Draft Zero: A Screenwriting Podcast

What craft tools make a low-budget, contained, period drama riveting? Explore how narrative POV, interweaving relationships, hooky dialogue, and even the screenplay format itself make the script for BLUE MOON - that runs largely in real time about an obscure songwriter in the 1940s - one that attracts world class talent and Academy Award nominations. While Stu is still on show and we are between the 2026 Oscar nominations and the actual ceremony, our patreons selected BLUE MOON for this one-shot and boy are Mel and Chas glad they did. They dive into many lessons learned in previous episodes, like our character-driven episode… or analysis of French scenes in Adolescence… or the story-telling power that comes from the audience knowing the ending from biopics. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - BLUE MOON 00:02:19 - Summary of Key Learnings 00:13:34 - Controlling narrative POV 00:27:49 - Using screenplay FORMAT to reflect the emo

How does Film Noir show us terrible people doing terrible things without endorsing it? Mel and Chas continue to explore what Noir (the genre) can teach writers of all other genres. In particular: how to keep the audience on side of characters doing reprehensible things how to control your audience understanding of those reprehensible actions distinguishing between characters undergoing transformative arcs against discovering their true natures In finding the common craft tools of Noir over 100 years, this Part 2 looks at two modern noirs - DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS (1995) and WOMAN OF THE HOUR (2024) - after Part 1 looked at the classic DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE LONG GOODBYE. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. Despite Chas claiming to have edited this episode it was, in fact, Chris Walker who saved the day and got this done. Thanks Chris.   CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - Using noir as a lens 00:01:56 - DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS 00:31:33 - WOMAN OF THE HOUR 01:04:

What can Film Noir teach us about character arcs and audience engagement? In this two part series, Mel and Chas use Noir (the genre) as a lens to interrogate flawed characters. How can characters doing reprehensible things still engage audiences? How can you ensure representation isn't endorsement? And whether these characters undergo transformative arcs, or simply reveal their true natures? Part 1 focuses on two (now classic) noirs: DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE LONG GOODBYE. While Part 2 looks at two more contemporary examples DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESs and WOMAN OF THE HOUR. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - Cold Open 00:00:17 - Flawed Characters and Noir 00:16:40 - Double Indemnity 00:53:38 - The Long Goodbye 01:21:15 - End of Part 1 LINKS Mel's A Brief History of Queer Coding in Film: Part 1 - https://melkillingsworth.substack.com/p/a-brief-history-of-queer-coding-in-film-part-1  More Draft Zero is brought to you

What happens when a group of filmmakers play a ragtag group of filmmakers in a gritty sci-fi horror? "Ignite the fire within and explore unknown territory" - Werner Herzog. This episode is unusual, even by Draft Zero standards. It's an "Actual Play Podcast" where Chas, Stu, & Mel are joined by Kim Ho and Luke Clark to play MOTHERSHIP, the sci-fi horror game we talked about in episodes DZ-121 and DZ-122. Stu is the GM while everyone else is a ragtag crew of freelance filmmakers. We debrief the experience (so far) at the end of the episode) Mel plays Zara, the glamorous face of the operation. Chas plays Winston, the cynical and egoistical "photojournalist". Kim is Cal, the scrappy scrounger and sound recordists, while Luke is Tarsos the steadfast producer of the group. The crew are enlisted to record a sensationalist report on a missing corporate president before the mercenary retrieval team arrives. And yeah, this means we're soft-launching yet another project that's called 1d0, which looks at how w

How can you apply horror ideas to action and comedy? In this episode Chas, Stu and guest Kim Ho continue their exploration into the power(s) of antagonism and how focusing on them can develop story. While Part 1 looked at the horror film SINNERS, in Part 2 we venture into genres beyond horror with the action-thriller REBEL RIDGE, and the comedy classic  MEET THE PARENTS. To both these films we apply the generative story framework TOMBS* (Transgression - Omens - Manifestation - Banishment - Slumber)  and are surprised at just how well it maps. *TOMBS comes from the MOTHERSHIP sci-fi horror table-top role-playing game. Which we love. We explore how TOMBS, and thinking about antagonism in general, allows writers to deepen their understanding of their characters, their relationship of the heroes with the antagonists, and generate story fuel in a way that escalates the story. We discuss how thinking of your hero as the horror for your villains helps everything become more dynamic. Oh, and we talk about launching a

