Set within the confined walls of a commercial airplane, tensions soar as a battle of wits unfolds between a resourceful passenger and a group of desperate hijackers. With each twist and turn, our hosts navigate the treacherous terrain of suspense, exploring the psychological depths of the characters while keeping listeners riveted throughout their heart-pounding pitch. Buckle up and prepare for an exhilarating journey into the skies where survival and strategy collide in this high-stakes thriller that will leave you breathless. But first, listen in as one host pitches a controversial casting idea for the new Remo Williams series that everyone is sure to hate equally.
Set within the confined walls of a commercial airplane, tensions soar as a battle of wits unfolds between a resourceful passenger and a group of desperate hijackers. With each twist and turn, our hosts navigate the treacherous terrain of suspense, exploring the psychological depths of the characters while keeping listeners riveted throughout their heart-pounding pitch. Buckle up and prepare for an exhilarating journey into the skies where survival and strategy collide in this high-stakes thriller that will leave you breathless. But first, listen in as one host pitches a controversial casting idea for the new Remo Williams series that everyone is sure to hate equally.
Let R.C. Bray tell you a story sometime and check out his podcast here.
Take the Red Eye and check out Oppenheimer star Cillian Murphy in one of his earlier films.
Reach the pod at DontEncourage@gmail.com
Discourage us on Instagram, X, TikTok, Discord, YouTube, and Threads
speaker 1: Today we're doing another story break episode. So feel free to delete the episode right now. I think that's probably the safest route. But first I thought we talked a little bit more about Remo Williams. Remember that? Oh,
speaker 2: Remo Williams. Yeah. Remo Williams. The assassin, the the lone assassin. Yes. Trained by, uh, the ancient art of, what is it?
I'm already forgetting. Sanji. Sanju. Sanju.
speaker 1: Sanju Sanju.
Well, you, you actually asked a really great question, so actually you did for once. Yeah. I just wanna put that on record. Yeah. Not a hundred percent negative. Um, so your question was what actors should play Remo in the Amazon reboot? Yes. I had some more time to think about that. Did you have any more thoughts before I lay my brilliant idea on you?
Well, I had more
speaker 2: time to think about it, but did I think about it? No.
speaker 1: So I think you'll have to go first. Yeah. Well, lucky you, you can put these things outta your mind. My mind does not work that way. I shot up in the middle of the night with an 19 All Remo. All the time. That's right. So, you know, as you know, the original version casted a very particular way with certain interesting choices and actors for the reboot.
I thought it would be really interesting to hire a Korean actor to play Remo. Hmm. That
speaker 2: would be an interesting choice. Yeah. Who are you thinking?
speaker 1: Well, I don't know. There's a lot of really good Korean actors who are doing series and, you know, out of Korea, Netflix has a lot of that stuff. So there's, there's some very talented actors.
There was a series, what is it, crash Landing Into You, which stars? Uh, it's a, a woman from South Korea who's like paragliding and she ends up in North Korea because of a storm, and she lands on top of a, uh, soldier. I. And then the whole series is about their relationship and it gets quite romantic. I didn't really watch the whole thing, but my wife did.
And, uh, I, I saw the last episode and it's, it's a lot of like kind of soap operay drama, but it's well done, well acted. And the lead actor in that, or one of them, the male is very, very good. And I, I don't know if he could play this kind of character, but I was actually thinking that a very interesting way to do Remo Williams or the Destroyer for Amazon is not only cast a Korean actor, but have him play Remo in white face.
Wow, that would be different. Yeah. Think about it. That would be very different. Think about it, right? You take a Korean actor and hopefully they can pronounce English words convincingly, even if they don't speak English, but you put them in white face and make them look like kind of a rough and tumble kind of blue collar guy who gets recruited initially.
There are a lot of jokes that come off of that. I mean, it's, it's kind of offensive, but it's also pretty funny given what was done in the, the movie before with putting a white actor in, you know, Asian makeup. But the goal for that, in my opinion, would be to write it and perform it so well that the audience ultimately forgets that the actor isn't a white guy.
Mm-hmm. But he definitely guarantees a lot of views on the pilot. It would
speaker 2: definitely be controversial.
speaker 1: There would be a lot of, it's, it's controversial in a very funny way that makes fun of society today. You know what I mean? Mm-hmm.
speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, I think, yeah, we'll be making fun of society today, but I'm sure people would take it the other direction just to be, that's contrarian,
speaker 1: right?
That's part but part what's so fun about it is it's gonna get a lot of publicity over people just being like, trying to complain about it. But the show obviously knows what they're doing. Mm-hmm. It's intentionally supposed to be outrageous and funny. It sets the tone for humor a little bit, maybe even too silly in the show.
But if you play it straight and the actor is legit, trying to not be like a comedian, pretending to be somebody of a different race, but like a, like legit method acting almost like a white guy and like really a g a good actor I think could pull this off and it would be hilarious. And then it would just be like, you forget.
Right?
speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, that could work. Do you think that actor would be a good,
speaker 1: a good? I don't know. So I don't know. I think it, you'd have to, um, he's obviously a good actor, but can he play that part? That's what I don't know. 'cause it's a very weird part. It's definitely potentially a major breakthrough role for an actor because regardless of how the show does, it'll get a lot of attention.
If he manages to play the character convincingly, then I think for sure Hollywood will embrace that person and they'll get cast in, in bigger roles as a result. So I think that's, that's a win. And there's a lot of noise as far as audiences are concerned in the streaming market, and it's kind of hard to break through that noise and have your show stand out.
So this would be a great way to get a lot of headlines because websites that have a sense of humor, like news, entertainment, news, websites, we'll definitely pick it up. Websites, entertainment news, websites that don't have a sense of humor will definitely pick it up. Uhhuh and they'll pick a side based on their readership or whatever.
Yeah. So it will get a lot of headlines. The pilot will get a lot of views and downloads. If the pilot has everything else, it needs to be entertaining. It'll hold on to a portion of that audience. Mm-hmm. And if the second episode, you know, hits the ground running and the third episode is also good, then there will be some people who are just gonna commit to this series to the end.
And if by the third episode you really don't think about the fact that this guy is Korean playing a white guy, that's a, that's a huge accomplishment. Oh yeah. Yeah. That would be, I think the movie almost pulled that off with the actor playing.
speaker 2: Hun, I wonder if when that movie came out that people, if they didn't hear any news about it, if they realized that he wasn't Asian?
Mm, mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
speaker 1: They didn't think about it. Yeah. I don't think that was newsworthy back then. Yeah. Yeah.
speaker 2: There would be so many great actors to choose from, from Korean movies. Oh yeah. So many. So the, there's so many phenomenal Korean movies, especially that I've watched around, um, like those serial killer movies, those crime thrillers and obviously Train to Busan.
Yep. Which is
speaker 1: incredible Kingdom. So there's some great actors in Kingdom that I would want to, uh, try out for this role. Yep. They're awesome. 'cause they can do action, they can do physical comedy, you know, if they can do an accent or speak English clearly. Mm-hmm. Um, even if it's just phonetic, you know, just do an Arnold Schwarzenegger approach.
