You guys know how into UFOs I am.

And one thing I’ve been keeping my eye on is this Spielberg movie. Ever since it was announced a couple of years ago, I’ve been eagerly scrounging up the little breadcrumbs Stevie’s been leaving as he’s traveled deeper and deeper into the forest.

For those who aren’t aware, Spielberg swore off ever making movies about aliens again. He felt like he’d covered the subject matter inside and out. And he’s probably right.

But when the 2017 New York Times article broke about U.S. pilots chasing UFOs, and Congress started booking UFO hearings, Spielberg felt like there was a new story to tell. And hence, we get this new film, Disclosure Day, whose trailer just debuted yesterday.

Now, when it comes to Spielberg and UFOs, he’s the top-dog director no questions asked. Close Encounters of the Third Kind might as well be a documentary. He worked closely with J. Allen Hynek, who infamously worked for the government, discrediting all UFO sightings, only later, once he left the position, to admit that many of the cases he had come across were real alien UFOs. Many of the best moments in Close Encounters were based on stories Hynek gave Spielberg.

You gotta understand, people in the UFO community have been simping over the release of this movie for months. They believe Spielberg will use it as a pseudo-means to prep the world for disclosure. It’s non-fiction disguised as fiction.

Here’s the trailer…

So, what do I think?

I think it looks like a big ball of crapola.

I’m sorry but THIS is Spielberg’s return to science fiction???

Where’s the story?

Where’s the tease?

Where’s the anything that gets me interested in seeing the movie?

Emily Blunt gurgling?

THAT’S YOUR BIG MOVIE TRAILER MOMENT???? REALLY????

Ugh.

I suppose there are still a million directions this story can go and Spielberg’s holding off on the good stuff until we get closer. But the fact that this trailer doesn’t have a single cool or memorable moment is concerning.

Which is why I want to talk to you about real disclosure.

I want to show you what real UFOs and aliens feel like.

I’m talking about a genuine UFO sighting.

Before you take a listen to this, let me give you some context. This audio recording is from 1987. The caller is calling from the Ozarks. After the government shut down its UFO investigation programs, a public call-in center was created to handle UFO sightings. If you thought you’d seen something strange in the sky, you could call in and report it. Over time, the center logged thousands of these calls.

Okay, check this out…

This is one of the most convincing sightings I’ve ever heard. I mean, I suppose you could argue the guy is lying. But if he’s lying, he’s a very good actor. Not to mention, at the beginning of the call, he says, “I suppose you’ve heard about MIssouri.” And the guy says, “Yes,” meaning this is not the first call he’s received about the UFOs that night. Also, later on, the guy mentions that he ran into multiple people in the area who also saw it.

However, if you’re a skeptic, you might say that the much more plausible explanation is that this guy is a having a laugh. He’s a joker. He probably made all the previous calls himself, each in a different voice, his friends sitting nearby and laughing their asses off. The 1980s were the heyday of the crank call. Surely, that’s a more plausible explanation than that there’s a real UFO with aliens in it flying around Missouri. And I would agree that, yes, that’s the more likely scenario.

One skill I’ve developed through reading so much is the ability to discern what is invented and what feels grounded in reality. The giveaway, when someone is describing something real, is specificity. If this person had claimed to see a flying saucer with little green aliens popping out of the top, I would have been skeptical.

But listen to what he actually describes. Three cigar-shaped crafts flying separately, then aligning into a staircase pattern, all oriented toward him. That level of detail is unusually specific. I have never heard anything like it, in either reality or fiction. Would a screenwriter come up with that? Would any of you? I don’t think so. It is so singular that, to me, it becomes the final confirmation that this account is real.

And the thing is, there are tens of thousands, maybe HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, of experiences people have had through the years exactly like this – up close encounters with UFOs. Is it all a lie?

I don’t think so.

And he attempts to solve the impossible screenwriting quandry of ‘how do you make a screenplay work without any conflict???’

