Today I examine why this controversial episode was never made.

Genre: TV episode
Premise: As Elaine contemplates buying a gun, Kramer comes back from vacation, claiming to have slept with the stewardess on his plane, prompting Jerry and George to bet on whether he’s telling the truth.
About: This is the infamous unmade episode of Seinfeld that featured a gun. It looks like this would’ve aired in season 3 or 4. The episode spiritually died in the table read, when Julia Louis Dreyfuss read a line about shooting Jerry. After the table read was over, the producers and creators huddled up then came back and told everyone to go home. They wouldn’t be making the episode. You can hear the cast talk about the episode here.
Writer: Larry Charles
Details: 52 pages

When you run a screenwriting website, you’re constantly coming up with ideas for things you can do on the site. I remember an early morning, while still in bed, half-asleep, where I became convinced that I needed to have a contest to write a modern-day episode of Seinfeld. For a good hour of half-asleepness, I had convinced myself it was the greatest idea that had ever been invented.

Then I fully woke up and, within five minutes, reality slapped me in the face, as it became clear that a website dedicated to feature screenplay writing probably wasn’t the best forum to do a contest for a sitcom that had been off the air for 20 years. So even though my love for Seinfeld remained unparalleled, I put the sitcom to rest. Finally.

That was until today when I learned that there was a Seinfeld episode that had never been filmed! Based on a script that had actually been written! This was like a dream come true. I knew these characters so well that a script might as well have been a filmed episode since it was so easy for me to envision these characters in that world.

In The Bet, Elaine shows up at Jerry’s apartment and claims that someone she knows got robbed and she’s thinking about getting a gun for protection. Jerry tells her she’s not a gun person but Elaine makes a strong case about being a woman in a big city with a lot of crime. You need to be able to defend yourself.

A sunburnt Kramer barges in, recently back from Puerto Rico, and tells Elaine that he knows a guy who can get her a gun. His old buddy, Mo. Elaine is thrilled. Then Kramer shares a secret with the crew – he slept with the stewardess coming back from Puerto Rico.

As Kramer and Elaine leave, a frustrated George, bemoaning his lack of opportunities with women, is convinced that Kramer is fibbing. Jerry, however, thinks Kramer is telling the truth. Therefore, they make “The Bet.” They bet 1000 dollars on whether Kramer was telling the truth or not.

We then head over to Mo’s, where Kramer, Elaine, and Jerry, go to buy the gun. Mo is a weird loser who lives with his clueless mother. He has several guns for Elaine to choose from. It all becomes too overwhelming for Elaine and she decides not to get a gun. Instead, she goes down the street and buys a fake gun so she can at least scare people away.

The group, minus Kramer, then head to the airport to find the stewardess who supposedly slept with Kramer. They locate her and ask, in a myriad of ways without being direct, if she joined the mile high club with Kramer. The woman is freaked out and in the pandemonium, Elaine accidentally pulls out her gun from her purse, and the group gets swarmed by security.

A couple of months later, they’re all back in their homes and everything is fine. Kramer shows up at Jerry’s and reads the group a letter from the stewardess who hints at, in no uncertain terms, that they did have a physical tryst on the plane. So Jerry wins the bet and George loses at life, once again.

One of the things I’m constantly telling you guys to do is TAKE RISKS. But “risk” is a nebulous word. A risk to one writer may not seem like a risk at all to the next writer. So it’s important to identify when real risks are taken. That way, you guys know what I mean by “risks.”

This was a big risk for Larry Charles, the writer. He admits as much in the accompanying interview. He says that he was always looking to take darker subject matter and find a way to make it funny. Building an episode of Seinfeld around a gun is pretty dark, relatively speaking. This wouldn’t be risky for an episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philidelphia. But that’s a show that got 1/20th the viewership of Seinfeld. It’s not mainstream so of course it can be darker.

The consensus from the Seinfeld group seems to be that Charles’s script was too risky. “You can’t make guns funny,” they concluded. I think that’s b.s. And I’ll tell you why. Suicide is way darker than guns. And suicide came up several times throughout Seinfeld. There’s one episode where Newman keeps threatening to commit suicide.  They even have a couple of episodes dealing with sexual assault (the masseuse and the woman with the toys), which turned out to be two of the funniest episodes in the series.

So I don’t buy that they couldn’t make guns funny. They just couldn’t make this episode work. The plot didn’t lead to funny situations. Going to buy a gun from a random guy who lives with his mom? Where’s the funny in that? I guess it’s ironic in that you’d normally expect to buy a gun from some sketchy hustler on the street. But they needed another angle. Mo was a dead-in-the-water character who didn’t generate a single laugh.