Yeah. Where you just put peanut butter in his mouth and dub over it or whatever. But like it, you know, as long as they can make sounds that seem English. Mm-hmm. And then the special effects shouldn't be an issue.
speaker 2: Yeah, I'm really curious to see what they're gonna do with that movie. Um, with that movie, turning it into a series, is it just gonna be nonstop Adventures is one, say, like series one of the story is gonna take place and like have one problem that he's trying to solve.
Oh,
speaker 1: yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. How's it gonna work? Like, is there Reman adventure? One season is adventure. Yeah. Yeah. I imagine they're not gonna do like an episodic. The whole thing resets at the end of every episode. You know, sort of classic eighties TV eighties.
speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. That'll be interesting. What way, which
speaker 1: way they go.
I would love it if in season one they use that running joke with like, and I, I'd love it if it was like the same dog. That is guarding different places that he has to break into and different people. That would be really funny. He's supposed, and he, and it just keeps outsmarting him and he's barely escape.
Escape guy again. Right. And then I would love it if at the like season finale, he's finally outsmarts the dog and kills the guy who's using that dog now is like his guard dog. And then in season two, he's now adopted the dog and he, and he uses it to train with, so the training sequences in season one are like remo and ch, but in season two it's like remo against the dog.
With Cian like training.
speaker 2: Like Ch Chung sees him and he's just like, we've gotta put an end to this. This is ridiculous. You keep getting
speaker 1: outsmarted by a dog, that'd be really fun. Yeah. And he just keeps bringing the dog in to like, to like mess him up. Like the montage
speaker 2: sequence. Yeah,
speaker 1: right. I would love all through season two and I think it'd be great.
Like the dog is his nemesis and then season two it's like his buddy, you know? Or like his nemesis in training, but they're like friends and there's
speaker 2: thought bubbles. So you can see what the dog is thinking. It's like, oh, this guy
speaker 1: again, there are a lot of dog head tilts where it's like thinking, you know, looking up, looking down, looks at like the door looks at like the bowling ball.
Next thing you see, Remo walks in and the bowling ball hits him when he goes through the door. But yeah, it's so funny. I think there'd be a lot of, and then maybe even the dog could seem to gain abilities, you know, a little bit of that, like mystical assassin level training. So the dog seems to be able to do things like run on sand without leaving tracks or whatever.
Like, I think there's a lot you could do and, and that's fun. And it keeps it light because what, again, the premise is America's favorite assassin. It's, I mean, it's so flimsy that plot,
speaker 2: right? If you really think about it, you're like, they made a whole movie around this. Let's pick up the random beat cop, have 'em trained by a mystical kung fu master or shi juju master or whatever, and send him on a mission, uh, sja.
Send him on a mission where, He is clearly not, not the stealth assassin that he thinks he is. Right. And that's the end of it. I like when he shows up to kill that, that villain. It's too
speaker 1: funny. Yeah, it's, he's really, well, the Amazon show, I would assume, would not benefit from taking itself too seriously. So you definitely need elements like kind of a lighthearted relationship or rivalry with a dog and, uh, having a Korean actor play a white guy to comedic effect.
I know a lot of people would hate that at first, but if you could win them over, it would go a long way towards, towards healing this country. And that's really my, no, I'm just kidding. It would sell, that's what this podcast is all about. We would sell some ad space. Yeah. Some subscription fees. I
speaker 2: just thought it would be kind of funny if they played it completely straight.
Like it was a completely like, serious show. I mean, how they would, how they would take it, you know, like where it would go. I
speaker 1: think the, the thing is that he'd be necessarily a pretty bad person. If you did that just based on the novels. I think the movie was pretty light, but like it's a, it's a really serious topic.
Like it's somebody who kills people with impunity simply because someone else, like one person specifically decided that whoever it is needs to die, or they're just collateral on the way to get someone else. And the novels try to justify the kills, but a little halfheartedly.
speaker 2: Interesting. Yeah, I've never read the novels so that
speaker 1: I don't know that too.
And he rapidly becomes a villain by a lot of people's standards. He's not a good person and he doesn't care. So unless it's kind of funny. It's a little bit dark. Well, in the movie,
speaker 2: it was kind of shocking how he went along with this whole plan so easily. Mm-hmm. Like he only protested what, one time?
Mm-hmm. Maybe two times, but really half-heartedly. Yeah. Trying to leave the room when they're telling him that what he's in for and he's like, oh, I'm outta here. And then he seems totally fine with it. Yeah. You know, the whole time they hand him a gun and off he goes.
speaker 1: Yeah. You know? Yeah. Well, in the novels, the character wrestles with it more, but it is a characteristic of him that he doesn't seem to have much in the way of, uh, self-direction or initiative, or particular ego or ambition, I guess ambition's probably the best word.
He just kind of goes along with whatever. I see. Um, and he often gets himself in situations where he has to kill someone because he didn't really plan ahead particularly well. And he is okay with that. Yeah. And he is, that's my point, is like he's a dark character. So if you, if, if you make him inherently kind of funny and I, I think a, a Korean actor playing a white guy can get away with more too.
Because there's something that's maybe a little more inherently likable about him doing bad things because if you're kind of racist and you like, you know, tough guys killing people, then it seeing him kill people who don't necessarily strictly have to die, but makes you feel good to kill him 'cause they're jerks that's gonna wing you over.
Because he's playing a, a badass who's a true, like anti-hero. And if you're more liberal and against killing it sort of softens it a little bit that it's a Korean actor playing a white guy and you maybe want to support that, you know, that diversity approach or whatever. And when people understand the backstory for why specifically you have a Korean and white face, because of the 1985 movie, four movie, what was it?
85 I think. Because 84 was Karate Kid. That's right. 85. Yeah. Man, you, you really know your Karate kid. I know My karate kid. I think it, I think it works. I think you can sell it. I think it has the potential to be a hilarious disaster, but I don't see it being, uh, not worth talking about. We could
speaker 2: have a crossover.
Remo Williams and Cobra Kai,
speaker 1: where he just murders some of those kids. Yeah. Yeah. And
speaker 2: they have to get revenge at 'em, and they all get together
speaker 1: and then the dog kills the Remos on the loose. Yep.
speaker 2: The dog's gonna have its own
speaker 1: spinoff at this point. I think so. I mean, in my head, definitely multiple spinoffs as an
speaker 2: animated series
speaker 1: could work actually.
The dog killing people. Yeah. Dog assassin
speaker 2: or
speaker 1: dog security guard. Bowser dog security guard. He's just outsmarting criminals every week stealing sandwiches from the human security guard. Hey, there've been stranger things, right? Yes. Speaking of, speaking of stranger things, have you been watching or reading or observing anything interesting or should we just go right into story break?
speaker 2: Maybe we should go into story break. 'cause the thing that I have been watching is gonna be another episode.
speaker 1: Oh, oh, oh, you're talking about. Okay. So we can tell the audience that the current plan is to talk next week about invincible. I. The Amazon series. Season one is out, season two is due out, I think in, in a few months, so not for a while.
