Speaker 1: In two thousand and three, Paramount Pictures spent fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars on a movie. Yeah, and it's a movie where
Speaker 1: two people just you know, professionally and psychologically torture each other.
Speaker 2: Right for workplace promotions.
Speaker 1: Basically exactly for promotions. And it went on to make
Speaker 1: nearly one hundred and eighty million dollars worldwide.
Speaker 2: Which is I mean, that's just a staggering return.
Speaker 1: It's huge. And today, you know, in twenty twenty six,
Speaker 1: the Hollywood studio system is essentially betting billions of dollars
Speaker 1: that you and I are absolutely desperate to watch them
Speaker 1: do it all over again.
Speaker 2: They really are.
Speaker 1: So Okay, let's unpack this because a brand new exclusive
Speaker 1: report from Variety has just revealed that Paramount is officially
Speaker 1: in the early stages of developing a sequel to the
Speaker 1: massive hit romantic comedy How to Lose a Guy in
Speaker 1: Ten Days Wow. Yeah, and the studio is intending to
Speaker 1: bring back original stars Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey to
Speaker 1: you know, reprise their roles as Andy and Benjamin.
Speaker 2: I mean, it is a headline that is just engineered
Speaker 2: to break the end Internet, right, Oh, totally. But if
Speaker 2: we look under the hood, we are looking at a
Speaker 2: brilliant case study in modern Hollywood economics. Right Like, this
Speaker 2: isn't a whimsical creative reunion. This is a highly calculated
Speaker 2: reaction to well, to algorithmic destiny.
Speaker 1: Algorithmic destiny.
Speaker 2: I like that because the entertainment landscape right now, it's
Speaker 2: operating under a very specific set of financial pressures. Sure
Speaker 2: and reviving a twenty three year old intellectual property is
Speaker 2: you know, it's one of the few ways a major
Speaker 2: studio can actually mitigate.
Speaker 1: Risk, Which is exactly why this matters to whoever is
Speaker 1: listening right now, exactly because whether you have the original
Speaker 1: movie poster framed in your bedroom or you've literally never
Speaker 1: watched a rom com in your life, you need to
Speaker 1: understand the mechanics of this announcement.
Speaker 2: Right because it affects everything else that.
Speaker 1: Gets messed exactly. Every time you log into a streaming
Speaker 1: platform on like Tuesday night and watch a movie from
Speaker 1: the early two thousands, your data is being weaponized.
Speaker 2: Weaponized is the right word.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's spinized to dictate massive billion dollar corporate investments.
Speaker 1: Your comfort watching is it's feeding an algorithm that tells
Speaker 1: executives exactly what to green light.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and the Variety report it lays out the early
Speaker 2: mechanics of the deal, which is fascinating. Oh yeah, So
Speaker 2: paramount is they're driving the vehicle, but they haven't chosen
Speaker 2: the destination.
Speaker 1: Yet, meaning they don't have a script, right.
Speaker 2: They are currently on the hunt for a screenwriter, and
Speaker 2: the article notes that casting, you know, actually getting Hudson
Speaker 2: and McConaughey to sign the final contracts that ultimately depends
Speaker 2: on the take.
Speaker 1: The take.
Speaker 2: So the pitch, yes, this specific angle or story the
Speaker 2: writer pitches has to be absolutely bulletproof interested and the
Speaker 2: actors representatives haven't commented, which is standard procedure when the
Speaker 2: script doesn't actually exist yet.
Speaker 1: Sure, they're not going to commit to a blank page exactly.
Speaker 2: But the sheer fact that this is public knowledge tells
Speaker 2: us everything we need to know about the current cinematic climate.
Speaker 1: The climate is basically just a monsoon of millennial nostalgia
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 2: It really is a monsoon.
Speaker 1: I mean, the article explicitly places this sequel within a
Speaker 1: massive y two K wave that's currently dominating the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six box office. Yeah, we have already seen outside
Speaker 1: hits this year with the devilwares Prata to the New
Speaker 1: Scary Movie reboot, oh right, and Toy Story five, which
Speaker 1: is just yeah, I know, and the future slate is
Speaker 1: just as heavy, like we are looking down the barrel
Speaker 1: of practical magic too, Fokker in Law, which you know
Speaker 1: is wild and in twenty twenty seven Shrek five and
Speaker 1: Grete Gerwig's take on Narnia.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So, if we connect this to the bigger picture,
Speaker 2: the mechanism driving this isn't just a cultural yearning for
Speaker 2: the past, right, it's the sheer cost of audience acquisition today.
Speaker 1: Okay, break that down for me.
Speaker 2: Well, Marketing the theatrical release in twenty twenty six often
Speaker 2: costs much, if not more than the production.
Speaker 1: Budget itself, really like one to one.
Speaker 2: Sometimes even more, because audience attentions just fractured across thousands
Speaker 2: of platforms, apps and you know micro trends.
Speaker 1: Right, everyone's on a different TikTok algorithm exactly.
Speaker 2: So if Paramount green lights an original romantic comedy today,
Speaker 2: they have to spend thirty to forty million dollars just
Speaker 2: to explain to the public who the characters are, oh wow, yeah,
Speaker 2: what the tone is and why they should actually leave
Speaker 2: their houses to see it.
Speaker 1: I see, so it's I look at it like tech
Speaker 1: backward compatibility.
Speaker 2: Okay, I like that.
Speaker 1: Like studios are trying to run a massive, expensive, twenty
Speaker 1: twenty six operating system, you know, the modern theatrical distribution model, right,
Speaker 1: but to justify the server costs, they have to run
Speaker 1: legacy two thousand and three software.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly it.
Speaker 1: The brand awareness of how to lose a guy in
Speaker 1: ten days is the legacy code. They don't have to
Speaker 1: explain who Andy Anderson or Benjamin Barry.
Speaker 2: Are, right, you already know.
Speaker 1: But I have to push back on the studio logic here. Okay,
Speaker 1: are they doing this because they're just completely out of
Speaker 1: original ideas and terrified of risk? Or is the audience
Speaker 1: actually driving this?
Speaker 2: It's a chicken and egg scenario.
Speaker 1: Right, Like it's like finding a perfectly broken in pair
Speaker 1: of vintage genes. It's comfortable, it's guaranteed to look good.
Speaker 1: But if Paramount poured fifty million dollars into a completely original,
Speaker 1: mid budget romcom tomorrow, would anyone even buy a ticket?
Speaker 2: Well, the data suggests they wouldn't really, or at least
Speaker 2: not numbers that satisfy a publicly traded conglomerate. That's depressing,
Speaker 2: I know, But the box office returns for things like
Speaker 2: The Devilwar's Prota too. They prove that audiences are actively
Speaker 2: voting with their wallets for familiarity.
Speaker 1: I guess that makes sense.
Speaker 2: The global climate is complex, economic pressures are high, and
Speaker 2: consumers view an expensive night out at the movies as
Speaker 2: an investment.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a babysitter parking popcorn. It's easily one hundred.
Speaker 2: Bucks, exactly. They want a guaranteed return on that investment,
Speaker 2: which means they want a known commodity.
Speaker 1: So they want the vintage genes, right.
Speaker 2: But the danger in the studio's logic is assuming that
Speaker 2: simply slapping a Y two K brand name on a
Speaker 2: marquee guarantees success.
Speaker 1: Oh, for sure.
Speaker 2: The underlying archet texture of the film still has to function.
Speaker 1: Which forces us to look at the architecture of the
Speaker 1: two thousand and three blueprint. Yeah, let's do that, because
Speaker 1: why this specific movie. There were dozens of rom comms
Speaker 1: in the early two thousands, but the Variety article calls
Speaker 1: this one an essential title. They call it an anchor
Speaker 1: of the genre. It really is, and the economics alone
Speaker 1: are staggering nearly one hundred and eighty million dollars globally
Speaker 1: on a fifty million dollar budget.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that kind of return on investment is it's what
Speaker 2: built the modern studio system.
Speaker 1: It's crazy.
Speaker 2: It's a phenomenal margin. Yeah, and directed by Donald Petrie,
Speaker 2: the film cracked a very specific code that allowed it
Speaker 2: to transcend, you know, standard genre fare and achieve that
Speaker 2: level of cultural and financial penetration.
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean? Like when you actually
Speaker 1: break down the plot, the premise is completely unhinged.
Speaker 2: It is wild.
Speaker 1: Right. We have Kate Hudson playing Andy Anderson. Right, She's
Speaker 1: a how to columnist for a women's magazine who pitches
Speaker 1: an article about modern dating, and her research methodology is
Speaker 1: to find a guy, seduce him, and then deliberately act
Speaker 1: like the most toxic, clingy, nightmare girlfriend imaginable to document
Speaker 1: how fast he dumbs her.
Speaker 2: It's a premise that is frankly matched in its sociopathy
Speaker 2: by Matthew McConaughey's character.
Speaker 1: Seriously.
Speaker 2: Benjamin Barry is an advertising executive who makes a bet
Speaker 2: with his boss that he can make any woman fall
Speaker 2: in love with him in ten days. Just any woman,
Speaker 2: any woman, and if he pulls it off, he wins
Speaker 2: the lead on a massive, career defining diamond advertising campaign.
Speaker 1: So Andy and Benjamin target each other.
Speaker 2: All right, meaning neither of them is operating in reality.
Speaker 1: They are fundamentally lying to each other for professional game
Speaker 1: for the entire run time of the movie.
Speaker 2: They time movie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I reread the plot summary for this, and honestly,
Speaker 1: I was stunned. It is essentially a movie about two
Speaker 1: people ruining each other's lives for a promotion.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 1: How did this not alienate audiences in two thousand and three?
Speaker 1: I mean, does a plot build on such bizarre borderline
Speaker 1: cruel deception actually translate to a modern audience or is
Speaker 1: the charm entirely trapped in the amber of two thousand
Speaker 1: and three?
Speaker 2: Well, the deception is exactly what makes the engine run,
Speaker 2: how so, because it creates a high stakes, dramatic irony. Okay,
Speaker 2: the audience does both secrets, which turns every standard romantic
Speaker 2: trope into a battlefield.
Speaker 1: Like when she brings the love Fern.
Speaker 2: Exactly when Andy acts terribly, Benjamin can't leave because of
Speaker 2: his bet right.
Speaker 1: He has to just sit there and take it.
Speaker 2: It forces the characters into a confined space. But the
Speaker 2: reason it didn't alienate the audience and the reason it
Speaker 2: made one hundred and eighty million dollars comes down to
Speaker 2: two specific mechanisms.
Speaker 1: Okay, what's the first one?
Speaker 2: First, the casting of the supporting ensemble.
Speaker 1: Oh, this source mentions this a wildly talented bench. We're
Speaker 1: talking Catherine Hahn, Adam Goldberg, Thomas Lennon, Michael Michelle, and
Speaker 1: Shalom Harlowe.
Speaker 2: Incredible cast, and that supporting cast acts as the grounding
Speaker 2: wire for the absurdity.
Speaker 1: Grounding wire that makes sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you have phenomenal comedic actors reacting to the chaos.
Speaker 2: Andy and Benjamin are creating.
Speaker 1: Like Adam Goldberg and Thomas Lennon just watching Benjamin suffer.
Speaker 2: Exactly, which signals to the audience that the universe of
Speaker 2: the film recognizes how crazy this behavior is.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see. So it's not like the movie thinks
Speaker 1: this is normal.
Speaker 2: Right, the movie knows they're crazy. And the second and
Speaker 2: probably more vital mechanism is the chemistry between Hudson and McConaughey. Right,
Speaker 2: the film only works if the audience believes that beneath
Speaker 2: the layers of mutual manipulation, a genuine connection is forming. Yeah,
Speaker 2: the friction of the lie creates the heat of the romance.
Speaker 1: The chemistry overrides the toxicity perfectly said. Even McConaughey refers
Speaker 1: to the film the article as an anchor in the
Speaker 1: rom com cannon.
Speaker 2: He knows how important it was.
Speaker 1: But trying to recreate that highly specific alchemy twenty three
Speaker 1: years later without making the characters deeply unlikable by modern
Speaker 1: standards requires absolute precision behind the camera, total precision, which
Speaker 1: is where the Variety report pivots from a standard nostalgic
Speaker 1: announcement to a genuinely fascinating industry maneuver.
Speaker 2: Yes, the architecture of the production team is shifting in
Speaker 2: a big way. Well, the driving force here isn't just
Speaker 2: a studio executive dusting off a script, right. Kate Hudson
Speaker 2: is officially attached to produce the sequel through her banner
Speaker 2: Shiny Penny.
Speaker 1: And we really need to look at Kate Hudson's current
Speaker 1: industry capital because she is in the middle of a
Speaker 1: massive career resurgence.
Speaker 2: It really is.
Speaker 1: The article notes she recently earned her second Oscar nomination
Speaker 1: for the twenty twenty five film song sung Blue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: her first being her iconic role as Penny Lane and
Speaker 1: Cameron Crow's Almost Famous.
Speaker 2: Right, which was decades ago exactly.
Speaker 1: And she's also leading a high profile Netflix sports comedy
Speaker 1: series called Running Point.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: She is not a fading star desperately trying to relive
Speaker 1: her glory days. She has immense momentum.
Speaker 2: Right now, immense momentum, and her attachment as a producer
Speaker 2: fundamentally changes the power dynamics of the development process. Why
Speaker 2: is that because in two thousand and three, actors, even
Speaker 2: a listers, were largely hired guns who showed up, hit
Speaker 2: their marks and let the studio dictate the final cut.
Speaker 1: Sure, you hit your mark and say your lines exactly.
Speaker 2: But by attaching her production company, Shiny, Penny Hudson is
Speaker 2: installing a contractual mechanism of creative control. Oh wow, she
Speaker 2: has video power over the writer, the director, and the
Speaker 2: final script.
Speaker 1: That's huge.
Speaker 2: The piece notes she is waiting in the wings for
Speaker 2: the right deal, which means she is protecting the brand
Speaker 2: asset of Andy Anderson until the narrative meets her standards.
Speaker 1: So she won't just sign off on anything exactly. And
Speaker 1: the protective layer she's building gets even thicker when you
Speaker 1: look at who she brought in to co produce.
Speaker 2: This is the best part.
Speaker 1: The source confirms Stacy Shrr is on board. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: when I read that name, my jaw.
Speaker 2: Actually dropped same. It's unbelievable for.
Speaker 1: Those who don't aggressively track Hollywood producers, Stacey Sherr's credits
Speaker 1: are a masterclass in prestige cinema.
Speaker 2: Yes they are.
Speaker 1: We are talking about pulp fiction Gataka Brokovich, Vanilla Sky,
Speaker 1: Django Unchained.
Speaker 2: I know it is the most telling detail in the
Speaker 2: entire report because it completely recontextualizes the ambition of the project.
Speaker 1: It's staggering. Like bringing the producer of Quentin Tarantino's most violent,
Speaker 1: morally complex films onto a sequel to a two thousand
Speaker 1: and three rom com is like it's like hiring a
Speaker 1: Michelin Star steakhouse chef to come to your kitchen to
Speaker 1: make a grilled cheese sandwich.
Speaker 2: That is exactly what it's like.
Speaker 1: Like, you know it's going to be the most intense
Speaker 1: grilled cheese of your life. But what is she doing there?
Speaker 1: What specific tactics does a producer like Stacy sher bring
Speaker 1: to a high concept romantic comedy.
Speaker 2: Well, what's fascinating here is how Sure structured a film
Speaker 2: like Aaron Brockovich. Okay, that was a movie about an
Speaker 2: absurdly large, almost unbelievable true story.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the water contamination exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but Shares producing tactics grounded it in gritty, working
Speaker 2: class reality, making it an oscar head.
Speaker 1: That's true, it felt very real.
Speaker 2: She specializes in morally gray characters and sharp grounded stakes.
Speaker 1: Oh, I see where you're going with this.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Her presence signals to the industry that this sequel
Speaker 2: is not aiming for fluffy, disposable nostalgia.
Speaker 1: It's not just a cash grab.
Speaker 2: No. When you pair Andy and Benjamin's inherently toxic manipulative
Speaker 2: origins from two thousand and three with a producer known
Speaker 2: for pulp fiction and Django unchained, yeah, it suggests they
Speaker 2: are aiming for a much sharper, elevated, and perhaps more
Speaker 2: cynical tone.
Speaker 1: Wow, Because a call from Stacy shr hits a top
Speaker 1: tier screenwriter very differently than a standard pitch from a paramount.
Speaker 2: Executive completely differently.
Speaker 1: It elevates this from a cash grab to a legacy.
Speaker 2: Sequel, and it creates a halo of prestige, which they
Speaker 2: absolutely need to execute the most difficult phase of this development. Okay,
Speaker 2: what's that, Well, Hudson's producer, Cloud Ensure's prestige backing are
Speaker 2: strategic lures designed for one specific.
Speaker 1: Target, Matthew conaughey.
Speaker 2: Yes, because this movie simply does not exist without the
Speaker 2: actor who has spent the last decades sprinting away from
Speaker 2: the romantic comedy genre.
Speaker 1: Sprinting is the right word. Let's get into the Matthew
Speaker 1: McConaughey paradox.
Speaker 2: Yeah, let's talk about it.
Speaker 1: The article states that if Hudson is involved, McConaughey would
Speaker 1: presumably follow suit, right, presumably, But we have to look
Speaker 1: closely at that word presumably, because the Matthew McConaughey of
Speaker 1: two thousand and three, you know, the guy leaning back
Speaker 1: to back on a movie poster in a yellow dress. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: Kate was in the yellow dress. He was in the suit.
Speaker 1: But that guy is functionally a different human being in
Speaker 1: the eyes of Hollywood today.
Speaker 2: His career trajectory is one of the most studied transformations
Speaker 2: in modern cinema.
Speaker 1: The source breaks down this incredible pivot. Like in the
Speaker 1: twenty tens, he deliberately abandoned the Broyish rom com persona
Speaker 1: that made him famous.
Speaker 2: He completely turned his back on it.
Speaker 1: He completely rebranded himself by diving into incredibly dense, critically
Speaker 1: acclaimed dramas. We're talking Mud, The Wolf of wals Street,
Speaker 1: Intersteller and Dallas Buyer's Club, which won him the Best
Speaker 1: Actor Oscar in twenty fourteen.
Speaker 2: And the culture labeled it the mcconnaissance.
Speaker 1: Mcconnaissance exactly.
Speaker 2: It was a masterclass in market scarcity.
Speaker 1: Okay, explain that he stopped.
Speaker 2: Giving the audience the lightweight charm they expected, right, He
Speaker 2: just stopped, and that forced them to accept him as
Speaker 2: a dramatic heavyweight.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: You couldn't just go see a goofy Matthew McConaughey movie anymore, Right, You.
Speaker 1: Had to watch him lose forty pounds for Dallas Buyer's Club.
Speaker 2: Exactly. Furthermore, the article highlights a crucial current detail his
Speaker 2: market scarcity has only increased. Oh right, He only recently
Speaker 2: ended a six year big screen hiatus with the film
Speaker 2: The Rivals of im Ziah King.
Speaker 1: Six years away from the big screen. Yeah, so here's
Speaker 1: where it gets really interesting. Okay, After winning an OSCAR,
Speaker 1: working with directors like Christopher Nolan and Martin Scorsese and
Speaker 1: taking a half decade hiatus, is returning to Benjamin Barry
Speaker 1: a step backward. It's a great question, like does returning
Speaker 1: to the genre he fled finish the dramatic credibility he
Speaker 1: fought so hard to build? Or is it the ultimate
Speaker 1: flex of a movie star who has nothing left to prove?
Speaker 2: This raises an important question about the psychology and the
Speaker 2: market value of the modern a lister. Yeah, and I
Speaker 2: argue it is the ultimate flex precisely because of the
Speaker 2: leverage he now holds. Right, the psychological shift required to
Speaker 2: return to Benjamin Barry after winning an Academy award is immense. Sure,
Speaker 2: he isn't taking this role to pay the mortgage or
Speaker 2: stay relevant.
Speaker 1: No, he doesn't need the money.
Speaker 2: If he signs on, he is doing it from a
Speaker 2: position of absolute power, total power. But that power dictates
Speaker 2: that the script cannot just be a rehash of a
Speaker 2: goofy bet.
Speaker 1: No, of course not. You cannot have a fifty something
Speaker 1: Oscar winning Matthew McConaughey making a frat boy bet with
Speaker 1: his advertising boss. No, the fundamental mechanics of the character
Speaker 1: have to evolve to match the gravity the actor now carries.
Speaker 2: Which underscores exactly why Paramount, Kate Hudson and Stacy Shirr
Speaker 2: are searching so desperately for the perfect writer.
Speaker 1: They need a genius.
Speaker 2: The script has to honor the dramatic weight McConaughey has
Speaker 2: cultivated over the last decade while still delivering this specific
Speaker 2: comedic friction that made the two thousand and three film
Speaker 2: a hit.
Speaker 1: That sounds almost impossible.
Speaker 2: They have to thread a nearly impossible needle to justify
Speaker 2: his return.
Speaker 1: It is a high wire act of legacy management, it
Speaker 1: really is, which brings us to the ultimate synthesis of
Speaker 1: what we've unpacked today. The sequel to How To Lose
Speaker 1: a Guy in Ten Days isn't just happening because someone
Speaker 1: at Paramount was feeling nostalgic.
Speaker 2: No, definitely not.
Speaker 1: It is the result of a massive convergence of forces.
Speaker 2: You have the structural economics of the twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: box office, where fragmented audiences make original ideas too expensive
Speaker 2: to market, which forces studios to rely on the backward
Speaker 2: compatibility of proven ip and you have the original films
Speaker 2: staggering one hundred and eighty million dollar blueprint proving the
Speaker 2: concept works.
Speaker 1: And then you have Kate Hudson leveraging a massive career
Speaker 1: resurgence to seize creative control through her production company. Yes,
Speaker 1: you have Stacey Shure injecting prestige level producing tactics into
Speaker 1: a historically lightweight genreact, and hovering above it all, you
Speaker 1: have the challenge of writing a script good enough to
Speaker 1: pull Matthew McConaughey out of his dramatic era and back
Speaker 1: into the romcom arena.
Speaker 2: It is a perfect storm of algorithmic demand meeting incredibly
Speaker 2: calculated talent negotiation.
Speaker 1: So the next time you see a headline announcing a
Speaker 1: sequel to a movie you loved twenty years ago, I
Speaker 1: want you to remember the machinery operating just out of frame.
Speaker 2: There's always machinery.
Speaker 1: You are watching billions of dollars being mobilized based on
Speaker 1: market trends, star psychology, and your own streaming habits.
Speaker 2: The business of Hollywood is rarely as romantic as the
Speaker 2: films it produces.
Speaker 1: That's a great way to put it. But I want
Speaker 1: to leave you with a final thought to chew on
Speaker 1: something that builds directly on the source material we analyze today.
Speaker 2: Okay, let's hear it.
Speaker 1: So. The catalyst for the entire two thousand and three
Speaker 1: movie was Kate Hutsinger's character Andy writing a magazine article
Speaker 1: exploring modern dating. Right, it was an exploration of how
Speaker 1: people connected and disconnected twenty three years ago, as Stacey Shirr,
Speaker 1: Kate Hudson, and Paramount search for the writer who can
Speaker 1: deliver the perfect take. Consider this, How in the world
Speaker 1: does a script define modern dating for Benjamin and Andy today?
Speaker 2: Wow? The narrative hurdle is immense.
Speaker 1: It's massive. If we assume they ended up together at
Speaker 1: the end of the original, what kind of relationship crisis
Speaker 1: could possibly reignite that aggressive, high stakes cat and mouse
Speaker 1: dynamic between two people now in their fifties.
Speaker 2: Yeah, what does that even look like?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Are they navigating a bitter divorce and trying to
Speaker 1: destroy each other's dating lives on new apps?
Speaker 2: Oh? That would be dark, right?
Speaker 1: Or are they trying to outmaneuver one another in a
Speaker 1: marriage that has become a corporate boardroom?
Speaker 2: Yeah, competing for the same CEO.
Speaker 1: Job or something exactly. It forces us to wonder if
Speaker 1: this new project can even function as a traditional romantic comedy,
Speaker 1: or if the sheer pass time forces it to evolve
Speaker 1: into a dark, comedic exploration of the survival of long
Speaker 1: term love.
Speaker 2: That's a really compelling thought.
Speaker 1: You might recognize the characters stepping out of that Hollywood
Speaker 1: time machine, but the emotional landscape they are standing on
Speaker 1: has fundamentally changed.