Genre: Christmas Hallmark Movie
Premise: After inheriting a house in Vail, an event planner finds herself planning a giant food fest to save a local restaurant, all while spending a lot of time with the sexy local contractor.
About: What do you need to know? It’s a Hallmark movie starring, of course, Lacey Chalbert! I asked AI how much Lacy Chalbert makes for one of these movies and they said half a mil! By my estimation that makes her a billionaire twice over. Co-writer Delondra Mesa wrote on one of my favorite underappreciated TV shows, Black Summer.
Writers: Delondra Mesa and Duane Poole
Details: A cool 85 minutes

As many of you know, I’ve been asking for Blood & Ink participants to e-mail me with an update on where they are with their scripts. I’m happy to report that most writers are doing well. They’re at least halfway through their first draft. So keep it up and keep writing!

One of those e-mails was from a concept I gave a rare “YES” to, immediately guaranteeing it entry into competition (I think I gave five “YESES” in total). That would be from the writer of, “It’s The Worst Time of the Year.” Here’s that logline if you’ve forgotten: “Two successful, single business women from the big city get trapped in a Hallmark movie nightmare where it’s always fall — but weirdly somehow also always Christmas. They’re forced to open a bakery, enter the pie contest, solve the weekly town murder, and date the impossibly hot plaid-wearing widower — all while trying to find a way to escape before increasingly aggressive townspeople trap them in this hellscape, force them to give up their lives and drink pumpkin spiced lattes….forever.”

I was trading e-mails with the writer when they told me they’d, of course, watched a ton of Hallmark movies for research. And to their surprise, they actually started liking them! But it was this line from our exchange, in particular, that caught my attention: “When you let go and embrace them for what they are, there is something very comforting about a movie with zero real world stakes or conflict.”

If there is one truism I’ve found in screenwriting, it’s that there has to be stakes. If there aren’t stakes, the audience can’t get emotionally invested. Because stakes are what create the “care” part of watching something. Stakes make things matter. If things don’t matter, then who cares what happens?

So, how is it, then, that these stakes-less Hallmark movies are so popular? Obviously, something works about the formula and I wanted to figure out how the one movie formula that didn’t include stakes was still able to keep its audience caring.

Hence, I decided to watch a Hallmark movie. You have to understand how momentous this occasion is. I’ve never watched one before. So, I asked the writer what their favorite Hallmark movie was and they gave me five options. I looked through them, comparing IMDB ratings. Winter in Vail clocked in with the highest score at a 7.0! That’s like a 13.9 if you’re scoring it as a regular movie. I was in. What follows may not only be the answer to great screenwriting. But the answer… to the universe.

Chelsea is a 30-something event planner in Los Angeles who gets passed up for a promotion and thinks it’s a sign that she needs to change careers. On that very same day, she receives a letter informing her that her Uncle passed away and left her a big house in Vail, Colorado.

Chelsea heads out there to feel things out for a few days, figuring she’ll fix the house up and sell it. That’s when she meets Owen, the impossibly hot contractor who seems to be everywhere in town. The two get off to a bumpy start when Owen chastises her for parking in a no parking zone.

Later, when Chelsea starts putting her Uncle’s house back together, she’s forced to hire Owen to help. The two immediately apologize for the way they acted and become fast friends, doing everything together, while Owen fixes up the house.

Owen also happens to be the son of the owner of a German restaurant in town that’s on its last legs. As it just so happens, Chelsea’s Uncle was the star pastry chef there who had a world-class apple strudel. But when he died, the recipe died with him and they haven’t had a strudel since.

When Chelsea later finds her uncle’s secret strudel recipe in an old photo book, she pitches the idea to Owen that they bring the strudel back. But who’s going to make it, Owen asks. We will! she replies.

Chelsea then calls upon her event planning background to put together… Strudelfest, which I’m beyond shocked wasn’t the title of the film. Strudelfest will unite the entire restaurant community to each make their version of a strudel and it will be a big fun event and, hopefully, bring people back to the restaurants and save Owen’s father’s place. Something tells me that, despite the odds being against them, it’s going to work out!

Did somebody say, “Strudel!?”

You know, I couldn’t possibly understand the appeal of these movies without having read the number one script from the Black List yesterday. But I’m really glad I did because it showed me EXACTLY why people love these movies.