So if you're interested in listening to that episode, first of all, why, second of all, start watching the show right now, then rethink your life a little bit and your entertainment choices. But regardless, it's a great show, so you should definitely check it out if you haven't. And then the episode after that, in two weeks from now, we plan to talk a little bit about Columbus Day by Craig Allenson.
I recommend the audio book. Are you listening to the audio book or are you gonna do the, uh, the old digital copy? I think I'm gonna
speaker 2: read it. I started listening to it, but I kept getting distracted. Mm. So I wanna make sure that I'm, I'm focused, so I'm gonna, okay. I'm gonna read it. Although I think his reading is really, is
speaker 1: really outstanding.
RC Bray is truly talented and you haven't even gotten to the best of it. He can do so many accents and so many slightly different voices that my brain was able to actually identify them by the tone of his voice and the accent combination. And at this point, I'm now, what am I on book five, four or five and I, I can still distinguish characters and remember characters from books ago based on his accent and tone.
Oh wow. Yeah, it's, it's amazing. And I've tried listening to other audio books since I started these, just outta curiosity. And I still have problems and I still get annoyed. Bronson pin show. From, uh, yeah. Yeah. What was that? Eighties sitcom. Perfect. Strangers is reading an aliens book, and I'm just like, yeah, I'll download the sample.
It's annoying. I mean, he's a, I'm sure he is a very talented actor, but his voice, when he does different voices, it just sounds like the same guy. Like, so anyway, RC Bray is, is a true master podcast. Do you know what else he's done? Podcast? Yes. Uh, so I googled it. He's done a lot. 250
speaker 2: I saw, but I didn't know specifically what he's
speaker 1: read.
That's, uh, yeah, a ton of stuff. He's probably one of the top talents. If there are better people, please email me and let me know, because I would love to know if there's anyone I, I wouldn't think if there were top five audiobook readers, who do you know more than one audiobook. I would imagine he's in the top five.
If not at the top. So what's his podcast about? Do you know? Yeah, he, so the episode I listened to was the one where he brought on Craig Allenson. They have a good working relationship. Craig Allenson has, I wanna say like 17 or 18 different projects within this universe of the Expeditionary Force slash Columbus Day series.
So he's done all of that for him. And he, uh, Craig RC Bray brought Craig Allenson on to talk about his writing process. Interesting story. You know, I think they probably know each other pretty well, so I enjoyed it. I don't know what else he does at other episodes, but I think it's just a chance for him to talk more RC Bray.
Mm-hmm. Makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. That's something we can understand. Yeah.
speaker 2: That's why these podcasts are about 20 minutes long.
speaker 1: Yes.
speaker 2: We're hitting our zoom limits. They're like, we have no more bandwidth for these two. We gotta kick 'em off. That's right. There's, there's a, uh, c e o who wants to get on and do his, uh,
speaker 1: company wide meeting. Yeah, we're taking up too many servers. But yeah, so those of you who are interested in following along, you can order your picture pages and be ready for next episode.
Again, invincible, highly recommend it season one on Amazon. One of my favorites really and stick around through at least the end of the first episode because it becomes a little less predictable. I will say, not to build up hype or anything, but I actually think it gets better as the series progresses.
There's a point about two thirds of the way through where I think it kind of reaches its peak and it doesn't get worse. It just sort of isn't as good as it's gonna get until then. So maybe something to look forward to. If you like it or you think it might be interesting, try to stick with it 'cause it's good stuff.
Anything else before we get into our story break episode? I think we're good. Okay. Ready to go. So those of you who are following along can delete the episode now and you're still here. Okay. So today's story break episode, and we really do need a theme for that. Maybe we can get the AI to write one.
speaker 2: Yeah, let's get AI And they'll do the jingle
speaker 1: too.
Oh yeah. We'll get like a little ukulele or, or something. Or we'll just have AI read it. That'll be funny. That's perfect. Oh, oh, I wish I'd prepped that.
speaker 2: I know, I know. I
speaker 1: wish you could do it right now. That would be amazing. You know how you do it,
speaker 2: you can do it on a Microsoft Edge, the browser. Mm-hmm. And you can have it read your note like a, a note that you have on screen or whatever.
Hmm.
speaker 1: It's a fun fact. And then we can gradually add music, some finger symbols. Mm-hmm. You know, work, work up to the triangle cowbell.
All right, so you and I talked about this a little bit in advance and I laid out a buffet of amazing options for a pitch this week, and you selected something that I worked on quite a while ago. Uh, it's a hijack movie. It's a plain hijack movie. So I'm gonna try to pitch it. The pitch I have is a whole story.
It's not obviously all the details, but it is a beginning, a middle, and an end. So be listening for what you hate about it. So you can start with that and point out why this won't work and why it's a terrible idea.
speaker 2: We should end it right now.
speaker 1: Throw it out. I'm in a great head space for this. You can tell.
speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. You're, you're already prime for, uh, for defensiveness.
speaker 1: That's right. And after you're done, shit all over my idea, then maybe you can talk about what you would want to see in a film like this to keep it fresh and interesting. Because obviously hijacked movies, they come and they go, it's a little bit of a sub-genre, but if, if you're gonna do it, you need something fresh like, you know, snakes, there've gotta be snakes on the plane or There was a movie out a couple years ago, I think I saw it on Netflix where it was like a vampire on the plane.
Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. I remember that was kind of it. It's not a bad movie. Yeah, I, I did like that. Uh, and I didn't think I was gonna like it, but I did like it. But anyway, this is a, a grounded film, so it, it probably needs a little extra work to add some creative ideas to make it interesting. All right, so we're on a crowded commercial flight, standard airline, lot of passengers, a little uncomfortably crowded and claustrophobic, southwest.
Exactly.
speaker 2: I'll stop. Go ahead.
speaker 1: Please continue. Got, so terrorists take control violently killing two of the flight crew and gaining access to the cockpit lightning attack. Uh, they kill two of the flight crew just brutally, violently. They make demands and they reroute the plane toward their country of origin.
So, hostile airspace, the terrorists start assembling explosive devices. One terrorist gets really angry with a passenger, with, with multiple passengers, and he's waving his gun around and he turns and he points it at a pregnant woman, and he's about to execute her. And a man stands up and he shouts, if you kill one more person, we're all dead.
Terrace stops and looks at him and the guy explains, he says he works for the C I A. And the policy since nine 11 is that in hijack situations, it's either resolved successfully or declared an accident and covered up and they've already killed two people. And if they kill one more, it'll cross that threshold.
They'll destroy the plane and they'll declare it lost due to mechanical failure or weather or pilot error. And the terrorists are like, that's ridiculous. And the guy cites a bunch of examples of plane crashes since nine 11 that were actually coverups by multiple governments around the world, not just the United States.
And he explains how each case, it wasn't mechanical failure, it wasn't some sort of damage to the plane or pilot or whatever, right? It was actually an attempted hijacking that was successful and they destroyed the plane and just declared it an accident. And then he explains that he's committing treason because he doesn't want to die.
