided up into four sections, each representing a season where the same group of characters would meet. It’s kind of a fun way to show the passage of time and this is the same thing Tina Fey did with the TV show (which is 8 episodes long – every 2 episodes is dedicated to one season).

But, these days, I don’t like these formats as much because I find them gimmicky. I’m not saying they don’t work. But going into a script like Four Seasons is a lot more challenging because you’re working with a format that hasn’t been battle-tested. So every scene, every sequence, every season, is a gamble. You’re hoping it all works but you have no idea cause you’re flying blind.

Also, one of the things I’ve personally discovered over the years is that urgency is a pivotal component to storytelling. The less urgent your story is, the more it sits there, collecting dust, as it plods along. As a perfect example, Run Lola Run understood this. It’s one of the most urgent screenplays ever. I don’t think it’s an accident, then, that the director, Tom Tykwer, never made anything half as good after that. He moved into slower narrative stortyelling and it destroyed his screenplays.

Films like Four Seasons are particularly susceptible to this. They’re less a narrative than they are an experiment. That was the biggest leap I made as a screenwriter ever, when I stopped looking at scripts as experiments and started looking at them as movies meant to entertain people. Once you go into “experiment” territory, you’re basically saying, “I’m writing this for myself and I don’t care what anybody else thinks.” Which is not how good movies are made.

Maybe this is why Tina Fey got the idea to remake Four Seasons as a TV show. Because she knew that, being so character driven, it would work better as a TV show.

So, did it?

It KIND OF works. But here’s the real problem with the show: IT’S HARMLESS. And, sometimes, harmless is worse than bad. Because harmless means that we’re not pushing anything in the series. We’re not pushing the plot. We’re not pushing the characters. We’re not pushing the dialogue. We’re not pushing the voice.  Every creative choice here is so safe, no height requirement is needed to ride.

I’m not saying every show has to be edgy. But if you’re going to make something that resonates with people, at least ONE ASPECT of your show should be pushing something. For example, Rabbit Hole, which I just mentioned. That show pushes “twists and turns” to a whole new level. Game of Thrones, at least originally, was ruthless. It would kill off major characters in its very first episode! The most recent TV darling, Adolescence, pushed the envelope narratively and cinematically, where every episode was a single shot in real time. White Lotus was constantly pushing boundaries.

So when you have this show, in Four Seasons, that just wants to lightly rub your arm for 4 hours, it kinda feels like, “What’s the point?” If you only wanted to barely entertain us, why waste 2 years of your life putting this together and shooting it?

Now, that doesn’t mean I didn’t like it! We all have that friend who’s just casually there and is in a semi-good mood all the time, so there’s comfort in him being around. That’s what this show is. It’s comfortable. It’s the definition of a Netflix show that, if the “automatic next episode” button wasn’t invented, you never would’ve continued watching it. But, since it does, you’re like, “Why not?” And hey, to its credit, it’s a lot more exciting than Andor. So, there’s that. :)