Let’s take a quick look at the variables from each of these movies…

Best Seller

-Unlikable female protagonist
-Boring and mostly unlikable male protagonist
-A sad broken marriage.
-The only redeeming feature in the marriage is weird kink-filled sex
-Lots of unhappy people
-Tons of lying
-Infidelity
-Passive-aggressive attacks on your partner
-bitterness
-gossip
-people relishing in others lives being ruined

Winter In Vail

-Ridiculously likable female protagonist
-Incredibly likable male protagonist
-strong sexual chemistry
-Tons of happy people
-Everybody has good intentions
-Everybody helps each other out
-Characters go out and do fun things
-Celebration of family
-An overall happy experience

I mean when you break it down to brass tacks, it’s obvious why people like these Hallmark movies. If you go see Best Seller, you leave that movie feeling miserable about the world. If you see Winter In Vail, you leave feeling hope, happiness, and encouraged that people are, at their core, good. It’s almost scary how obvious it is that these movies do well.

HOWEVER…

I’m not sure I would’ve given the same marks to one of these films that scored a 6.0 on IMDB rather than a 7.0. I believe that these scripts are sneaky hard to write, maybe even more so than regular movies.

Why?

For the exact reason that the writer of It’s The Worst Time of the Year said. The stakes are low and there’s very little conflict. In fact, these movies seem to relish in the avoidance of conflict.

Again, their mission statement appears to be: Let’s make the audience feel good. And if people are double-crossing each other or being mean or getting in fights, that doesn’t leave you feeling good. There isn’t even a villain in this film!

So, where does the drama come from then?

And where does our interest come from when the drama is this light?

Well, the answer is: with good-old fashioned smart screenwriting.

There *are* some stakes to this plot. Owen’s father’s restaurant is on its last legs. It’s probably going to close down. The writers, therefore, make it a top priority to make sure we love Owen’s dad. We get an early scene where Chelsea meets him and he’s the nicest guy in the world. There’s also a slight sadness about him, since he knows that these are likely the last weeks of his restaurant.

Surprisingly, that can be enough to make us care about a story. We like the guy. We don’t want the guy to lose his restaurant. So we’re rooting for him, and everybody else, to save the restaurant!

And, actually, I think that’s the secret sauce to these movies. Everybody is so incredibly likable. They’re either nice, or funny, or helpful, or kind, or encouraging. They have each other’s backs.

This is the exact OPPOSITE of what we saw yesterday, when everyone was so unlikable. And what did I say? I said it is EXTREMELY hard to make a movie work when your main characters are unlikable.

So, the opposite would probably hold true as well, right? It should be EASIER to make a movie work if we *like* the main characters.

It’s funny because I thought that Owen was going to be more of an a-hole. And we were going to go the traditional route of him and Chelsea hating each other but he’s the only contractor in town, so she has no choice but to use him. But that’s not what happened. He was a little jerky in the first scene but from that point on, he’s super nice to her and she’s super nice to him. And it works!

Which leads us to the next secret ingredient on the Hallmark movie menu: Sexual Chemistry.

If you create two characters who we both like and we want to see them get together and then you make us wait to see them get together, that can work in a vacuum! You don’t need a great story around that if that part of the recipe is fire. You really don’t. People are captivated by two people who they want to see get together.

The mistake a lot of writers make is to have the two kiss (or do more) too early. And then most of that sexual tension disappears. They don’t make that mistake in Winter in Vail. They wait and wait and wait, ensuring that we stay until the very end because dammit we want to see these two officially get together!

These scripts really need that part to work because if it’s not working, it’ll shine a light on the lack of conflict in the story.

In the first act, we get a scene of Chelsea’s boss informing her that the big promotion she expected to get has been given to someone else. Her boss isn’t mean about it. But we don’t like her because she seems oblivious to the fact that Chelsea is devastated.

So, later, when she decides to quit, I was expecting a scene where she revels in telling her boss to take this job and shove it. Just to get back at her a little. The writer even sets the scene up for us, showing Chelsea approach her boss and ask to speak to her. But we never see that scene. We cut to afterwards, where she’s cleaning out her desk.

I thought that was a strange choice until later, when I got a better feel for how these Hallmark movies work. They don’t want to show any meanness, any spitefulness. And that’s tough as a writer because you’re leaving conflict-filled home-run scenes on the table. Taking that away from the writer is like taking away half his bat.

Which is why, again, you need to make the sexual chemistry stuff between the two romantic leads perfect. If that works, we’re not demanding a ton of conflict in the rest of the scenes. The conflict is taken care of through the unresolved sexual tension.