And he knows if they kill one more person, the plane will be destroyed. So the terrorists do not believe the guy, but they're hesitant to do anything. He's losing the debate, right? And they're gonna kill him. They're gonna kill other passengers. And he says he can prove it. So they, you know, obviously they don't believe him and they rough him up and he's like, take me to the cockpit and I can prove it.
So they drag him through the plane, up to the front, into the cockpit. This guy claiming to be a CI agent tells the pilot to execute a very specific banking maneuver. And while they're doing that, he points to a brief flash on the very edge of the radar screen, and he says that that's a stealth fighter that's shadowing the plane and it's using surface penetrating.
Low energy, radar, and thermal sensors to monitor everyone on the plane. And if they kill one more person, the plane is authorized to fire missiles at the fuel tanks and pretend it's an accident, like cover it up. Right? So, you know, that goes back and forth. Some of the terrorists think it might be true, some of 'em don't.
Meanwhile, they're rigging the plane to explode. And it comes out that the terrorist plan is to hold passengers hostage in the plane after landing using a remote detonator. So they're gonna go to their country, which is hostile to America, they're gonna land in this airstrip that's in the middle of nowhere that they've prepared.
They're gonna leave the passengers on the plane and they're gonna make demands for the release of prisoners. And you know, other things like that, money or whatever. If the demands aren't met, they're just gonna press the remote detonator and blow the plane. Any questions so far? No. Okay. There's a little bit of a stabilization at this point where terrorists are not planning to kill anyone.
They're gonna hold off, and the man claiming to be a CI agent is being held at the front of the plane. And it seems like they're just gonna end up going to this foreign country and hopefully the demands will be met. But then an aggressive passenger makes a lunge for one of the terrorists and he's shot and killed.
Right? As the plane is crossing into the airspace of this hostile country, nothing happens. The plane isn't destroyed, and the terrorists turn on the ccia. The guy who claims to be a CI I agent, and they start saying, like yelling at him like, you lied to us. And at this point, my intention as the writer is for the audience really not to know, is this guy actually a ci i agent or not?
Did he just make this up? Was he thinking quickly? So I'm trying to capture some of that tension of like, uh, Sian Murphy and Red Eye, you know, where it's like you're on this plane and you don't really know who this person, if they are, who they say they are and what's really happening. Mm-hmm. So you don't know if this guy's just trying to save people or if he's trying to save himself or everybody or what?
They've crossed into enemy territory. They're screaming at this guy and he is forced to think fast, and he explains that because they crossed into another country's sovereign airspace that bought them just a few minutes in the arguments and the chaos. They, they don't believe him, but they're arguing.
It's like, why kill anyone? But the terrorist who was attacked wants to kill more passengers or they want to bail from the plane. Like there there's a lot of chaos and they decide that they don't believe 'em. And so they turn and they're gonna start killing passengers again and kill him. And he attacks an absolute desperation.
And so do some of the other passengers, including friends of the guy who was just killed. So, you know, that guy was like on a rugby team or whatever, or there were soldiers with him that, you know, that he was friends with. And so they all just lunge for different terrorists and they actually managed to gain control of the ship.
So the man claiming to be a CI agent gets ahold of the detonator for the explosive devices and the passengers get control of the, the plane, redirect a plane to a friendly country, and they land on a runway. All the government and military from that country line up at a distance from the plane because they don't really know what's going on inside the man claiming to be from the C I A exits the plane, everybody's cheering.
Uh, he tells the passengers to wait on board so he can go out and let 'em know that everything's secure. And he's walking out to this, the line of military and, uh, government personnel like lined up far from the plane. So he walks out there, plane explodes behind him. The c i A agent puts the remote detonator into his pocket and foreign agents scored him to a vehicle and drive him away.
Wow. Yeah. So it could end there or you can cut to that c i a agent at his office a few weeks later. So now you know, he is a c I A agent and he's been promoted. So he is at his office and he's got like a new little title or somebody comes in and congratulates him or whatever. So he leaves work, he leaves his office and he's ambushed and mobbed by reporters asking him, is it true?
Did you destroy? Is that the c i a policy? Did you destroy the plane? Have all these other incidences been coverups of hijackings as the US government and other governments? Are they, is there an international conspiracy to control terrorism by covering it up so it's never successful, uh, et cetera, et cetera.
And behind them is the pregnant woman and she holds up her cell phone and plays the recording of him telling the terrorists about US policy to fake accidents. Hmm, the end.
speaker 2: Hmm. Interesting
speaker 1: lot to digest here. Why do you hate it?
speaker 2: No, I think the concept is inter very interesting. I have a couple questions. Okay. Um, so he has this detonator. Mm-hmm. So are you implying that he had the detonator from the get go? Did he get the detonator from one of the terrorists?
speaker 1: So during the, uh, I tried to drop that detail. So after they get, like, when the passengers take back over, right after, there's sort of like this chaotic period where it's unclear if he was, his lie has been blown or not, and there's, you know, a scuffle and a fight and the passengers take over.
I made a point to mention that the c i a guy gets a hold of the detonator, so he has it, and that's a detail that people may forget, but it's an important one in the moment because obviously they don't wanna blow up the plane. They don't want the terrorists like, you know, and these terrorists are not planning to kill themselves.
Right. This is not a kamikaze situation. So he gets a hold of this detonator and secures it and everybody, you know, it makes sense to everybody that he would be the one to have it.
speaker 2: Right. Okay. What about the motivations for the terrorists? Is it one of those scenarios where it's like the generic, like they want ransom demands from a government, or is it more complicated than that?
speaker 1: No, that's good. So I did not get into that too much. I think that's something that I would want to develop. You know, honestly, it's a little bit of a like ripped from the headlines. Mm-hmm. You know, just cut and paste whatever's going on when this movie finally releases. Mm-hmm. So I don't really care. The only thing is they can't be motivated to kill themselves or to crash the plane.
Otherwise it doesn't really work, but whatever their motivation is, it, it's fine. As long as it's to capture people on the plane. It could always be like there's one or two people on the plane that they want to kidnap for some reason or whatever. Some sort of bargaining chip, you know, they're trying to take over their own government and damage the relationship between that government and, you know, the United States, or honestly, could the, the plane could be from any country and that might make it more interesting.
And I don't mean for that to be an insignificant part of the plot. I, I think it's important. Their motivations are really important. Otherwise, it gets cliche and boring very quickly. But I do think that that's something we can figure out later.
speaker 2: Are there rifts between the actual terrorists? There are, are they all on the same
speaker 1: page?
They're all on the same page initially, but the, this guy introducing the idea that we'll all be killed if you kill one more person creates rifts. Between them because, and maybe the senior guy doesn't really want to die, or maybe there's a fanatical guy and the younger guys don't want to die. I, I think it's helpful that you sort of play up this idea that some of them are more like com more crazy and unstable mm-hmm.
Than others. And like, I think it's helpful to have at least one who, who really just wants everything to go smoothly, you know? Mm-hmm.
speaker 2: Yeah. I like this concept is could go a lot, not go a lot of different ways because I think like the, the plot points make a lot of sense, but I think you could build up a lot of tension.
In the beginning with how they get on the plane. Mm-hmm. And then breaking them, breaking into the cockpit. Mm-hmm. Because it's a reinforced cockpit, it's not gonna be very
speaker 1: easy to get. No, absolutely. So
speaker 2: having them, like how do they get this bomb making material on the plane? Yeah. Right. Like even if it's not even that long of a sequence would help to build that tension in the beginning.
Like, who are these guys at this airport? What's going on? Like who? You know, who's the terrorist who isn't among the regular passengers in the airport? I think that would help to kind of build
speaker 1: things up. Yeah, there's, there's actually a few issues. I tried to tell the story concisely in a way that would be entertaining, but how they would get bomb material on the plane, how they would wire it.
I was thinking fuel tanks again, you know, set some explosives around the fuel tanks and maybe some other parts of the plane that are going to add secondary explosions, how you know, what the material is. I think there's a lot that needs to be addressed there. Another problem, commercial planes don't have giant 1950s green and black radar screens in the cockpit for detecting other planes.
You know, so you'd need some other way to present the idea that there might be like a stealth fighter that's shadowing this plane, or somehow the US government is prepared to destroy it quickly and monitoring what happens on board. So there's certain technology there. And were they tipped off? Well, so the terrorists take over the plane and start making demands over the radio.
Over the radio and things like that. So, and as soon as the plane changes course, you know, again, flight control is gonna be notified. So part of the C I A agents' explanations are gonna be around what are hopefully very plausible explanations of technology and a new policy, a government response. Mm-hmm.
Like, that's my hope. Uh, there would need to be a lot of very specific technical dialogue that makes sense. And it's important to me that it not, it makes sense and not be like a cheesy, like, oh look, they have a giant World War II radar screen mm-hmm. In their cockpit, which no one has. Yeah. Right. So you need, you need other stuff like that.
But then again, those are all details that you can figure out as you speak to more technical people or do research. But I, I really want to emphasize that there's a little bit of like almost a Hitchcockian. Kind of vibe that I want for the first few acts or sections of the film. Yeah. Where the audience and the characters have no idea if this guy is a good liar or if he really is a c i a agent and, and you can end it where he's not, you know, where he's just a good liar.
You probably don't wanna blow up the plane. And I like that twist, that it actually actually is a good liar and a c i a agent and at the end he has to cover up his own treason by destroying the plane. And it's consistent with the policy, so he's rewarded. Right.
speaker 2: Yeah. That makes, that makes sense. I'm trying to think of like how you could punch it up in the middle or even in the beginning, like where you don't know who the terrorists are.
Mm-hmm. And they're having very normal seeming conversations within the plane. Mm-hmm. Like the normal conversations people would have when they get on a plane or two people talking who just met in first class, et cetera. So you're kind of diverting the audience mm-hmm. Into what you're actually watching and who, who could be who.
And they're kind of trying to figure out what's going on. They're kind of confused about who they're supposed to be following. I've always found that to be a cool thing in movies. Like where you Yeah. They're focused in on certain characters that actually don't have anything to do with this plot whatsoever.
But you
speaker 1: think they might Yeah. That could work. No, that could definitely work. 'cause it also fits with this idea of identity. Mm-hmm. Which is kind of running through it. Initially it's what you're talking about where you don't really know the identity of the main characters or who's a terrorist, and then when this guy presents himself as someone, you don't know if that's truly his identity or not.
So yeah, I like that that could work really well. And it, it really does set up the, the emphasis or the potentially the tone that I want to, where the audience is a little confused about who's who. And, and
speaker 2: also I think it could be, could be fun if you had one of those terrorists be a plant. By the terrorists.
Like they don't do anything. That's like, they don't pull a gun, they don't yell,
speaker 1: they don't take it. Oh, right. They're just there. They pretend to be a passenger. They pretend to be a passenger. Yeah. Yeah.
speaker 2: And they're just as scared as everyone else. They're being corralled wherever they're pushing them to a certain section of the plane.
Right. Until a certain moment when they come out. Mm-hmm. And like shoot someone. Or their
speaker 1: pivotal moment in the, yeah, like, like when that guy, uh, when they've already killed people and they're about to cross into enemy airspace and that guy makes a lunge, maybe the passenger behind him stands up and shoots him in the back of the head or something.
Mm-hmm. Or just stabs him really brutally. Yeah. Like some, some twist like that. Yeah. Wraps a seatbelt around his neck and holds him while another terrorist, like he like whips the guy's head back as he is lunging. 'cause he gets him with the seatbelt. Right. And then the other terrorist like just stabs him.
speaker 2: And I know for these movies, like you don't have to overly complicate the plot is I think we tend to do 'cause there's a lot more fun. Mm-hmm If you add so many different pieces, like on its own, the way you described it, it could work as a straight action film. There's like the your C I A agent versus the
speaker 1: terrorists and you can fill Right.
Action suspense. Action suspense. I really want the suspense. I can't underline that enough. To me that is a critical part of this idea is you do not know and you are really curious if this guy is just fast thinker or if he's telling the truth. I'm
speaker 2: seeing like kind of like an Agatha Christie type of thing going on.
Like you said, Hitchcock,
speaker 1: that's very suspense.
speaker 2: Yeah. Right. Or Agatha Christie, where it's like you've got, you know, 12 people. They could all be suspects, but you add that kind of element there, you know? Yeah.
speaker 1: It would be, I, I guess you're all wondering why I brought you to the galley. Exactly. At first I thought it was a murder mystery.
speaker 2: Murder mystery on a plane. Yeah. It'd be interesting too, like if one of those terrorists was also in on it with the other ccia a with the c i A agent. I don't know how that would work
speaker 1: in terms of the plot. Yeah, that gets complicated, but it would get pretty,
speaker 2: it would get pretty complicated. It would make for a longer movie in terms of like a, a twist or if our c i agent has some other kind of motive and it's financial and it's not just
speaker 1: protecting the right, well, he doesn't have to be a c I agent.
Right. He could be someone lying. He could be correct about the policy because he knows about it, but not because he's c i a. Right. He could be an agent of another government, but he knows this policy or, or
speaker 2: he is protecting something on the plane. Yes. Some type of cargo. Sure. Right. That needs to make it to a destination for a specific reason, and there's a flashback at the end.
Mm-hmm. That maybe he's being blackmailed in some way and he has to go through with this flying and protecting this cargo. Who knows? Yeah. It could be something like that. But that would be a completely different movie. We'd be taking
speaker 1: it a whole other, no, but that's okay. Direction. I really want to like hold onto my darling of this.
Like, you don't know whether he's just a really smart guy who's great in a crisis and he is just making it up as he goes along. Or he's the c i A agent who is basically trying to save his own butt the whole time. And you know, why haven't there been a lot more hijacking since then? I'm hoping the audience, successful ones.
I'm hoping the audience is wondering and you know, and I, I think it's hard to hook people. I think me just saying it makes it very easy for someone to hear that and go, nah, that doesn't, that would never work. But I think if you sell it with the dialogue and the acting, it can be very convincing. You might need to tweak the idea maybe even significantly.
But I really wanna hold onto that, like that guesswork. I don't see this as a high budget film. I see it as a very, like 90% of it is shot in a set that looks like a plane commercial airline. So it's, it's quite intense and almost claustrophobic. And you have a lot of like shots of this guy where you're trying to read his body language and his expressions and you're trying to figure out is he.
You know who he says he is. I like that.
speaker 2: And I like movies that do that. You think you're, you're following the hero or you're following someone who's very innocent, kind of like usual suspects. Mm-hmm. That idea, it's kind of fascinating to me. Like there would be a big twist at the
speaker 1: end. Yeah, that's, I wanted that too.
I mean, I'm okay letting go of that, but I do like the idea that he's actually a bad guy because I don't think people will have contemplated that he's a bad guy. They would've been debating in their head. Is he? He's either a passenger who's quite smart and imagining themselves in that scenario and what they would do, or they're imagining he's actually a c i a agent and he's trying to save everybody, but I don't think it would hit them that, yeah, he is a c i a agent and he's gonna do his job.
Mm-hmm. And he's gonna cover this up and cover up his own, uh, violation.
speaker 2: Yeah. I like the idea that he's not a good guy and there's a twist.
speaker 1: I like that. But again, we might have to let go of it as we develop the idea in theory, you know? 'cause the pieces have to fit together. But I think there's
speaker 2: enough, I think there's a lot of things here that could really build up that tension.
Like you were saying, like he could be kind of like that claustrophobic who's who. Mm-hmm. You don't know if he's telling the truth or not. He doesn't even say anything until like, let's say 20 minutes into the movie or whatever. Right? Yeah. Where he, where it's like this. 20 minute, and then there's that, that hook, like, right.
Oh, things really changed because the, the beginning of the movie, you could see it as like, who are the, what's going on
speaker 1: here? Yeah. I like your version of that, where you play around with the formula by sort of keeping the audience guessing about who, who is what, not who's who, but who's what. And then for this guy to come almost outta nowhere, maybe you've seen his face, but he hasn't had any lines.
And then suddenly when a pregnant, and, you know, I'm imagining pretty violent deaths initially, like definitely r rated stuff. Mm-hmm. With some inventive kills or, you know, a lot of blood and, and it's ugly because they're killing women or people who are unarmed and it's supposed to get your blood pumping and to feel like a very tense situation.
And then this pretty much stranger stands up and makes a very preposterous claim, but then says he can prove it. Mm-hmm. And that's where I think the real movie kicks off. I think
speaker 2: the idea that the terrorists don't look like traditional terrorists would be,
speaker 1: would be kind of So like an old white lady?
Yeah. With Obama underneath.
speaker 2: No, but they're like, you know,
speaker 1: 12 year old Asian boy with a balloon. Like, you know, in,
speaker 2: in those tradition, you know, those traditional. To traditionally in Hollywood terrorist movies, these guys are dressed in like military fatigues and stuff. Like, it's so obvious that something's going on.
Mm-hmm. You know what I mean? Sure. In terms of them being terrorists. But these guys maybe are like much better dressed or they seem like business people on the plane to kind of set up that whole beginning part that I'm talking about where you're not really Sure.
speaker 1: Sure. Who's one of the Catholic priest garb.
Yeah. And he pulls off his, uh, whatever that thing is. That's right. The collar. And he, and he is got like a
speaker 2: sleeveless shirt. I don't like a, what? You know what I
speaker 1: mean? Like a wife beater? Is that Yeah. Like a, like he's ready for action. He's got like a rips open his frock and he's got a feed and cargo shorts
speaker 2: and flip flops
speaker 1: and ammo chains around his chest.
And
speaker 2: his,
speaker 1: his cross is a, is a blade. He pulls a knife out of his cross. Yeah. Un sheaths. It stabs somebody.
speaker 2: And the guy with a cane also has a sword
speaker 1: and the little kid pulls a knife out of his balloon.
speaker 2: He's the world's youngest terrorist.
speaker 1: He quickly folds it into some sharp object.
speaker 2: Yeah. But you know what I mean?
Just to make it so that it's not, 'cause you watch these movies and you see the beginning, you're like, oh, those are the terrorists. Mm-hmm. And they have 'em sweating and sitting. I've always found that so cliche
speaker 1: for a movie. Oh yeah, yeah,
yeah,
speaker 2: yeah. You know? Where it's like, okay, here it goes. He's gonna get up and say he has a bomb.
What if you do something a little bit differently that they're actually really calm and acting completely normal and everything goes awry. You don't see that as much. Mm-hmm. I feel, especially in like a, a Hollywood action film like this,
speaker 1: I think that that could help with what I was imagining because I really do need these terrorists to be relatively stable.
And not that like crazed kind of lunatic fanatic mm-hmm. That sometimes you see and they, they're not like jewel, this isn't a jewel heist. Yeah. You know, so you need like, people who are doing this because they have very specific reasons and it's almost like it's their job, but they've reached a point of desperation where seemingly perhaps rational people are doing something extreme.
Mm-hmm. But it's well planned. Uh, they're not necessarily professionals who do this all the time, it's just they manage to have figured out a way to do it. And then somebody throws a massive wrench into the gears and they start arguing and become unstabilized. And sometimes the passenger gets a leg up on them in, in the power struggle and it's completely verbal.
Because they're now confused or uncertain and he's managing and controlling the situation. And then, you know, he loses that control and then he regains it. It's, it's very verbal. Very hitchcockian. Yeah. In a lot of ways. Yeah.
speaker 2: That sounds, yeah, it sounds really good. It'll be fun to play with that whole, like the idea of like the difference between first class and coach and that separation.
Mm-hmm. I don't know how you do it really, but like this idea that you wouldn't know what was going on. Yeah. And I, I like that in movies. I like movies in movies where like everyone's thrown off by what act like he goes into that section. As the audience, you're feeling what the coach passengers are feeling like they're completely
speaker 1: outta it.
Yeah. That's good. That's good. Yeah. And the people in first class maybe know different things Could be, yeah. Than the people in coach. And there's an interesting, like, things they're hearing, you know, they hear different parts, different, different conversations. Yeah. Yeah. That could work. She could play a class, divide up a little bit there, and there are obviously gonna be other characters and things like that, but I, I like that.
I like there's a lot of, um, layered drama that you can work in there to varying degrees that can support the themes or the plot. And not knowing who the,
speaker 2: who the good guy is would be in the beginning. 'cause there's another thing that these hijacked movies tend to do too quickly. They tell you who like the US marshal is.
Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Or the agent on board, and he tells you, he tells the, the flight attendants, uh, you know, I'm a US marshal, blah, blah, blah. And then, you know, in five minutes into the movie. So you're just waiting for that one guy to like step up to the plate, you know? Yeah. With this, with this, you don't know.
And then he comes, he, he's just like a regular passenger who starts talking. Who has to convince them. Right, right.
speaker 1: Yeah. I think that's much better. Yeah. I think it's important to have aspects of his character make him a believable ci i agent and other aspects make him not believably a ci i a agent, but also explainable by the fact that he's not on duty just traveling for vacation or whatever.