What I was really hoping to find in this episode was some classic Seinfeld dialogue, even if it was only one stand-out exchange. That’s where Seinfeld excelled, was in its dialogue. Because Seinfeld was the only show able to create funny dialogue out of nothing.

What I mean by that is, in most sit-coms, the scenes always had a point. For example, if you watched the first season of The Big Bang Theory, they’d have a scene where Penny was coming over to have dinner with our protagonist roommates for the first time, and Leonard would tell Sheldon, “Your job tonight is to just be normal. Don’t do or say anything weird!” And so the whole scene would be about Sheldon trying to be normal. And because Sheldon isn’t normal, he would end up saying and doing weirder stuff than usual. That’s where the comedy would come from.

But Seinfeld would just have the characters talk about nothing and it would still, somehow, be funny. So I was hoping to catch a glimpse of that here and learn something from it. There was a little bit of it and what I learned is that this brilliant team of people at Seinfeld had a particular voice that understood the minutia of everyday life in a way that the average person couldn’t articulate.

So when they picked apart that minutia (“I hate that guy. He stands so close to you when he talks. He’s a close-talker”), it was usually amusing. The lesson here is: pay attention to details in life. It’s those details – it’s those things that seem insignificant – that allow your characters to converse about things that you don’t usually see conversed about in movies and TV shows.

For example, if you’re on a plane and there’s a person sitting nearby who’s not doing anything – they’re not sleeping, they’re not reading, they’re not watching a movie, they’re not on their phone – they’re just sitting up straight and staring forward. You might see that, shrug your shoulders, think “That’s weird,” then never think about it again.

But Seinfeld used that premise for one of its plotlines. When Elaine is dating the dimwitted Puddy and the two are flying back from their trip to Europe, Elaine notices that Puddy is staring forward doing nothing. “You’re just going to sit there and do nothing?” “Yup.” “You’re not going to read?” “Nope.” “You’re not going to sleep.” “No.” Elaine is so flabbergasted by this bizarre behavior that she breaks up with him on the spot. She can’t handle it!

Paying attention to details, as a writer, pays off.

Speaking of dialogue (go buy The Greatest Dialogue Book Ever Written!), I wanted to share another dialogue tip with you. Here’s the scene with the tip.

The tip is: not every character in your scene needs to be participating in the same conversation. You can have fun with the fact that one or more people are having their own conversation. We see that here with George. George weaves in and out of the conversation, occasionally having a conversation with himself, obsessed with finding the punchline for his joke.

Everyone says this episode was TOO DARING FOR TV. I think it just wasn’t funny enough and they didn’t want to put a dud on the air. But they could’ve made guns funny. I’m sure some commenters will come up with some funny plotlines they could’ve used.

Script link: The Bet

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

What I learned: You never want dialogue to be too perfect. In real life, conversations are messy. That’s why you want to do things like have one character in the room having a completely different conversation from everyone else. It adds that “messiness” that mimics the kinds of interactions people have in real life.

Everybody in Hollywood is talking about the weak opening for The Fall Guy. Not just because of the movie itself but because it’s the official movie kicking off the summer movie season. That movie is always pulling double-duty. It’s got to do well for itself and it also has to get people in the movie-watching spirit for the rest of the summer.

The Fall Guy made only 28 million dollars. Which is, on average, a third of what movies usually make in this weekend slot.

The reason I didn’t see this movie is because I didn’t notice anything new in it. The movie may be about a unique subject matter (stunt men) but that’s not the impression the trailers gave. The trailers gave me a bunch of generic-looking explosions and guess what? I’ve seen about 10,000 generic movie explosions in my lifetime. Why would I pay 20 bucks to see a dozen more?

As I always say, YOU NEED TO GIVE US SOMETHING UNIQUE to have a shot at us showing up for your movie. The only chance you have at getting people to show up for a generic concept is if the direction is visionary. That’s, ironically, how Fall Guy’s director, David Leitch, got started. He took the most generic script ever – John Wick – and gave the world a tight slick carefully curated production that elevated a B-movie premise to look like an A-movie. No one had ever done that before.

Since then, Leitch has become sort of Michael Bay Jr. His movies are very slick-looking. They have that high production value with splosions everywhere you turn. But, just like Bay, there isn’t any soul in them.

Which is interesting because part of the reason John Wick worked was because of the soul. But I suspect it was Keanu Reeves who brought that soul. There’s something about that guy that elevates everything he’s in.

The Fall Guy’s failure is another reminder of how competitive the entertainment world has gotten. Cause, this morning, while eating breakfast, I watched a chess streamer on Youtube and then a “First Time Watch” video of The Princess Bride. Both of those videos, which added up to 1 hour of time, were highly entertaining. And that’s one hour I’m not spending on watching a new movie.

In other words, concepts have to be more compelling than ever to draw us away from countless other options. The only thing we know that gets butts in seats these days is the creme de la creme of comic book movies. Deadpool and Wolverine. Joker 2.

But, outside of that, you need to think long and hard about what’s going to get people into the theater. Challengers is a unique concept. So that did pretty well. Civil War as well. The Beekeper – a fresh spin on ‘guy-with-a-gun’ movies. Barbie felt completely different than anything that had come out. Even Anything But You, a generic rom-com if there ever was one, felt fresh to audiences because it had been forever since they had made a rom-com with a young cast.

It’s a bit of a mind-f**k, Hollywood. Because, on the surface, it seems like they only release generic stuff. But if you look closer, you realize that’s not true. Yeah, they love sequels, but those sequels were built on top of movies that broke out because they were fresh and new.

Wonka was different. The new Mean Girls is a musical. Guardians of the Galaxy was a total wildcard when the first movie debuted. As was the original Avatar. John Wick, as I pointed out, was sleek and cool and polished for a B-movie. Scream may have just come out with Scream 6, but the original blew the traditional slasher format out of the water.

Don’t get caught up in the fact that Hollywood loves IP because almost all of that IP was built on top of a movie that felt unique and fresh at the time. So that should still be the goal for you as a writer.

Speaking of uniqueness, how bout a movie about the Pop Tart?

I know this movie is getting a lot of sour milk poured on it, but you’re not going to see me bashing a Jerry Seinfeld film. You’re just not. I love Seinfeld. And if I can just get a few more jokes from him that remind me of the original sitcom? I’m happy.

Unfrosted feels like it was made in a vacuum. Which is both its biggest strength and biggest weakness. It’s a strength because you can tell nobody came in and “notesed” the writers to death, leaving them with a stale middle-of-the-road box of cereal. The joke-writers were unleashed. There were no restraints put on them.

Unfortunately, that led to the movie’s biggest weakness, which was an endless stream of the silliest jokes imaginable. I mean, there were at least 100 cereal-related puns in this script. But that’s a conservative estimate. It was probably closer to 200. I can handle a dozen cereal puns. I’m not sure anyone can handle 200.

What surprised me is that Jerry Seinfeld is 70 years old and yet he embraces some of the most juvenile humor this side of Johnny Knoxville. At one point, a rogue pop-tart comes alive and turns into a little creature that runs around and hides in drawers. It’s beyond wacky.

But the script does have its moments. My favorite set piece by far was the first test of the pop-tart. Our heroes are all safely hiding behind a big bunker (as if they’re preparing for a nuclear bomb test) and one of their assistants (in full oxygen hazmat suit) is tasked with putting the first pop-tart ever in the toaster. He has to operate within this “Fallout-esque” fake kitchen with fake family dummies and everything.

During the process of trying to toast the pop-tart, his oxygen tube gets loose and starts squirming around everywhere, then accidentally goes into the top of the toaster, causing the whole thing to explode and he just BLOWS UP AND DIES, lol. It was so wacky.

And they didn’t stop there! They follow this with a Kellog’s-funded funeral where, after they lower the casket into the ground, two people with giant boxes of cereal walk up and pour the cereal into the hole in the ground with the casket. Then another guy comes and pours a giant vat of milk into the hole. And then a final person comes with a giant spoon and starts stirring the milk and the cereal together. I admittedly could not stop cracking up, it was so stupid. But stupid funny!

And there were some good lines too. Hugh Grant plays this failed pissed off Shakespearean actor forced to be Tony the Tiger for Kellog. One day he’s drinking in a bar and a guy sees him and says, “I saw your one-man show of 12 Angry Men.” So there was at least one clever joke writer on this team.

Once you realize just how absurd the movie wants to be AND YOU ACCEPT THAT, it’s quite an enjoyable film. But I suspect some people aren’t going to be able to handle it. It’s one thing to not take yourself seriously. It’s another to be so dumb in places that it feels like you don’t care. This movie rode that line the whole way through.

It’s not going to be for everyone. But if you liked Seinfeld and you’re having a lousy day, this is definitely the movie for you. It’s going to cheer you up.