I’ll have to see one of the lesser Hallmark movies before I understand where the flaws in this formula are located. But based on this movie alone, I thought it was pretty freaking entertaining. And it was nice to feel happy after a movie for once. Which I’ll be ruining later tonight when I watch Frankenstein. :)

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

What I learned: Protagonist likability solves a ton of your problems as a screenwriter.

Time to review the 2025 Black List’s best script!

Genre: Drama
Premise: (from Black List) In New York’s literary scene, a struggling writer, pressured by her famous novelist husband to have a baby, pens a tell-all article that goes viral. This sparks a dangerous battle of seduction, manipulation, and betrayal in the public and private spheres.
About: The 2025 Black List just came out last week. This was the number one script on the list with 48 votes. Details on the project are scarce, but with Jason Reitman attached as producer and a female writer with a raw, unfiltered voice, it suggests Matisse Haddad may be getting positioned as a potential “next Diablo Cody.” Cody’s “Juno” was famously celebrated heavily in one of the first Black Lists.
Writer: Matisse Haddad
Details: 99 pages

If you’re going to write an unlikable lead, then let’s go FULL UNLIKABLE with the casting!

I’ve spoken so much about the Black List that I don’t know if I have anything more to say, lol. As flawed as it is, it’s still the best list we’ve got for highlighting the best screenplays of the year. And it’s going to stay that way until I find the time to read all 350 scripts that the industry circulates every year.

I don’t know much about this writer other than she’s had one other script on the Black List last year that sounded very “Substance-y.” I don’t think I ever reviewed it. So this is going to be my introduction to Matisse Haddad.

Best Seller follows a 30-something New York married couple, Anya and Chris, both of whom are writers. Chris is the more successful of the two. He has several best sellers. He also teaches writing at Columbia University. Anya, meanwhile, writes fluffy articles. She occasionally writes books but nobody takes them seriously.

One night, when Chris stresses that they aren’t getting any younger and he wants to start a family, Anya writes an article about her husband called “Mommy or Me?” In it, she basically vents about her marriage and makes her famous author husband look really bad for wanting her to get pregnant. Even worse, she didn’t warn him ahead of time. So, when the article goes viral, Chris finds himself dealing with the fallout.

After speaking to his livid editor, Chris decides to write a counter-article which, just like Anya with him, he doesn’t show her ahead of time. And that article attempts to rebuild his reputation, all while dishing out a few secrets about his wife as well (she lied about graduating grad school!).

Their friends and family think they’re ridiculous (join the club!) and tell them to stop doing this cause it’s only hurting both of them. So they decide to joint write an article for The New Yorker to hash things out.

Amongst their viral feud, the two go to a lot of literary parties and talk it up with a bunch of jealous aspiring authors who enjoy gossiping. There’s a lot of gossip in this script for you gossip hounds! They’re also each tempted by hot people who aren’t their partners. Oh and, oddly, 5% of the script covers their kinky sex life, which feels like it was thrown into the script at the last second over a flurry of weekend writing.

Anya decides to cheat with the guy she’s flirting with, after which she finds out she’s pregnant. She threatens Chris, who she caught trying to kiss the person he was flirting with, that she’s going to abort the baby if he so much as looks at her sideways.

Soon after, the two get in a huge fight during which their large dog gets involved and bites off Chris’s fingers. Chris freaks out because this means he may never be able to write again (he must not have a computer with a microphone). The two decide to get separated and the last 15 pages of the script montages its way through Anya’s pregnancy until we get to THE END.

So, do we have the next Diablo Cody here?

In the now-immortal response to my first Blood & Ink logline pitch…

No.

You could make the argument that Matisse Haddad’s voice is unique, though, which is probably why her script finished number one on the list.

The problem is that that voice is so depressing.

Observing this relationship is so sad. And neither of the characters are very likable, especially Anya.

You’re putting yourself behind the 8 ball if you’ve got a sad script with unlikable protagonists. It’s very hard to make that work.

And what’s also a problem is that the concept is weak. An article “write-off” against your partner? Movies are supposed to be larger than life. This concept barely feels like it’s larger than a month.

But Matisse doesn’t stop there in making things difficult for herself. She’s also writing about writing! Which is inherently boring. It’s not that it can’t be done. We were just discussing Rob Reiner’s Misery the other day. One of the greatest horror movies ever written. And that was about writing.

