M: Please give me a brief recent history of Afghanistan, covering from a couple months after the American withdrawal in 2020 until now. Please filter out as much American politics as you can; I am only interested in the state of the country itself and anything that has happened. It probably would be best to look at foreign sources over American ones.

M: Let’s pipe dream a one man movie guerrilla action. Let’s visualize Jason Statham as this main character. If one person, obviously foreign, was to attempt to make some kind of change to the Taliban hold on Afghanistan, likely by eliminating gradually the right people – what kind of methodology would the script writer need to follow in order to make it as realistic as possiblewhile carrying out their righteous crusade?

M: Let’s make some modifications and answer some questions about the scenario first. First, the character is driven by moral fury, nothing more; the ability to attempt something that needs to be done because everyone else is incapable of relieving a selfish entrenched quagmire of a blend of mafia and religious fear. They are a character with ability, but no purpose in their life – no close family, but the ability to do this thing. What aspects of this storyline would get someone caught in reality? We need to tighten those up. Honestly, while yours would make a more classic story, I was thinking more man with no name combined with cover ups expert: minimal contact with anyone, because Contact is a risk. Having said that, maybe come up with parallel versions. Or have two characters both attempting the same thing, but with the different approaches, causing different issues. Like, the extreme loner would have to have survival skills – but adapting from wherever they have their most expertise to the Afghanistan situation, between wildlife issues and other things, would make things difficult. For this character, at least, there should be minimal actual psychological stress. While most people would experience that, for the loner character, his capacity to exist within himself with minimal deterioration of sanity is part of what would make him the appropriate expert to decide to take on this challenge. There would need to be at least one, preferably three or four methods of precise assassination that are less known BECAUSE they are less flashy, and therefore not popular in media. An uncomplicated default for each of the characters that doesn’t involve exactly the right circumstances. Hypothetically, an expert sniper is great – except that it requires such a confluence of circumstances beyond the hunters control, while also leaving no method for hasty retreat without abandoning equipment that would be much more difficult to find in the circumstances. A believable method – by which I mean, actually accessible by reality and not just cinematic luck– would need to be found by which each character could make their strikes with reasonable unpredictability. Targets of opportunity are fine, but in order to maintain cover for as long as possible, or even indefinitely, a wide nut has to be able to be cast to prevent counter assassins from finding a useful pattern to look for the main characters. I’ve heard it said that mad Max is the least important character in the best of his movies. That is kind of what is being looked for in the storylines themselves. While we the writers might have a lock on their personal history, it needs to be shown that the reason they have picked up this Crusade is for the minor but numerous moral problems that no force the size of a nation can untangle. They are doing this because they believe it should be done; the viewer can project whatever they want onto the person‘s motivations, but the aim of the writer should be to show why it’s being done. Doctor Who is another viable example: yes there is an entire backstory, but it took so many seasons, and such to establish it, and the best episodes involve what he does and who he does it with, not why he’s doing it.

M: The story should not be simple or pretty. If there’s any moral victory, it should be balanced by acknowledgment, both by the writer and the executor, that it was a sudden death in overtime, victory, and not a shut out. And that’s if it’s even a clear victory. I have no problem with including scenes with no winner; such as if the target is a loving family man who also just happens to be the local head of execution, who does it not out of viciousness, but because they think everyone else would be worse. Those are creative methods, but first, are they realistically accomplishable? And second, can you think of any target of opportunity, quiet methods? There needs to be something that can be accessed in a sudden situation, as well as those that involve some degree of loose planning. Especially if one of the plans starts going wrong and there’s a single obstacle between the character and a clean escape. Emphasis of hypocrisy, particularly the kind where the perpetrator seems oblivious to their own hypocrisy, would be a primary focus. I could use some help thinking of Taliban specific examples; both overt and covert equivalents of those who say America spends too much and needs to cut back while voting for a pay increase because everything is so darn expensive. Only darker. The Statham type character doesn’t smile at death. Successful set up maybe, but death is nothing for him to celebrate.