How do the antagonistic forces in your story escalate distinctly from the protagonists’ journey? We often struggle to develop the middle stages of a story. Could this be because we focus  on our protagonists’ journeys and plot structure more than on how the antagonistic powers are awakened, wronged, discovered, gathering strength and revealing themselves? In this episode, Chas and Stu are joined by professional screenwriter and playwright Kim Ho to explore how a generative story cycle (from tabletop role-playing game MOTHERSHIP) can be used to develop stories, not just write them better. This cycle is TOMBS: Transgression - Omens - Manifestation - Banishment - Slumber. Kim also contrasts this cycle with the Onset, Discovery, Confirmation, Confrontation cycle identified by horror philosopher Noel Carroll, as well as the philosophy of the FINAL DESTINATION franchise as analysed by The Morbid Zoo. By applying the TOMBS cycle to Ryan Coogler’s amazing 2025 original feature SINNERS, we discover how focusing on the

Or, how focusing on good drama will result in good subtext. We often hear how subtext is important for good screenwriting. We’re here to tell you it isn’t. Good subtext is a result of good drama, and your focus should be on creating that good drama. But how? In this episode, Chas Fisher and Stu Willis are joined by screenwriter+teacher, Tom Vaughn (Winchester) to delve into the world of subtext.  We kick off the discussion by talking through Tom’s article “Why Subtext is Overrated” and break down his core idea that subtext is a byproduct of character goals, tactics and fears.  We explore this further through close examination of “the other way” scene from MICHAEL CLAYTON, “the strudel” scene INGLORIOUS BASTARDS (both known for their subtext) and the “new years” sequence from THE SUBSTANCE. Inevitably discussion also terms to the relationship of subtext to emotional truth, theme, symbolism, dramatic irony and filmmakers subtext (?!). As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under

How does your protagonist’s final choice resolve the plot, character arc and theme? In this episode, Stu and Chas focus solely on the final choices made by protagonists and how that reflects their character journey and successfully, or not, dramatises the internal. We compare and contrast different uses of narrative POV in respect to these final choices, in particular whether and when the audience is made aware of the options available to the character, the act of making the choice, and the consequences of the choice. We breakdown examples from DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES, FINDING NEMO, MICHAEL CLAYTON, PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN and TALK TO ME. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes.  CHAPTERS 00:00:00 - Opening 00:00:18 - Why Final Choices? 00:10:45 - DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: HONOR AMONG THIEVES 00:19:09 - FINDING NEMO 00:28:45 - MICHAEL CLAYTON 00:53:11 - PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN 01:16:38 - TALK TO ME 01:41:45 - Key Learnings 01:50:13 - Th

How do dramatic questions create tension?  In this episode, Stu and Chas delve into the cultural phenomenon of ADOLESCENCE. We try to find the craft tools that have made the show so compelling and such a catalyst for conversation.  In particular, we breakdown how the show’s emphasis on questions creates tension: not just tension through plot, but tension through character, and ultimately tension through theme. We analsyse the show episode-by-episode, and discuss how the overall structure skilfully shifts from a plot-heavy police procedural towards a thematic-heavy melodrama and the impact that has on our experience. We discuss how the decision to shoot the show in a series of “oners” affects the writing and what tools we can take from that to apply to our own writing (even if we’re not writing it to be a one-shot): POV characters, handovers, French scenes, emotional events, and more. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. CHAPTERS

How can we teach our audience new storytelling rules in the middle of our story? Following on from our episodes on establishing tone through action lines and through character, this is what we have been building up to: how to pull off a tonal switch… that does not throw the audience out of the film. And, in particular, how to pull that off on the page when writers don’t have framing, lighting, music, editing, etc. at our disposal? With that goal in mind, Mel and Chas dissect specific moments on the pages of SHAUN OF THE DEAD, SORRY TO BOTHER YOU and SWISS ARMY MAN. While there are definite craft tools identified - rhythm of action lines, varying use of unfilmmables and metaphors, establishing language patterns - the two big takeaways are: (1) pulling off a tonal shift takes a lot of setup; and (2) when the time comes, contrast on the page is key. Thanks to Chris Walker for editing this episode. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. CHAPTERS 00:00:

How do you make extended technical scenes funny on the page? Mel joins Chas to tackle physical comedy. We limited our homework selection to extended scenes (as opposed to moments and sight gags) in live action projects and - with the help of our Patreons - selected early sequences from BRINGING UP BABY, the pilot for HAPPY ENDINGS and that wonderful food poisoning scene in BRIDESMAIDS. We discover how these incredible writers take their time (on the page) to set up geography, framing and running gags. We also get tips on judicious use ALL CAPS, ellipses and M-dashes to recreate visual gags… and when to just let a paragraph go long and draw attention to itself. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. CHAPTERS 00:00:00 – Cold Open 00:00:19 – What physical comedy scenes are we looking at? 00:10:27 - BRINGING UP BABY 00:31:44 - Thank you Arc Studio Pro! 00:34:34 - HAPPY ENDINGS pilot 00:58:15 - BRIDESMAIDS 01:27:31 - Key learnings and wrap up 01:33:56 -

What magic do Christmas movies use to make them so rewatchable? In this “backmatter” episode of Draft Zero, Stu, Chas, and Mel Killingsworth embark on a festive exploration of what makes holiday films so engaging and so re-watchable that they can become part of our rituals. To that end, we breakdown the charm of of Christmas films like KISS KISS BANG BANG, RIDERS OF JUSTICE, and IT’S A WONDERFUL LIFE.  We discuss what defines a holiday movie, the power of nostalgia, the importance of ensembles to a sense of family, and how voiceover, snappy dialogue and intricate plots can make something rewatchable. For each of us, we see these films as gateways to introspection and shared experiences during the holidays. And we are briefly joined by filmmaker (and friend of the podcast) Damien Cassar who talks us through the meaning of nostalgia and it’s relationship with the “pain of homecoming”, and how Christmas/Holiday films provide comfort and a sense of belonging amid ever-changing societal dynamics.  Merry Christmas!

How does ending your story on the climax affect audience experience? While Stu is on show, Mel and Chas sit down to analyse the meaning behind the ending of 2024’s CHALLENGERS, especially when - upon reading the script - the most impactful moment of the ending on screen (for Chas in particular) is not written on the page. Following on from episodes on filmmakers talking directly to the audience as well as previous exploration into choices and decisions (and hopefully serving as a prelude to our episode on Hero’s Choice), Mel and Chas explore the choices the characters make in that final moment, what happens when filmmakers obscure character motivation, and ultimately how that final moment in CHALLENGERS impacts theme. This conversation ends up being a deep exploration of what is the experience on the audience (and its impact on the perceived theme) when a story cuts out at the climax without further resolution. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes.

DZ-112: Breaking the 4th wall How is the effect of breaking the 4th wall different to VoiceOver? As part of our series on how filmmakers can directly communicate to the audience, we finally examine the most blatant tool of them all: when character look directly down the barrel of the camera… and thus look directly at us, the viewer. Chas, Stu and Mel take the craft tools/levers they identified in previous episodes and use them to examine HIGH FIDELITY, ABBOTT ELEMENTARY and - of course - FLEABAG. By examining how “in-world” the camera is, who is talking, and whom the character is talking to (i.e. who we are in the relationship), we end up discovering how breaking the 4th wall can involve the audience in the emotional present of the character and also grants the character a degree of narrative control (a craft lever that can be dialled in and out). Separately, in a Backmatter to this episode to be found on our Patreon page, Mel and Chas answer a listener question and take a deep dive into how breaking the 4th

How does the unreliability of a narrator impact the way a story is told? In this episode, Stu and Mel (sans Chas!) take a deep dive into FIGHT CLUB and its use of the unreliable narrator. This is a bridging episode between our previous episode on VOICEOVER and our forthcoming episode on TALKING TO CAMERA as Fight Club does both. We dissect the film’s disconnected sequence-driven structure and how the voiceover ’stitches’ the film together.  And then we look at what makes ‘Jack’ an unreliable narrator and how his control over the storytelling impacts us.  As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. Thanks to Chris Walker for his excellent editing this episode. CHAPTERS: 00:00:01 – Cold Open 00:00:20 – Fight Club 00:24:57 – Unreliable Narrators 00:49:09 – Key Learnings & Wrap Up 00:54:07 – Many thanks to our Patrons! RELATED EPISODES: DZ-110: Voiceover DZ-109: Talking DIRECTLY to your audience DZ-53: Antagonists! 5 – vs Audience How can we forge