But to presume that, in this day and age of TikToks and Instagram and Twitter and Youtube, that some written article is going to take over the world and everyone’s going to be talking about it… I can’t remember the last time that happened. The early 2000s maybe?

The script is really a tale of two halves. The first half struggles mightily because of the issues I just mentioned. Weak concept. Unlikable characters. Boring subject matter. And a plot that goes nowhere.

I kept waiting for a plot development that actually mattered. Instead, I got, “Let’s write an article together!” That’s when I mentally checked out. I knew the script couldn’t recover after such a weak creative choice.

Funny enough, Matisse ditches all this silly “viral article” stuff for the second half of the screenplay and just focuses on the fallout of the dissolving marriage. That was the best part of the script because it was the most honest. But, again, because these characters were so unlikable, you didn’t care.

And they kept becoming more unlikable by the scene!

When you have a wife who deliberately goes out and seeks sex from some dude she wants to bang, she finds out she’s pregnant, then comes back and screams at her husband that she can’t wait to abort the baby — I mean how do I even keep reading after that? We all detest this woman at this point, right?

Writing characters is a funny thing. Because you can take two routes. Route 1 is to write a character as honestly as you possibly can and never worry about how they come off. The idea with writing a character this way is that, hopefully, because the character is so authentic, other like-minded people will see themselves in that character. And there’s no doubt in my mind that that’s how Matisse is writing Anya.

And I won’t say that can’t work. I loved After The Hunt because Julia Roberts’ character was written exactly that way. And I understood her character, even though she wasn’t inherently likable. And I’m sure that that’s exactly why some of you hated the character. Cause there was nothing about her that was likable.

Which leads us to Route 2: Be aware of how the audience sees people and create characters with traits that make the audience like them. What I’ve found is that the more serious the writer, the less interested they are in writing these characters. Because they don’t want to be inauthentic.

But there’s a cost to that. Which is that you have may have created a character who’s so unlikable that nothing in your story will matter because we’ve already decided we don’t like the person taking us on that journey. And that’s the case here. Anya is a horrible person and I hated her.

But even if I liked her, I’m not sure the script could’ve been salvaged. There are so many things working against it – the biggest of which is that there’s nothing in this concept that says: this needs to be a movie. This is something that happens every day in the world. Relationships fall apart. And the sorta-viral-article thing is just not big enough or interesting enough.

With that said, the script should find some fans, particularly among a New York–based, liberal, literary-minded female audience. But outside of that specific demo, I’m not convinced readers are going to find this concept or subject matter palatable.

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

What I learned: I’ve discovered that when scripts have these long stretches where people can just hang out in bars, or coffee shops, or parties, and chat, the script is in trouble. Cause what that means is that there’s not enough plot to keep the story moving. In any feature screenplay, your characters should never have time to just hang out. Maybe ONCE in the first act before the shit hits the fan. But even then, that scene should be setting up parts of the story. There were too many scenes here of people just hanging out and chatting without the story going anywhere. It took an already weak premise and further weakened it.

Note: Please use the comments section to share the scripts you liked and disliked from the 2025 Black List. This will make it easier to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it would help me, as I would really prefer to review the good stuff over the bad.

And a popular show reminds us of the power of a classic screenwriting tip

This whole ‘Hollywood is dying narrative’ is sillier than a candy cane cobbler.

Trust me, if Hollywood disappeared tomorrow and all we had were TikTok shorts and Youtube conspiracy videos, our society would implode.

You know, a while back, I asked myself, “Why do I care so deeply about movies? Why do I want to write them, produce them, devote my life to them?” The answer that came back: I want to bring entertainment to people.

Most people’s lives are hard. They’re paying high rent and higher mortgages, covering never-ending bills and taxes, dealing with health issues both minor and serious. They worry about family. They’re stressed at work. Their relationships are unstable, exhausting, and unpredictable.

Movies and television matter because they offer relief from that. At their best, they provide a chance to escape. And when they’re done really well, they provide hope! The most powerful heroes we meet in these stories are the ones who get knocked down repeatedly yet stand back up to fight again. It’s almost impossible not to root for them.