So, are there any lessons we learned from this weekend’s box office? The one lesson I’m reminded of is that the concept is always bigger than the actor. Hollywood bigwigs thought, “I’m Just Ken” was going to lead to a 75 million dollar Fall Guy opening no matter what. But people don’t see actors that way – at least not anymore. They see CHARACTERS. They see CONCEPTS. If they like a character, they’ll show up. They would definitely show up if this were a Ken spinoff movie. But as a totally new film about a stunt man? They don’t care that he was once Ken.

I’ll never forget the biggest example of this ever, which was Leonardo DiCaprio post-Titanic. There was never IN HISTORY a bigger actor than DiCaprio post-Titanic. You would’ve assumed that any movie he was in would’ve made 300 million at least. But the next movie he was in was The Man in the Iron Mask and NOBODY CARED. Nobody went to see it! It was a shocking lesson to me.

People don’t care about the actor. They care about the character and the concept. Which means YOU, the screenwriter, have the power. Give us that great concept. Give us that killer character. And we’ll show up, baby! :)

Genre: Action/Horror
Premise: A Miami cop joins a secret Black Ops team who are fighting a gang war against a mysterious, possibly even supernatural, opponent.
About: Blood Rush comes from Scriptshadow vet, Andrew Ferguson! The script made last year’s Black List.
Writer: Andrew Ferguson
Details: 113 pages

You know how yesterday I bitched about writers not giving their all in a script, and how easy it is for readers to tell when that’s the case? Well, we can also tell when a writer puts everything into a script. And today’s script is what that looks like.

From the extremely-detailed description:

To the personality-driven dialogue: “Half ton of grade A nazi prime, cut and cooked medium rare. Don’t see that on an average street beat.”

This is a writer who came to play. And guess what? He reads Scriptshadow. So of course he knows you gotta come correct. Let’s check out his script…

We’re in Miami, the city of big behinds and even bigger clubs. 35 year old cop, Vick Lake, heads into a building to take down a perp when she stumbles upon 10 dead neo-nazis tied to the ceiling, all of whom are pale as a ghost.

Miami has been experiencing a giant uptick in gang activity recently, due to a mysterious new gang that’s been going around killing the old guard. The question is, how are they doing it so easily? They’re slicing through these punks as if they were random pedestrians. But these are some of the most violent gangs in the world!

After Vick gets back to the station, she’s introduced to a guy named Mark Bishop and his quiet partner, Atticus. The two want to recruit Vick onto their team. Vick’s intrigued but doesn’t understand why they’re so vague about what they do. But when they tell Vick all they want is to take down this evil killer gang, she accepts.

They first head to a dark side of town run by a Haitian gang that hasn’t been seen in months. They figure these guys might be the ones doing the killing. But when they meet up with the head guy, he tells them a Keysar Soze story about some mysterious dudes who killed a bunch of his buddies as well!

Vick starts getting annoyed by the fact that Bishop and Atticus seem to know more about what he’s talking about than they’re letting on. But the more Vick questions them, the less they reveal.

Off they go to their next lead at some warehouse dock and that’s when a bunch of guys on Ninja motorcycles show up. A firefight ensues and when Atticus takes one of them down, the guy evaporates into smoke. This is when Vick realizes that she’s way above her pay grade. But there’s no time to complain cause they’re in the middle of a battle!

Once they’re free and clear, (spoiler) Vick learns that Atticus is… well… a vampire. And that he once had a kid with a human. That kid is being kept from him. So in addition to stopping this gang of crazy-ass vampires from killing at will, they also want to find Atticus’s kid. But will Vick be able to normalize all this and contribute? Or will she say, “Seeya” to this blood-sucker and her keeper? Curious cats are itching to uncover the truth!

Andrew wrote the sheeeyite out of this script. I mean, the word “exsanguination” is used. I checked online and learned that that word hasn’t been written in 23 years. So kudos to Andrew for bringing it back.

To be honest, I thought the script was a bit overwritten at times. This is an action movie so you want those eyes moving down the page quickly. But at least Andrew got his money’s worth. He’s not just writing big chunks of text without thinking about them. He’s clearly obsessed over every word. It actually reminded me a lot of early Andrew Kevin Walker, who I’m sure Andrew is inspired by.

A couple of things popped out at me right away.

This is a tri-team-up as opposed to the typical two-hander you get in these movies. Why is that relevant? I actually don’t know. But I know it’s not *irrelevant.* One of the things I’ve been focusing on lately is DYNAMICS.