Mm-hmm. And we should probably talk about the ending. What do you think? I st, I threw out two possible endings. Obviously, if the pregnant woman is gonna survive, then we need to have that be something that there's a, there's a way that she believably could have survived. So we'll have to rewrite aspects of the ending.
I had a nice, simple clean, everybody stays on the plane and he walks away ending for one version. But if she's gonna survive, obviously more things have to happen for her to have escaped in some way. And you also have to build her character throughout the story a lot more. I mean, it doesn't have to be the pregnant woman.
It could be a different person, a different woman, or someone else. That's all fine. You know, as someone who was injured and they took off the plane first, or I don't know, whatever. But if the government's gonna be in, in on this, even though it's a foreign government and the c i A agent is gonna blow the plane, which was in both endings, then it's a little harder to write a way out for one passenger.
It's not impossible,
speaker 2: the ending. I'm wrestling with the ending in terms of how ruthless he is at
speaker 1: the end. Yeah. Blowing the plane. I like that though. No, I mean
speaker 2: it makes sense, but I think it's almost like you have to establish it.
speaker 1: The way I established it, and I'll let you finish your thought, but the way I established it is he said he's committing treason.
So if they live then he's gonna be prosecuted for treason 'cause it's an international conspiracy and he's blown it. Mm-hmm. Sorry, you were gonna say?
speaker 2: Yeah, I'm, I'm wondering if the fact that he's saying that is gonna be enough for the audience to, to show him as being such a villain at the end and be satisfied with the fact that he's able to do it.
You know? Yeah. I can get to, because there's these two conflicting things going on. One part. It's like you're showing him like a hero. Yes. Through the movie. Yes. Beating up bad guys, et cetera. But I'm asking, is there a way to show how ruthless he really can be and put him in a situation where like, he has to make this really tough decision, but it doesn't seem so tough for him.
Like he has this kind of like sadistic streak mm-hmm. That would make it so easy for him to
speaker 1: blow the plane. So is it better at the end of the film if he blows out the plane, is it better for the audience to be less surprised by that because they remember. What he did that was so sadistic in that moment and like, oh, he is a cold-blooded killer.
Or is it better for them to be more surprised, confused, maybe a little bit annoyed, and then think about it and remember the details that, that I put in there that, you know, that are in the story that explain his behavior. Which is better. I
speaker 2: don't know. I think, I think they both work, but I'm wondering if better isn't
speaker 1: One relies on the audience being smarter, which is usually a mistake for this type of film.
Yeah, yeah. It's a low, it makes the budget lower. So now it's a lower budget movie and uh, less famous actors and you know, a less established director and hopefully, It. You build that tension, you get lucky with the actors. If you plant it, then the audience, what you said, a sadistic moment or two, then the audience doesn't have to be as smart.
You don't win as many awards, but you get more famous actors and a better director and a higher budget. Yeah,
speaker 2: I was, I was thinking of, uh, option three. Ooh. Which was a slightly a twist on this ending. Okay. Like he gets, he gets off the plane. Yeah. And then that foreign military, maybe they go on and kill everyone on the plane.
Okay. Okay. And then it becomes, you know, the terrorists killed everybody. And that's the conspiracy, not that the plane blew up.
speaker 1: Okay. So what's the benefit of that verse, him blowing up the plane? I don't know yet. I just threw it out there. It makes him less of an, a bastard, but it also makes it harder to, so, so part of why in my mind, he blows up the plane on the runway is that the explanation will be mechanical failure.
After landing fuel tank, ruptured bark on the, either it was jet fuel, spilled from a, a previous plane, or it was a hot day, you know, spark on the runway, et cetera, et cetera. One in a million freak accident or the plane had been redirected to this location because of mechanical failure. Or something.
Something, something. Right. And it resulted in, yes, they landed, but the plane exploded on landing pilot was drunk. Right. And so it was part of the coverup to blow it. But if you have people board the plane and execute everybody, then it's a much bigger conspiracy in some ways, I guess. Yeah. They're all lined up watching.
So, but again, like from a distance, they don't really know why the plane exploded and one guy was walking away. Yeah, I see what you're saying. I don't know, you're just makes it a little bit easier to cover up, but it is a little sloppy at the end. You're right. But
speaker 2: I think at the end, adding that, the twist with the video of him saying that, that he's committing
speaker 1: treason and explaining that to the tariffs.
Oh yeah. I just thought of it as, um, audio. She's holding up the phone and she's just had she had her iPhone recording. It's, I like that twist on a twist Yes. That he,
speaker 2: like, he's, he's a villain and you're like, man, he got away. And then, but then at the last second you're like, he didn't. It's an, it's an interesting way to end it, and I think it's satisfying as
an
speaker 1: ending if her relationship has been built up and he's been lying to her the whole time, but you thought he was trying to save her and everyone else, whoever she is or he is, and then you think that person, she's, I'm gonna say she, you think she's dead along with everyone else.
And it's sad because in this case, he originally seemed like he took this risk to save her life. He could have shut his mouth and let them kill her, but he stood up to save her. She's grateful and has been grateful the whole time. And then at the end he callously was gonna execute her along with everyone else to cover up his own treason.
And then she's the one who busts him. I kind of like that. But does she
speaker 2: have to get away in order for them to find this
speaker 1: video? No. No, she doesn't actually. That's a good point. Like I wonder if it, she's making it a video. I know. I like video. I like video better. Yeah. Alright. Audio. It's a different in our age right there.
Whatever. This TikTok, she does it
speaker 2: TikTok and then the TikTok survives 'cause it's uploaded as
speaker 1: soon as they land. So if her reel to reel tape is thrown from the explosion and someone finds it, they can restore the audience.
speaker 2: Exactly.
speaker 1: No. She managed to, uh, send her TikTok just before the plane exploded.
speaker 2: No, but you know what, that would be a
speaker 1: scenario that could be plausible.
Would, right. She could've uploaded. She uploaded, yeah. Absolutely. Like when The Atlantic, he has no idea. You just have some of the ambushing reporters playing the, uh, the, I don't know, YouTube feed the video of him saying this stuff, right? Mm-hmm. To him back. And he's like, oh no. And then he gets arrested.
Mm-hmm. It could work. Yeah. Yeah. That, that would make sense. So they just, they landed, they got internet. Nobody thought about that. And she transmitted it before the plane exploded. Mm-hmm. For some reason. 'cause maybe she didn't trust him. And when she saw him do that sadistic thing, she realized maybe he isn't a good person.
And so when they landed, she sent that out just as insurance because it shouldn't matter if he's a good person. But then maybe
speaker 2: it's not even about him. Maybe she just happened to be filming at the time that this was happening. 'cause people are always filming
speaker 1: on plans, right? No, she has to. Right. But she has to decide to transmit it when they land hours later.