Those characters remind people that they can fight too. That the obstacles and depressions in their lives aren’t permanent, but rather temporary. If John McClane can survive a sealed Nakatomi Plaza, Nazi-adjacent terrorists, crawling over broken glass barefoot, and a couple of one-on-ones with Hans Gruber, then maybe I can get back on the horse after getting fired from my job.

I admit we’re going through a rough patch in Hollywood right now. But that’s mainly because the industry went all-in on superhero movies and now that they aren’t making money anymore, Hollywood’s having a tough time pivoting. And I get it. We convince ourselves that it’s better to keep fixing up that old car than buy a new one. But it’s time for Hollywood to buy a new car.

And what’s cool is, YOU GUYS get to influence what car they boy. Often “what’s next” is determined by some unexpected hit movie. That’s what signals the town that, “This is what audiences want next!” And then, in classic Hollywood style, they go all in. So, it’s up to the people who read this site to challenge their imagination and try to see the future. What do you think people want that currently isn’t available? If you can answer the question, write a script about it.

You want to know what I think the next big lane is going to be? I think it’s going to be big-budget sci-fi. Cause sci-fi hasn’t been good lately. It’s been wrapped inside of Marvel movies, where it’s mostly become bastardized. As a result, there haven’t been a lot of great sci-fi movie options. Dune, maybe. But that’s it.

If somebody could come up with a really original sci-fi take, the way Star Wars felt brand new in 1977 and The Matrix felt brand new in 1999. That could mark the next big trend in Hollywood. Cause I don’t think this Supergirl movie is going to save the superhero industry. It just doesn’t look unique enough.

Okay, it’s time to talk Pluribus Episode 7!

I think I’ve finally figured this show out.

When you create a show, it’s important to have a “North Star,” which is a metaphor for a direction you can always go towards when you’re lost.

You can do this in feature writing as well, but it’s more important in television because the story is so sprawling. It goes on for years. So it’s easy to get lost. And when shows fall apart, it’s usually because they didn’t have that north star guiding them.

I figured out the north star for Pluribus.

It’s: SHOW DON’T TELL

Never has that been more evident than in the most recent episode, Episode 7.

The episode is, sort of, a two-hander. The “hive” have long since left Carol after she nearly killed one of them. This leaves Carol on her own and that means she’s got to come up with things to do during her day. So she works on her golf game from the top of a skyscraper. She steals a bunch of high-grade fireworks and lights them up at night.

Concurrently, one of the only other 12 people who hasn’t been infected by the hive, Manousos, begins this long trek from deep in South America, to get to Carol. Manousos HATES the hive even more than Carol does and, therefore, despite their constant attempts to fly him to New Mexico, he ignores them and continues to drive north, eventually ditching his car because he has to trek, on foot, through hundreds of miles of jungle.

At first, I hated this episode. For 25 minutes, we see Carol playing golf and lighting fireworks, as well as Manousos driving through the South American countryside. There is little to no dialogue. It’s all visuals. And because of that (because there was no drama) I actually turned it off after those 25 minutes, deciding to finish it the next night.

The second half was much better. For Manousos, he has a clear flaw, which is that he refuses to listen to anybody, regardless of his own well-being. And what’s kind of interesting about the episode is that that’s similar to what Carol is going through. She doesn’t want help from these people. She doesn’t want to be around these people. So it’s a theme that’s guiding the episode.

Manousos’s storyline kicks into high gear when he reaches the edge of the jungle he has to trek on foot. Several of the hive-mind humans step in front of him just as he’s about to begin the trek and warn him that there’s basically zero chance he’ll survive. Manousos, being stubborn, disregards their advice.

This is a great dramatic setup that any writer can use. You tell the audience: If your hero chooses to go forth, he will die. Now you’ve got our full attention. With the beginning of the episode, Manousos was just driving. There was no drama. With Carol, she was just existing. There was no drama. The warning from the hive-mind finally infused the script with some drama. We had to watch to see if Manousos would somehow survive a 100 mile trek through the most inhospitable place on the planet.

It was around this time that this “north star” guiding principle became clear to me.

Vince Gilligan is very big on SHOW DON’T TELL.

And, of course, this has always been some of the most popular screenwriting advice you’d get. For good reason. There’s something about characters telling us something that doesn’t resonate the way it does compared to when we see it with our own eyes.