Every group of characters, whether it be a group of 2 characters like Training Day, three characters like Challengers, or a group of characters, like Knives Out, has a dynamic. And how little or how extensively you explore that dynamic can be the difference between a boring movie and an exciting one.

You really want to think about how all of the characters in the dynamic connect to each other. You want to make each of those connections as interesting as possible. That’s why Challengers worked for me. The writer meticulously explored each individual relationship within that trio to make sure there was something compelling going on with each edge of the triangle.

There’s a version of today’s screenplay that doesn’t include Atticus. It’s just Vick and Bishop. But you know what? We’ve seen that dynamic before. By adding Bishop, you not only disrupt the cliche, but you give yourself an opportunity to charge the overall dynamic. Which Andrew does successfully.

Atticus is mysterious. He doesn’t say much. He’s cool and collected and a little bit weird. It takes what was your bargain basement 2-man cop team with a little sexual tension and it builds it into something more ethereal, more exciting. One of the main reasons I kept turning the pages was cause I wanted to know more about Atticus. He was cool.

Another thing I liked about this script was how long Andrew held onto the vampire information. Amateur writers all pop their balloons too quickly. Why not hold onto the fun information as long as possible? Even if we know it.

I knew these were vampires within the first 15 pages. However, THE MAIN CHARACTER DIDN’T KNOW. So there’s still value in seeing our hero catch up to us. It’s fun. It’s fun seeing Vick realize she’s dealing with something supernatural. So hold onto that information. Andrew holds on to it all the way until page 50.

This is a great showcase script for the site. It tells me that people who are reading the site are actually listening to what I say. Cause sometimes I wonder if anybody listens. I do these reviews cause I want everyone to get better. I say these things a thousand different ways in the hopes that you internalize them and use that knowledge to write great scripts.

We’re on a hot streak now. Been reading lots of good scripts lately! Let’s keep it up!

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

What I learned: Every genre has its typical number of characters it uses. Cop movies have 2 partners. Whodunnits have 6-8 characters. Teenage horror movies where the characters head out to some cabin in the woods tend to have 2 or 3 couples. Don’t be afraid to disrupt the standard number for these setups. Play with them. Cause different numbers really do change things. For example, if you’re writing a cabin in the woods horror movie, having two couples go to the cabin is going to give you a different movie than if you have one couple along with one other person. Cause that person is now a third wheel, which is a totally different scenario than two couples. So play with that number as you’re conceiving of your plot. Sometimes going with a number that scares you is exactly what’s going to make your movie different from every other movie out there.

Genre: Drama
Premise: Two aging tennis players who were once best friends play one final match under the watchful eye of the woman they both love.
About: The day has finally come. A tennis movie finished number 1 at the box office. Challengers beat the odds and topped the weekend with 15 million dollars. The writer is the husband of Celine Song, who recently wrote and directed the movie, Past Lives.
Writer: Justin Kuritzkes
Details: 131 minutes.

It’s been a while since I’ve gone to the theater so if there was a film that was going to get me there, it would have to be something personal, something I connected with on a deep level. And since I spent 15 years of my life chasing the dream of becoming a tennis champion, Challengers became that film.

Now, I’d already read the script, which you can check out my review of here. But it’d been long enough that I didn’t remember everything and could therefore go into the movie fresh.

So, did the movie live up to the script? Let’s find out.

For those who know nothing about the story, here’s a recap. 30-something tennis professionals Patrick and Art are playing in the final of a small professional tournament. We immediately learn that these two used to be best friends, but not anymore. Whereas Art has gone on to win several Grand Slam tournaments, Patrick is barely holding on to his 150 world ranking.

We cut back to the two in their teens when they used to be doubles partners. It’s there where they meet the young beautiful phenom, Tashi. The two corral Tashi into hanging out after a tournament and the three become fast friends (with tons of sexual tension). Tashi likes the more dangerous Patrick at first. But, over the years, as the flashbacks continue, she moves over to the safe (and more successful) Art, who she eventually marries.

After a career-ending injury, Tashi becomes Art’s coach and is one of the primary reasons he wins so many tournaments. But the truth is, Tashi hates her husband. She still pines for Patrick. But the problem is, she hates him too. Tashi believes that if her husband can beat Patrick in this final, he could win one last grand slam. But there’s a problem. Art has never beaten Patrick. And Patrick wants to keep it that way.

*****INSIDE NERDY TENNIS RANT BEGINS HERE*****

If you want to fast-forward to my thoughts on the actual characters, plot, and story, I’ve denoted below where this rant ends. But I cannot, in good conscience, not comment on the tennis in the movie. So let’s go at it.

My first thought when I saw the actors playing was: They look better than I expected. Their strokes were clean. Their form was good. You can always tell a good tennis player because they extend their racket out through the ball as far as their body will allow them. Amateur players have shorter hackier swings. So they obviously had some good coaching to teach them how to swing correctly.

When Elad and I were discussing how to make the actors in Court 17 look like tennis players, we realized that the only way we could possibly accomplish this was by inserting the actors’ heads on the bodies of real professional players via digital replacement. Cause we both agreed that, even in the best case scenario, where we’d get Ryan Gosling to play the lead (the lead was originally a man), we couldn’t make him look like 1/10th of a professional player even if we coached him 4 hours a day for six months.

So I was impressed by the fact that all three actors in Challengers, for the most part, swung the racket well. I was particularly impressed by Zendaya’s footwork. A tennis player’s footwork is a series of short quick intense bursts. It’s so fast. And her footwork was shockingly good.

But I quickly noticed what I feared going into the movie. Which is that they weren’t using real tennis balls. Instead, they had the actors run around and swing their rackets at imaginary balls then added the balls in digitally later. From a filming perspective, I know why they did this.

When teaching tennis, one of the things you do is you stand next to the player and take them through the tennis stroke. You show them the beginning (racket back), middle (extend out through the ball), and end (follow through). If you do this enough times with the student, you can make their swing look pretty close to a professional swing.

However, the second – AND I MEAN THE SECOND – you introduce a ball into the equation, THEIR ENTIRE SWING FALLS APART. And I’m not talking just a little bit. I’m talking, imagine a deer gliding through the forest. Now imagine a three-legged pig stumbling through that same forest, bouncing off trees and rolling around half the time. That’s the equivalent of a student swing without and with a ball. That’s because, once a ball is introduced, all the student cares about is hitting the ball. They don’t care about the swing anymore.

This is why they did it this way in Challengers. If you’re not going to use body doubles, you have to have them swinging at nothing. Cause once they start swinging at real balls, they’ll look like hacks.

But here’s why not having actual balls when filming hurts the tennis. If you watch
Zendaya swing in this movie, she does something NO PROFESSIONAL PLAYER WOULD EVER DO. Which is she NEVER LOOKS AT THE BALL. She just swings while staring forward.

Note where Federer’s eyes are at contact point.

It looks bizarre to real tennis players because you can’t hit a ball you’re not looking at. And the whole reason she’s not looking at the ball IS BECAUSE THERE NEVER WAS A BALL. They just told the players to run and swing at nothing.

Zendaya contact point.

This issue was so distracting, I couldn’t stop thinking about it while I was watching the film. I kept imagining calling Luca Guadagnino and explaining to him this mistake and how he should’ve done more test footage and had real tennis players watch it so they could’ve pointed it out and corrected it. But, eventually, once I accepted that I was never going to have this conversation, I moved on and just focused on the movie.

*****INSIDE NERDY TENNIS RANT ENDS*****

Okay, let’s chat about the actual film. I had the exact same experience with the movie as I did the screenplay. I didn’t like the first hour of the movie. For starters, it was extremely homoerotic for no other reason than the whims of the director. At times I thought I was at the STUDS theater on Santa Monica Boulevard in West Hollywood.

I wasn’t interested in the main match either. I didn’t understand why I should care about two old friends trying to win this tiny tennis tournament.

But what the movie does really well (and the script did the same thing) is it uses its flashbacks to give the viewer more information about the characters. And that information always relates back to the match being played in the present.

So, for example, in one flashback, we might find out that Patrick slept with Tashi at a tournament two years ago. Therefore, when we come back to the present-day match we see the points a little differently. There’s added subtext to the battle. Or (small spoiler), in another flashback, Tashi asks Patrick to throw the match. So when we jump to the game, we have THAT extra detail in our head. Is Patrick going to throw the match or isn’t he?

One of the things that annoys me so much about flashbacks in screenplays is that they take more than they give. They stop all story momentum to go backwards. You are TAKING from the reader whenever you do that. Sure, flashbacks often give us details about the characters but the details are never interesting enough to warrant stopping the main story for.

Challengers shows you how to do it right. Every flashback gives us RELEVANT information about the characters that CHANGES THE WAY we experience their finals match. That part of the script works so well that by the time we get to the end of the movie, I was on pins and needles. I had no idea who was going to win and I wanted to know.

This movie is so strange. It has so many quirks, so many times, early on, where it isn’t working. But somehow it manages to overcome all its weaknesses to put it together at the end. And I think its success is due to one single word. STAKES.

This movie is all about stakes. There are no stakes at the beginning. We don’t care about the match. But the more we learn about the characters, the more we learn that this match means EVERYTHING to each of these players. This script really reminded me about the power of beefing up the big events in your story by adding to the “all or nothing” recipe of that event. The more that’s riding on that battle, the more the reader cares. So for that reason, I think this movie’s worth checking out. As long as you’re prepared for churro-penis metaphors, you’re going to love it.

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

What I learned: The importance of setups and payoffs in your climax. So, in big Hollywood movie climaxes, they keep the audience’s attention with spectacle. But in drama, you have to be more clever because you don’t have spectacle. The best way to make up for that is with a killer PAYOFF to a SETUP you used earlier in the movie. So here, in Challengers, there’s a scene when they’re teenagers and they’re playing and they’re joking around about if Patrick slept with Tashi or not. And Art says, “If you slept with her, put the ball right on the throat of your racket when you serve. If not, use your regular service motion.” And they build the suspense of Patrick prepping to serve. Finally, right before he serves, he puts the ball on the racket confirming that he slept with her and they both have a laugh about it. — Cut to 20 years later, the night before the finals match, and (big spoiler) Patrick has sex with Tashi. Then, the next day in the final match, in the third set, the score is tied. Patrick goes up to serve and… as Art is preparing to return… Patrick moves the ball to the throat of his racket (conveying that he just slept with Art’s wife). It’s a well done payoff that hits with the impact of Thor’s hammer. And that’s it. That’s all you need to do in your low-budget movie climax to compete with the big boys who have all that spectacle money.

There will be no Thursday article but MAKE SURE TO SUBMIT FOR LOGLINE SHOWDOWN! Entries are due Thursday by 10pm Pacific Time! I’ll post the five winning contestants at 12:01am Friday.

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A high-end courier has three hours to transport a liver from LAX to a Santa Barbara hospital to a dying seven-year-old girl with the rarest blood type on the planet while contending with the head of the Southland’s most dangerous crime syndicate, who needs the organ to survive.
About: I believe these are the writers who wrote “The Shave,” that thriller script from a previous Black List. The thing is, I know I reviewed that script but I can’t find the review. So I can’t be sure. If these are the same writers, then they’re good! Cause I thought that script, which was a thriller about a guy getting a shave (I know!) was fun.
Writers: Tommy White & Miles Hubley
Details: 105 pages

We are going OLD SCHOOL Scriptshadow today.

Say it with me now.

G.

S.

U.

Look, there are many ways to tell a story but when it comes to cinema, the way that best jostles the DNA cinema matrix is to give us a strong character, and give that character a GOAL, some HIGH STAKES, and some EXTREME URGENCY.

Disagree with me?

Well, you’re wrong. Wrong according to who? According to obviousness.

How GSU is this script? It doesn’t even start with FADE IN. It starts with LET’S GO. No, I’m serious!

Hank Malone, 40, is that actor on Reacher. At least that’s who I’m imagining. He’s giant and huge and big and strong and aggressively agitated. Hank is kinda like a fixer. He works for suspect people and takes care of a lot of ‘criminal adjacent’ problems (politicians who need clean up after a big orgy, rich old men who need their exotic birds transferred to their angry ex-wives). But the guy doesn’t kill anyone. He’s your friendly neighborhood ex-SEAL fixer.

Hank then gets a call from his handler, Izzy, to grab a liver from LAX and deliver it to Santa Barbara, about 90 minutes away, where the weather is preventing any planes from landing. That liver needs to get to Santa Barbara within 2 hours or a little girl, Ellie, 7, will die. This is a rare liver blood enzyme type (or something) that only comes around once in a decade. So this is this girl’s only chance.

When Hank gets to the airport, he’s met by Ben, who’s carrying the liver. Ben chats him up as he walks along until Hank finally asks him, “Yo, are you going to give me the liver or not??” Ben says, “Oh, no. I *am* the delivery. I’m the medical courier.” Hank is delivering the deliverer. This is something Hank was not told so he’s already pissed.

But he’s going to get more pissed – don’t worry. Half an hour into their trip, Hank spots an SUV trailing them. Hank’s spidey sense starts tingling and he calls Izzy. What’s going on, dude? Why do I have company? Izzy starts sounding all suspicious and it’s then when we realize Izzy’s under the control of someone else. SOMEONE ELSE WHO NEEDS THAT LIVER. A bad bad criminal man named Damien Gallow.

Damien hops on the phone and says, “Yo, all you have to do right now is stop the car, let us have the liver, and we’re gone. Or…… I kill Izzy.” Hank does about five decades worth of introspection in 10 seconds and decides that he’d rather help a little girl live than whoever this asshole needs the liver for. So Damien delivers on his promise and kills Izzy.

It turns out that Damien’s mom is some psycho crime boss named Donna who ALSO needs that liver in order to live. So Damien’s not going to go quietly into the night just because Hank decided he had a heart. Oh no. Damien is going to get that liver at all costs – Hank and Ben just don’t know it yet.

Runner is an odd duck of a GSU showcase.

Its first 30 pages are spectacular. The way it sets up Hank and the rest of the characters – I got a strong sense of who everyone was. And then it’s written in this fast-paced kinetic style, yet it never skimps too much on detail, preventing it from ever feeling thin.

There’s this scene around page 35 where Hank and Ben are pulled over by these bad guys. The scene just sits there in its suspense, soaking the silence up, as we wait for the bad guys to move. What are they going to do? That was the peak of the screenplay for me. The story AND the writing were firing on all cylinders.

Where things started to sputter was with Ben. I have no idea what this character was doing in the movie! He’s just there to hang around and talk to Hank. It’s very frustrating because the deeper into the script I went, the more I kept waiting for SOMETHING to happen that would indicate why Ben needed to be here. When nothing arrived, I thought for sure Ben was going to be a late 3rd act bad-guy twist. But no. Nothing. He’s literally just there to hold the liver.

I think I understand what the writers were doing. They thought, “If we have Hank in the car alone, there’s no dialogue. So we have to have someone there for exposition and to introduce important plot beats.” But that’s not how screenwriting works. You can’t just put a character in your script ONLY to provide an expository function. He needs to be his own character. He needs to justify his own existence. He needs to have a storyline of his own.

That’s another area where I felt the script could’ve improved. There’s this early moment where Hank and Ben are driving and Hank’s talking to Izzy on the phone and Izzy’s acting confused about why Ben is there and I thought, “Hmm, wait, is Ben bad?” And then I thought, “How cool would it be if Ben is the wrong guy and he’s taking him in some completely opposite direction?” It felt like a situation was brewing where Hank couldn’t trust anyone and every 15 pages of the story was going to have a surprise reveal. But after that initial, “Bad guys are after us” moment, the script didn’t have any huge twists, which was a missed opportunity.

In the continued spirit of assessing dialogue this month, we get an example of Tip 137 from my dialogue book, which is, “Have one person who wants to talk and another who doesn’t.” That resistance creates conflict within the conversation and conflict is one of the major keys to writing good dialogue.

By the way, one last point here about this script because it relates to problems I’m seeing in a lot of the scripts I’ve been consulting on lately: If you have a character like Hank, who’s grumpy and tough and negative – traits that commonly lead to an unlikable character – do what these guys did at the start of their script.

They send Hank out a montage of his daily activities – which amounts to the errands he does daily in his job. One of them includes taking an exotic bird from one person to another. So you have this huge Jack Reacher thug walking around with a cage that has a rare bird inside. The ridiculousness of that image (and that job) makes him easy to cozy up to. We kinda like this guy now because of all the silliness he has to deal with every day.

It’s taking a page out of Rocky’s book when he has to go collect money from that guy and he ends up being nice to him. These are small things in screenwriting but they have a big impact. Character likability is REALLY IMPORTANT, especially when you’re dealing with an inherently cold or mean protagonist. So you have to figure out little ways for us to connect with them.

Overall, I thought this script was good, not great. But it will definitely finish Top 15 on my 2023 Black List re-rankings.

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

What I learned: Backboard characters (characters whose only purpose is to give the main character someone to talk out loud to – like hitting a ball against a backboard), are inherently thin.  When producers complain about one-dimensional characters, this is one of the varieties they’re talking about.  Never create characters JUST for expositional purposes or just to give your hero someone to talk out loud to. Once you create a character (in this case, “Ben”), regardless of their function in the script, you must give them a purpose for being in the story and some sort of arc over the course of the script if you can.

Have you been struggling with your dialogue? I have over (that’s right, OVER) 250 dialogue tips in my new book, “The Greatest Dialogue Book Ever Written.” You can head over to Amazon and buy the book, right now!