M: There are some things which are most successfully accomplished by people who don’t want to do it, but know it needs to be done; you could argue that that is a primary weakness of the current political system – the more you know that can help fix things, the more aware you are of how hard that effort is going to be. That’s a core piece of the loner character. This is something they feel needs to be done, and the best a complete success would leave yet another uphill task for someone else. The hypocrisy is better if they don’t recognize it as such. It would be easy to do so using people who condemn from scripture while breaking the law themselves – but there needs to be at least some if not all with more subtlety or nuance, and preferably in a way that does not simply demonize Islam. Like, the hypocrisy of a holy man who actually does adhere to the Quran, but in its application twists the meaning to fulfill a private phobia which the Quran doesn’t condemn or even explicitly endorses. kind of like how Christians pull a couple verses out of the old testament because they’re homophobic and want to believe that God is as well.… Point is, cruelty is easy. We’re trying to delve deeper into the systemic elements which allow the cruelty to be socially acceptable instead of starkly visible each time. The story – allow it to be as long as it needs to be, it could be a series or a movie at this point, that will be worried about later – needs to be going towards an overt collapse of Taliban rule. There might not be a climactic battle ending, but this should be a series working towards a final collapse. The loner may except that it’s possible he’ll never succeed, and there may be setbacks for a particular battle, but the war is not supposed to be one simply of attrition. There should be a logic to it: take out A B and C to undercut the smoke screen of D; the exposure of D allows access to higher up E, not for immediate targeting, but because in two weeks they have a scheduled meeting with vice president F. Maybe think of it in terms of Pokémon – collecting scalp along the way, but always with eyes on eventually taking out the entire system. Again in gaming terms, the loner is ready to play an MMO for years, not a triple a game with a beginning, middle and end. One aspect of humanity and hypocrisy that could be exploited in a arc or two would be personal protection. Like the guy who kneecaps homosexuals for the state but time again protects his gay son/daughter. Remind me each response until I say “yes please do it“ that I need you to help me identify how to represent the current average person in Afghanistan – of course, with the variety of a country with urban and rural settings – from a standpoint of “if suburban America is the anchor point, what needs to be changed to give an accurate depiction of the population without succumbing to stereotypic tropes, so western viewers wouldn’t be able to write off the characters as foreigners“. You don’t have to repeat that every time of course, just remind me that I need to ask. I do know that the voices would need to be actual English, American accent; i’m still wondering, whether giving the Statham character some kind of accent would be feasible when he’s speaking… All right, when I ask the question finally, also remind me that I need to get some basic information down like what language or languages are common in Afghanistan. While, this is being planned for cinema, we are accentuating the darkness of realism over the easy to digest, stark black and white of the average media. (Incidentally, you might have to filter some punctuation here; I’ve been talking instead of looking at what gets written through voice transcription) for instance, the person preaching virtue wouldn’t have a secret 13-year-old second bride; it would be over and no one would seem to have a problem with it, including him. Or maybe not that specifically, but you see what I’m saying, I hope. The viewer shouldn’t have to guess what the secret is when the reality of them hits them squarely in the face; they should be hoping for extenuating circumstances that explain, then feel the despair or whatever, as they realize that the story isn’t going there, that this really is as dark as it appears, and an echo of reality with no glitchy lacquer applied. One of the best episodes of aeon flux starts with the title character, heroically taking down the enemy – until they are shot by one that they missed, who resists her cunning and sexual enticement. They then become the stories hero – and this happens two or three more times. The hypocrites need to sometimes be these characters – they believe in the rules, they follow the rules, they enforce the rules, they just don’t see that they are afoul of the rules. They are the heroes of their own life in a way that is not villainous or self delusional beyond that of the average human being – but because they can’t see it, they are perpetrating horrific consequences on their society. For us, the writer, we know that the loner sees this crusade, like a farmer harvesting corn by hand: something that needs to be done, nothing to celebrate or mourn, with the only satisfaction maybe coming at the end of each row. They may be creative in their execution, but I’m going to go back to the old spaghetti, Western man who blows into town and blows out without saying much, but changing everyone’s life: no cinematic embellishment that doesn’t serve a purpose in his effort. Yes, leave a spilled tea cup – but no dramatic versus or coins or anything. Both because it doesn’t match the character, and pragmatically, because it might give away how he accomplished whatever. He can react to a crying widow – but not in a way that allows for regret beyond the fact that this needs to be done at all. Nothing that suggests he could be reaching his psychological limit because, for this task, he doesn’t have them. It’s important that he maintain his focus. That he has chosen to do this at all establishes that he has it. It’s a fine narrative line to walk, he can be human, but not in a way that suggests that his entire worldview can be rocked by one failure. If he was that person, then he wouldn’t be able to walk away from sequences like I described – the A B C D stuff above – if things go wrong or look like it could end his work. Maybe you do give him a moment in his camp to process the accidental elimination of one who appears complicit; however, you can’t let it be to the point that it dissuades him. Again, the sadness is because this has to be done at all, not because he wasn’t perfect. In preparing to do this, he has accepted his lack of perfection and made peace with it. In other words, No shattering his resolve just because he gets hit in the face with half of a little girl. if you wanna look at it this way: he won’t break because he’s already broken. He has examined the situation and believes that only surgical elimination of human life has any hope of making any change in the society. If there’s any question in him about his actions, it’s only what he will do Should he ever manage to succeed. Between you and I, something that should not be transmitted to the viewer, but because it could help tip the balance in the case of uncertainty I’ll say it: the Statham character has a rubric for eventually eliminating anyone in authority in the Afghanistan, Taliban, but hopes his actions will cause a change before he has to follow it through – both because like I said, this is MMO levels of time required, and because if he does complete that plan, it would mean that this is a world where only violence, by itself, can be guaranteed to succeed. He could live with that, but it would be the worst possible world. If you look at the brief history, you gave me, you’ll see that the Statham character would not be stopped because he inspired crackdowns – because those will happen anyway. These are authoritarians who are mad that they have complete control, but things aren’t getting better. In his mind, the fact that they’re happening earlier rather than later is the only difference. Killing women now instead of forcing them into a society mandated public jail, and wasting their life, unable to do anything, but bear more children into that society, is equivalent in his mind. It’s arguably true; if the crime of murder is based on the elimination of potential future, it’s hard to make the argument that living longer without hope because hope might show up one day is at least as much of a crime if not worse because it’s being dragged out. Is it worse to break someone’s arm or leave them for a year under a dripping water fountain but perfectly healthy?

M: One scenario could involves multiple episodes; the first involves removing the local bad influence. The second, shown later, but not immediately after, involves coming back and seeing that a new person has taken over right where the last one did. Take him out. More time passes in the show, come back, it’s not the same, but there’s something else corrupt. Take them out. Maybe once more, but with the end cap being that the area is simultaneously traumatized, but also now on an appropriate course, or at least one that’s acceptable to what he can see at the moment. Maybe later he comes back, and while things aren’t perfect, he doesn’t see anything completely destructive happening, and again walks away. The character you described is almost there. The crying child should not be ignored, like a terminator – and even, if it’s appropriate, interacted with in a way that doesn’t compromise him. Just no breaking of character just to make him likable. He probably shouldn’t be likable – the background we’ve got however skeleton it is has established. The man has no close relatives or family, and can live that way. Not a misanthrope, but also not the classic anime style charismatic genius who just happens to have spent the last 50 years, not talking to anyone. In a series long version, plans would fail. Tension might arise in his efforts to escape, but they couldn’t be cinematic punchups. He has a goal. It’s to keep going with his plan. The failure can be a statement on the best laid plans, or even a lesson in letting go before it’s too late, but he should not try to force a victory. In fact, in a series, at least one time he would have to walk away because it was just too risky to him. Preferably, it would be an echo of a previous action where something happened where he could succeed, but would not be able to do so without taking out a newly married couple or something, and minimally hesitated beyond identifying the new situation; or vice versa. The point being to emphasize that he has sharpened his prioritizing matrix to the point that the only thing which supersedes his crusade is his own survival to continue that crusade. Any action he takes, has to be able to be explained; we don’t want any fridge logic of “wait, how would he know that?” it doesn’t have to be explained repeatedly, even in a series type script, once is enough – but that once has to be convincing. Like, he can’t just sneak into an office, pick up and flip through an address book, and immediately have the names of five informant at his fingertips. Or if he’s going to plant a sermon, you have to establish how someone high enough up to give that sermon wouldn’t read ahead and stop talking – or make the speech modification, subtle enough that you can believe a professional speaker wouldn’t see the problem until. Unless there’s a good reason to risk himself, he should not make his presence suspected anywhere near where he is. Remote capacity is possible, especially if he planted appropriately right before the thing starts – but this is the long haul. Unless this turns into a long series, he would not get far enough through the major figures involved in Taliban oppression to even begin risking game over. I know I keep using game metaphors, but it’s the best terminology I have – I’m not saying that he sees his crusade as a game. But you’ve got a decent grasp on the concept. Maybe not every scenario is focused on how the current target fits into the longer plan – although if we can, it would be better to tie those in to later scenarios by reference, like if a priest is taking it down later on there’s discussion of his death as the next domino falls. Again, the reference to not expecting to win is pretty close to what I’m thinking of. Using another game reference: it’s Pac-Man. Continuing is winning in that situation. He knows success isn’t necessarily going to happen or is even well defined, but this is the game he has decided to play.

M: Almost there, a couple more things. First, try to avoid obvious tropes. I know it said – and I think I agree – that there’s nothing new under the sun, that everything can be broken down and found on TVtropes.org, etc. I’m just saying that when you’re developing this, avoid unnecessary or overused tropes whenever technically possible. There have been a few situations where your choice of words sounded like you were trying to… zazz up the situation, find a way to drop it into a particular slot, even if it’s a rarely used slot of fiction that could use a little more occupation. The muddy uncertainty is supposed to be the tone of this piece, which will allow the single minded clarity of the state and character to stand out in contrast. Everything can be confusing as long as he isn’t, and probably will be better if it’s confusing to some degree. Any viewer who disagrees with his action in a particular situation should then either know exactly why they disagree, or be forced to consider why their first impulse is to disagree and whether that impulse is based in the way, the world is or the way they think the world should be. I know there has to be something, but I would still like to reduce the spy craft. Maybe he knows about dead drops, maybe even a scenario character is involved with it – but he can’t rely on it. His default options gravitate towards analog and solo. He can survive in the wild for weeks if all his equipment is lost, with the patients to look for the occasion to get back equipment and resume. He’s not a fan of James Bond gadgets, even if he can use a cell phone to his own purposes. He doesn’t rely on anyone because, among other reasons, it means all failures will be his failure or chance; even the best intention and most reliable associate means failure is no longer his own.

M: Minor clarifications. I keep finding something to argue with on your summary of the character – I think, because, however technically accurate, it ends up, sounding like a marketing blurb. Part of that might be on me. But there’s also a certainty to it that disconcerts me. That may be because the character I’ve described is disconcerting; when summarized it just happens all at once. But they’re also might be an element of your certainty being too certain. If you were to repeat your last summary to this character, his response would be a shrug and maybe “I’m doing what I’m doing.” In trying to make his certainty concrete in words, it might be losing the “hold on loosely “nature of his strength. The powerful grasp doesn’t shatter because it has an element of flexibility that might not be able to be completely pinned down in words without its vibrancy dying like a butterfly. The world should be bleak; the tone can be less so. Not quite a crap sack world, but certainly a crap sack situation. Dark humor, or even straight up humor isn’t to be avoided, just not sought out. You’re definitely right about the no James Bond, Deadpool, or kill Bill. To clarify on the tools – he trusts his tools as long as they aren’t people or rely on people. Analog is preferred because it’s more accessible in the field; digital is hard to find and hard to maintain– it can be used, he’s comfortable with it, it can even be a key element in a plan – but relying on it too far opens you up to unrecoverable error. A state of the art cell phone still drains battery quickly and has GPS issues unless you’re willing to trust that no one wants to find you and hurt you. A hiccup and software updates can prevent you from connecting to Wi-Fi when it really needs to. That’s what I mean: an electric car is great when it’s charged in its element, but dead weight in circumstances where a bicycle thrives. This isn’t a mountain man technophobe, but someone pragmatically trying to survive. And as far as people, he’s again not a misanthrope, but they are a weak point he can’t strengthen. He will rely on people when other options don’t present and the risk is able to be mitigated, the same way he will plant a streaming phone to Get information – including that he will let them go without a second thought and not feel that it’s necessary to replace them unless a new situation arises. I didn’t mind your summary of the series itself, except… When you say the word untainted, I don’t think that in this case, the Statham character carries any taint. Because he’s almost trying to be a moral in his approach to fixing other people‘s morality. He feels he can do so because they have abdicated their responsibility to build a society in which everyone agrees, or at least agrees to disagree. His security lies in that again he’s a farmer picking corn – the corn might think him a monster, but that doesn’t mean he has to think of himself as a monster. I’m not attempting to justify his attitude – his attitude is that anyone judging him has missed the point. If people stop hurting each other ostensibly because God said so, stop bringing others down because they can’t find a way to bring themselves up, and in short treat others the way they’d want to be treated, he could walk away with no guilt in his heart– just the sadness that things went to that point in the first place. It’s almost a “cast the first stone“ situation, on a societal level: because if you HAVE thought of a better way to stop or remove all these people who are either hypocritically or perhaps worse, honestly following rules that contradict themselves and the idea of society of being a benefit to all of mankind, then he would STILL be in the right – because that means you could solve these things and have chosen to let people suffer. The character I have described can live the mountain man lifestyle, doesn’t need society; he doesn’t need approval, but if you condemn him without first, telling him what to do to fix society instead,in his eyes standing in his way is defending the problem. Give a better solution, and he will help you implement it instead of following his own guidance – but to call him sinful or anything similar is an attempt to shift focus from the reason he’s doing anything.

M: Just a little bit more first. I think he would say that… Well, he probably wouldn’t have said any of this, and just stared until one of us left, but as his interpreter right now his opinion is that no one has defined sanctity completely enough to start charging accusations of sin. And that would be an intellectual aside, having nothing to do with his current actions. I’d like to add as an insight to his character, another thing that only the writers know, and the viewers should never be specifically told: in his backstory, the best way to describe his arrival at this Crusade is as his own personal solution to existential despair. He might not know it intellectually, and might not have the words to encompass the idea, but he chooses this path as a acceptable vessel in which to pour the rest of his life. Like I said, the character has no close family or close ties. Without attempting to thoroughly flush it out at the moment, we’re working with the understanding that he has some kind of high-level military training, but his path in life has carried him to a point where he has finished the last step in a path before him, does not regret any of it, but now has no path to follow, no definite next step. If his past was navy seal, it would be that of a specialist who was comfortable in solitude instead of the camaraderie of the Armed Forces. If it was mercenary, he worked alone and built a success from there. He has intelligence and skills, but no major desire for company and no use for what he has. I can’t tell you why suicide isn’t an option for him; I can only say that if he thought it was, he would matter-of-factly cap himself as easily as any one of his targets. Not in the normal sense of suicide is an escape from pain, but because if he were done, he’d be done. Since that was not an option, he had skills and intelligence that no one needed. Starting a family didn’t appeal to him, and he was late enough in his life that doing so would likely… It would have been a hassle, only written in bold letters in fire on the night sky. He believes in his work, but deep down acknowledges that it is an existential choice of how to use his talents; it’s guided by morality, but was not triggered by the sudden realization of how self-contradictory the world was, and how Taliban was that in a microcosm – it was the realization that he needed something positive to do with unused ability. This gives his effort an anchor, and the stability to move on it while also giving him the potential to stop if it’s obvious, it’s no longer necessary. What he would move onto is unsure, but it’s the reason why he’s able to be so secure. Ideological, religious motivated people in the same circumstance wouldn’t be able to comfortably stop, and their success would mean their obsolescence. It’s the thing about how revolutionaries are bad at leading, because they are two different things. For him, he has already reached his own obsolescence and found a new direction. He no longer fears, his core being made unnecessary, it has already happened once, and he knows it’s not the complete end.