There’s this moment in Star Wars where Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan are trying to buy passage off of Tattooine from Han Solo and Han asks for this obscene amount of money: 10,000 republic credits. Luke gets pissed off, replying, “Ten-thousand?? We can almost buy our own ship for that.” “Yeah but who’s going to fly it, kid,” Han replies. “You?” “You bet I can, I’m not such a bad pilot myself.”

And that’s it! That’s the only information we get about Luke Skywalker being a pilot before he’s tasked with taking on the Death Star at the end of the movie. And most people never pick that up when they watch the movie for the first time. Why? Because it’s just words. And you would think that George Lucas would know that: how much more powerful showing is. So why didn’t he SHOW Luke Skywalker flying a ship instead of telling us? It would’ve been a much better setup for the ending.

Guess what?

He did.

In the original rough cut, Lucas shows Luke piloting a ship. But they had to cut it for time.

The point is, “SHOW DON’T TELL” has been around forever and you should always be trying to integrate that mantra into your storytelling.

WITH THAT SAID…

You can take it too far. Just like any screenwriting advice. And I think that’s what Gilligan is doing by making SHOW DON’T TELL his north star in Pluribus.

Because what we ultimately learn in this episode – that Carol is insanely lonely and has nothing to do, and Manousos has to chart a path 3000 miles north – is told completely via “SHOW DON’T TELL.”

And it gets tedious.

Audiences are more savvy than you think they are and they pick up on things quicker than you think they will. You could’ve shown Carol in her cul-de-sac street, looking bored out of her mind, shooting fireworks, and conveyed her loneliness from that scene alone. You didn’t need the golf stuff.

Concurrently, did we need 10 minutes of “show don’t tell” driving from Manousos to convey how long his journey was? No. You could’ve gotten there in half the run-time with the same effect.

Now, I will say this: Both of the payoffs for these long “show don’t tell” storylines were strong. (Spoilers) We see Carol paint some mysterious lines on her cul-de-sac, only to later see Zosia show up at her door and Carol run to her and embrace her, breaking into tears. It’s a great “show don’t tell” payoff of just how lonely she was. And then when we pan up from them, we see what Carol’s street painting said, which was the message: “Please Come Back.” Another “show don’t tell” payoff.

For Manousos, he predictably becomes dehydrated and physically unstable in the jungle, ultimately slipping and severely injuring himself. He eventually passes out, but before doing so, sees the faint outline of a helicopter above him.

So, what’s the point to all this? Gilligan is perfectly fine living by the show don’t tell and dying by the show don’t tell. He’s determined to tell this story through actions and imagery as much as possible, and to only use dialogue when it’s necessary.

I think it gets him trouble. There are too many slow sequences in this show. And no matter how much showing not telling is going on, it can’t save elongated stretches of story. So, use show don’t tell when it makes sense. But don’t over-rely on it. Sometimes, the best course of action is a character explaining things or talking to someone else. The hive-mind people warning Manousos before he enters the jungle is the perfect example. If Gilligan would’ve tried to “show don’t tell” that moment, we wouldn’t have felt nearly as much fear and danger for Manousos, which would’ve lowered the dramatic tension considerably.

Did any of you watch the latest episode?

What did you think?

Or will be in the next 60 minutes

Talk about an early Christmas present!

But I feel less like the kid and more like the parent agonizingly wrapping six thousand oddly shaped gifts.  That’s because I just spent 5 obscenely frustrating hours doing some backend work on my newsletter so that I can end all the issues for those of you not receiving it. But I’m going to need your help. This newsletter will probably end up in SPAM or PROMOTIONS today. Make sure to drag that e-mail into your primary Inbox and, if your e-mail service asks you if you want all future Scriptshadow e-mails going directly to that box from now on, say “Yes.”

Onto the final newsletter of the year where I give you a roadmap for how to break into Hollywood in 2026. I make it clear for every type of writer. There’s also some Osculum Infame talk about dealing with financiers. A look back at one of the most exciting spec sales in Hollywood history. There’s a Blood & Ink update. Another Derek Kolstad project sale. And there’s a script review from the writer of one of my favorite scripts ever.

So check it out! And if you’re not on the list, e-mail me with the subject line: LIST! And I’ll send you the newsletter.

Enjoy!