So she needs a motive. 'cause if like everyone's cheering him and he's walking away, the only motive I can think of that makes sense is if she's not a hundred percent sure that he's trustworthy. Mm. Insurance or something. And she thinks, oh I'll, I'll send it to you. I'll upload this video to YouTube, and if he is trustworthy, then good he'll be, everyone will see what a hero he is and I'm doing him a favor.
Yeah. And if he's lying to us and something happens, they take my phone or they come on board and lock us away to protect the conspiracy, then the video will be out and everyone will know the truth. Maybe she's afraid that they will put him in jail. To cover it all right? And so she uploads it maybe with a little brief intro.
Hey everybody, this is Cynthia. Thanks for tuning into my channel. Remember to like and subscribe. I've got a video today, an exciting incident in my life. But first, uh, think about our sponsor. Oh, where from our
speaker 2: sponsor? Did you know? You can save 35% with the HONEY app? Just download it to your browser.
speaker 1: Okay, guys, so here's the video.
Yeah, but I mean, that would make sense. Maybe she did trust him. I, I like the idea that she, if she's gonna die, that she wasn't sure. Like he wasn't, he didn't completely fool her. So it's a little bit like usual suspects, except maybe one of the people who died figured it out. You know, that maybe Kaiser Soce isn't, you know, or that guy, a verbal Kent isn't who he said he is.
So she gets a little bit of justice in that way. You
speaker 2: could do that cheesy thing too, that movies tend to do, which is the foreshadowing in the beginning where she's filming everything just naturally.
speaker 1: Oh, sure. Right.
speaker 2: Yeah, right. She's always in there in like her daughter or something. It's like, well, are you always filming everything mom?
And she is like, I put all my life on YouTube, blah, blah, blah, blah. And then it doesn't even matter. 'cause then like all of a sudden people find her entire feed on YouTube and there's no explanation as to why she would do that. She just does
speaker 1: it. That's
speaker 2: that's her character. It's like a grand theft auto. M P C.
Yeah. She
speaker 1: just, she just does her thing. She just does that Uhhuh. That is her character. She's a, she's a YouTube uploader.
speaker 2: Yeah, she's an influencer. Of course, it'd be one on the plane.
speaker 1: So, so I call this one passenger 58 because that's, ooh, that's a great name. That's one better than, why don't you call it passenger 57 and a half?
I could also call it Air Force Zero, because that's, that's better than, that's really better. Yeah, that's good. Speed on a plane. Yeah. Air speed. Air. Yeah. Uh, so anything else that you think, uh, ruins this film that I missed or that would be good to add in? I. I think we've pretty
speaker 2: much covered all the major plot points.
I think the one thing that you, that we need to kind of figure out is the whole technology part.
speaker 1: Yeah. There's a lot. I mean, it can be a little sci-fi in the sense that it's very believable stuff. I did a little research and there is technology that allows you to see through solid objects like military technology, and there are ways in which they could know what's happening on board.
You know, there could be devices that are, uh, you know, uh, on the plane that are sending signals independently that could be like LIDAR or something on the plane. Sure. I mean, that could be the evidence that the guy uses. There could be instruments or devices that pick up whatever's being used to monitor what's going on the plane.
When I wrote the idea originally, I just had a visual of, you know, this idea of proving that there's a stealth fighter behind them just at the edge of range or something that you would never see. Yeah. But he can, you know, prove for this very unusual, very believable thing that could be made up. You know, someone who doesn't fly a plane might know enough about, well, if you bank it and you do this and this turn, then, or maybe he knows enough about planes to know that this would trigger this.
I don't know, like I, I just wanna keep the audience guessing. Mm-hmm. Like, well, but wouldn't that kind of mess up the radar anyway if you did that? Like, you know, maybe even a pilot could say that or something, or one of the terrorists could. I don't know. But it, I just want it to be on the edge of believability.
speaker 2: I think there's a lot of ways to build tension with this, with the individual passengers too. Mm-hmm. Which is, someone's really nervous, they might do something, they might not, they're gonna put everybody else in danger if they do it. So there's a lot of ways to kind of fill those 90 minutes with the individual passengers between like having the mystery of who, who the terrorists are in the beginning, how they got all this stuff on the plane, you finding out who this guy is.
I think there's enough here to, to carry
speaker 1: it. I hope so. I think a lot of the appeal of hijacked movies is this idea of the audience member putting themselves in the shoes of different characters and in that situation and thinking what would they do and what do they think about what people did and how would they handle that differently if you move, if it's more dramatic and suspenseful, then ideally for me, that's what's happening.
Mm-hmm. So that each type of person who's watching this is represented in some way. Mm-hmm. Like a boy band. Yeah. Like exactly like that. Thank you. Yeah. This is why we work so well together. Boy band. That's the perfect, uh, way to the framework to think about The hijack movie. It's a boy
speaker 2: band on a plane.
Maybe that's what it is. There's a boy band on the plane.
speaker 1: It's all new ideas, but it's, but it's not a boy band. They're terrorists and you're trying to figure out, am I a Joey type? Am I a other boy band name type? They start out
speaker 2: doing selfies and dancing and then they pull out guns,
speaker 1: twist, twist, and it's a musical, but they never sing.
It's other passengers doing the singing. What are they lip syncing? No,
that's. I love it. Uh, but yeah, I think that's, I think you're right. I think obviously if this is gonna be a full length film, it needs a lot of, uh, beefing up and one way to do that. There are a lot of ways to do that that you've hinted at. And having the other passengers be interesting and contribute to the tension and the suspense and the drama is gonna be critical.
So I think you're definitely hitting on some good stuff. Yeah. I like this idea and it kind of, it kind of rewards the audience for paying attention to people who, in the beginning, who aren't relevant after the, you know, uh, story essentially starts. Mm-hmm. But then they become relevant later, so it's a bit rewarding that you paid attention to them as an audience member.
So that's good. Mm-hmm. Agreed. Very good. Anything else?
speaker 2: No, I think we're good on this one. Great
speaker 1: idea. Yeah. Thanks. Alright, good. Well, thanks again to all the listeners or listener.
speaker 2: This joke will never get old. Oh yeah. At a hundred thousand subs, 1 million
speaker 1: subs. That joke will never get old. Yeah,
speaker 2: exactly.
speaker 1: I did like that bit about maybe someday we'll break through to YouTube, you know?
speaker 2: Yeah. We'll, uh, we'll share the Google Drive link
speaker 1: with you. We'll make it up to that level. Yeah. So thank you to the, uh, amazing, talented people who are working on Remo. The Adventure continues, or whatever they're gonna call the Amazon series. Fingers crossed, they're, uh, gonna bring in some Korean actors in white face, because I think that's just funny.
Yeah. Whether you're for or against recasting, I thought you were gonna say whether you're
speaker 2: four or 400,
speaker 1: you know, whether you, whether you like gender flipping characters or racially recasting, or you hate it and think it's the worst idea ever. This is a great idea. This works for either agenda. As always, stay away from those like and subscribe buttons. We'll be back next week to discuss Amazon's Invincible series, season One and its Lack of.
Joe Piscopo,
speaker 2: another great episode, another great
speaker 1: audience, and on that note, see you next week. Goodbye.