How can you use Voiceover without it feeling like a cheat? In this episode, we finally delve into the world of VOICEOVERS (as part of our larger series exploring craft tools that allow characters & storytellers to talk directly to the audience). Chas, Stu and Mel deep dive into the VERONICA MARS pilot, Disney’s THE EMPEROR’S NEW GROOVE, and the Michael Bay epic PAIN & GAIN. In exploring what makes these particular examples of Voiceover great (and not feel like a cheat or a well-worn trope), we apply the four levers identified in our Part 1 (in particular ‘when in time is the Voiceover coming from’). In this episode we discover how Voiceover can set tone, reveal character motivations, enhance viewer empathy, or even create tension. Don’t forget to check out the Backmatter (https://www.patreon.com/posts/backmatter-for-105083575) to this episode answering Patreon Abigail’s question. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purposes. Thanks to Chris Walker

What are the different ways a filmmaker can ask something of the audience? Chas and Stu are joined by recurring guest Mel in this prelude episode to upcoming episodes on Voice Over and Breaking the Fourth Wall. In this episode, we attempt to taxonomise the different ways filmmakers can ask something directly of their audience. To this end, we identify 4 levers that can be pulled: Diagetic to non-diagetic (in story world to outside story world) Who is talking? From story-teller to a character Whom are they talking to? Themselves or directly to the audience? From when in time is the communication coming? They then take these levers and ask a series of questions, including: What does the communication want from the audience? Does the audience know who’s talking? How reliable is the information? How aware is who is communicating of the audience? They then apply these questions and levers to… deep breath… STAR WARS, ROBOCOP, STARSHIP TROOPERS, KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON, MINORITY REPORT, CHILDREN OF MEN, NEVER

How and why should every scene have an emotional event? For the first episode of our tenth anniversary year, we are joined by Judith Weston to talk about Emotional Events.  What is an emotional event? Well, it’s a way of thinking about scenes through relationships rather than plot. Instead of asking how a scene moves the plot forward, ask how the scene alters the relationship between characters. While emotional events are ostensibly a tool for directors to interpret scenes, we believe that the emotional event starts with the writer(s). But it is an idea better illustrated through examples and discussion rather than sound bites. To that end, we breakdown scene from OPPENHEIMER, CASINO ROYALE (the Daniel Craig one), and PAST LIVES and explore how the emotional event is written (and not written) on the page.  Through a close reading of each scene, we talk about subtext, power dynamics, status transactions, tactics, beats and much much more. Because Chas, Stu and Judith are also reading the scripts there  lot of

How can we use dramatisation to create tone? In this episode, Chas and Stu continue their deep dive into how to write tone by examining films with “light” (we use the phrase loosely) tones: LADY BIRD, EMILY THE CRIMINAL, THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS, and SPONTANEOUS. We also talk a surprising amount about DUNE and CRAZY STUPID LOVE. We focus on the relationship between character & tone and how the writers of these films use dramatisation to create their unique tones. We talk minimalism vs maximalism, dialogue, character actions & reactions, emotional dynamic range, and rules of the world vs given circumstances. Stu proposes a new triangle to help us understand the dials we as writers have to affect tone: the given circumstances of the story, how that effects character actions & reactions, and how the audience are told about those elements. Thanks to Chris Walker for his excellent editing this episode. As always: SPOILERS ABOUND and all copyright material used under fair use for educational purpose

How do you know if you have enough narrative fuel to write a script? In this episode, Chas, Stu and Mel attempt to answer a listener question:  “In your own pre-writing process, how do you know you have enough for a feature? And do you have a specific pre-writing method you're going to?” Thus we launch into a discussion on our writing processes and the varying usefulness of tools such as log lines, turning points, beat sheets, synopsis, treatments, and scene breakdowns. We also tackle the challenges encountered while developing an idea to first draft, such as balancing the pace of the story, developing distinct character voices, character choices, plot changes, pacing, and thematic clarity. Is this backmatter? Or is it development tools? You decide! Hahaha. Thanks so much to Chris Walker for his excellent editing on this episode! CHAPTERS: 00:00:00 - Cold Open 00:00:30 - Introduction: Falling Short 00:02:38 - Our Development Processes 00:33:06 - Developing from concept 00:45:26 - Sponsor: Arc Studio Pro 00: