Latest news with #TheQueen'sGambit
Sky News AU
15-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News AU
Australian chess prodigy Reyaansh Chakrabarty talks grandmaster ambitions
For 11-year-old chess prodigy Reyaansh Chakrabarty, the hit Netflix show The Queen's Gambit sparked a love for the game that now takes him around the world on a quest to become Australia's first world champion. 'During the pandemic, I watched it a little bit, it's one of the things that got me interested in chess,' he told NewsWire this week in an exclusive interview. 'I didn't really know what chess was but I found it quite amusing, the pieces. 'She (Beth Harmon) is like looking up on the ceiling and watching the pieces move.' Like the fictional hero of the smash-hit show, Reyaansh imagines chess games in his head. 'I see pieces kind of everywhere,' he said. Reyaansh, from western Sydney, is a FIDE master with a classical rating of 2346 and his sharp rise has the Australian chess world excited. 'He is showing a lot of promise at a young age,' Australian Chess Federation publicity director Paul Power told NewsWire. The next level is international master, which generally means a rating of 2400 and three 'norms' or performance benchmarks a player needs to hit to gain the title. And then there is the rarefied world of grandmaster, a huge achievement that takes years of dedicated practice, study and ambition. Australia has only produced 10 grandmasters from a global field of about 2000. 'It's hard to predict that he is necessarily going to become a grandmaster, but he is certainly going about it the right way,' Mr Power said. 'Should he get to the GM title, Australia would be very pleased. It would be a feather in the cap, not just for Reyaansh and his family but for Australia.' Reyaansh's ambitions go even further and he dreams about becoming world champion. 'It's a huge call but right now I'm focused on improving step-by-step,' he said. It's an ambition that might seem extraordinary for an 11-year-old, but chess is a young person's game. The world champion is 18-year-old Indian wonder Gukesh Dommaraju, who ascended the throne in 2024 after beating Chinese GM Ding Liren in Singapore. Before Gukesh, the title was held by Norwegian legend Magnus Carlsen, widely credited as one of the greatest players in history alongside Garry Kasparov and controversial American icon Bobby Fischer. Mr Carlson became world champion at the age of 22. Reyaansh, a year 6 student at Strathfield South in Sydney's inner west, trains about five hours a day during the week, one hour before school and then four hours in the afternoon, and then for eight hours on Saturdays and Sundays. 'My school is very supportive of my chess, so I don't have much homework to do,' he said. 'But of course you still have to go to school and complete whatever you have to do.' He practises tactics and openings, or the first few moves in chess that dictate the development of a game, and constantly analyses his games looking for errors. Reyaansh also studies with Polish grandmaster Jacek Stopa through the Sydney Chess Academy, with face-to-face classes. 'He teaches me how deeply you need to prepare to get to the GM level,' he said. 'At the end of the class I'm very tired. The puzzles he gives me are very tough, like grandmaster level.' For black, Reyaansh loves the Caro-Kann and Queen's Gambit Declined defences. For white, he loves the Italian and Ruy Lopez openings. Russian champion Boris Spassky and Mr Fischer are his favourite players. 'I think he (Spassky) was very strong but also a nice guy. Bobby Fischer because he was a genius, one of the best players to ever live.' Reyaansh was born in Kolkata in India and immigrated to Australia at the age of two with his parents Sounak and Tapasri, both of whom support his chess dreams. Reyaansh has already beaten GMs, including Australian heavyweight Darryl Johansen at a match in Melbourne. 'It was the first GM I defeated,' Reyaansh said. 'It was a good game, it was probably heading towards a draw but he blundered and I won it.' Mr Johansen was gracious in defeat. 'He was a bit disappointed, but we discussed some moves after the game,' Reyaansh said. But there was no time to celebrate. 'I had two games the next day, so I had to kind of forget about it and prepare for the next time.' The youngster, who likes to read JK Rowling and the Dog Man comic books, has also interacted with legends of the game, including former world champion Vishy Anand, whom he met in Singapore. 'It was like a dream come true. He gave me advice on staying patient,' Reyaansh said. He returned to Sydney last week after competing in a tournament in Norway and has travelled to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland and Singapore to play against the best players in the world. When asked what he found really special about chess, he emphasised the intensity of the game and the mental focus it took to win. 'Even if you play perfectly the whole game, if you make one mistake, it's over,' he said. 'You need to focus from start to finish. You can't ever let you guard down.' Chess is in the midst of a popularity boom, triggered in part by The Queen's Gambit and the rising visibility of grandmasters on social media. Netflix claims more than 62 million people watched the show in its first 28 days on the streaming platform. Mr Power has also witnessed a growing number of youngsters trying out the game. 'The enthusiasm of primary level students is refreshing,' he said. For Reyaansh, finding a 'love for the game' is the first step children should take in their own chess pursuits. 'You have to find your love for the game,' he said. 'Otherwise, you'll kind of feel it is a chore. If you don't love it, you'll feel bored with it.'
Perth Now
15-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Is this Aussie 11yo the next world champ?
For 11-year-old chess prodigy Reyaansh Chakrabarty, the hit Netflix show The Queen's Gambit sparked a love for the game that now takes him around the world on a quest to become Australia's first world champion. 'During the pandemic, I watched it a little bit, it's one of the things that got me interested in chess,' he told NewsWire this week in an exclusive interview. 'I didn't really know what chess was but I found it quite amusing, the pieces. 'She (Beth Harmon) is like looking up on the ceiling and watching the pieces move.' Like the fictional hero of the smash-hit show, Reyaansh imagines chess games in his head. 'I see pieces kind of everywhere,' he said. Reyaansh, from western Sydney, is a FIDE master with a classical rating of 2346 and his sharp rise has the Australian chess world excited. 'He is showing a lot of promise at a young age,' Australian Chess Federation publicity director Paul Power told NewsWire. Australian chess prodigy Reyaansh Chakrabarty is a FIDE master and hopes one day to become a grandmaster. Supplied Credit: News Corp Australia He travels the world playing against top players in tournaments. Supplied Credit: News Corp Australia The next level is international master, which generally means a rating of 2400 and three 'norms' or performance benchmarks a player needs to hit to gain the title. And then there is the rarefied world of grandmaster, a huge achievement that takes years of dedicated practice, study and ambition. Australia has only produced 10 grandmasters from a global field of about 2000. 'It's hard to predict that he is necessarily going to become a grandmaster, but he is certainly going about it the right way,' Mr Power said. 'Should he get to the GM title, Australia would be very pleased. It would be a feather in the cap, not just for Reyaansh and his family but for Australia.' Reyaansh's ambitions go even further and he dreams about becoming world champion. 'It's a huge call but right now I'm focused on improving step-by-step,' he said. He was inspired to take up chess after watching the hit Netflix show The Queen's Gambit. Supplied Credit: Supplied It's an ambition that might seem extraordinary for an 11-year-old, but chess is a young person's game. The world champion is 18-year-old Indian wonder Gukesh Dommaraju, who ascended the throne in 2024 after beating Chinese GM Ding Liren in Singapore. Before Gukesh, the title was held by Norwegian legend Magnus Carlsen, widely credited as one of the greatest players in history alongside Garry Kasparov and controversial American icon Bobby Fischer. Mr Carlson became world champion at the age of 22. Reyaansh, a year 6 student at Strathfield South in Sydney's inner west, trains about five hours a day during the week, one hour before school and then four hours in the afternoon, and then for eight hours on Saturdays and Sundays. 'My school is very supportive of my chess, so I don't have much homework to do,' he said. 'But of course you still have to go to school and complete whatever you have to do.' He practises tactics and openings, or the first few moves in chess that dictate the development of a game, and constantly analyses his games looking for errors. Reyaansh also studies with Polish grandmaster Jacek Stopa through the Sydney Chess Academy, with face-to-face classes. 'He teaches me how deeply you need to prepare to get to the GM level,' he said. 'At the end of the class I'm very tired. The puzzles he gives me are very tough, like grandmaster level.' For black, Reyaansh loves the Caro-Kann and Queen's Gambit Declined defences. For white, he loves the Italian and Ruy Lopez openings. Russian champion Boris Spassky and Mr Fischer are his favourite players. 'I think he (Spassky) was very strong but also a nice guy. Bobby Fischer because he was a genius, one of the best players to ever live.' Reyaansh was born in Kolkata in India and immigrated to Australia at the age of two with his parents Sounak and Tapasri, both of whom support his chess dreams. Reyaansh has already beaten GMs, including Australian heavyweight Darryl Johansen at a match in Melbourne. 'It was the first GM I defeated,' Reyaansh said. 'It was a good game, it was probably heading towards a draw but he blundered and I won it.' Mr Johansen was gracious in defeat. 'He was a bit disappointed, but we discussed some moves after the game,' Reyaansh said. But there was no time to celebrate. 'I had two games the next day, so I had to kind of forget about it and prepare for the next time.' The youngster, who likes to read JK Rowling and the Dog Man comic books, has also interacted with legends of the game, including former world champion Vishy Anand, whom he met in Singapore. 'It was like a dream come true. He gave me advice on staying patient,' Reyaansh said. He returned to Sydney last week after competing in a tournament in Norway and has travelled to the Czech Republic, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland and Singapore to play against the best players in the world. When asked what he found really special about chess, he emphasised the intensity of the game and the mental focus it took to win. 'Even if you play perfectly the whole game, if you make one mistake, it's over,' he said. Reyaansh meets former world champion Vishy Anand. Supplied Credit: News Corp Australia 'You need to focus from start to finish. You can't ever let you guard down.' Chess is in the midst of a popularity boom, triggered in part by The Queen's Gambit and the rising visibility of grandmasters on social media. Netflix claims more than 62 million people watched the show in its first 28 days on the streaming platform. Mr Power has also witnessed a growing number of youngsters trying out the game. 'The enthusiasm of primary level students is refreshing,' he said. For Reyaansh, finding a 'love for the game' is the first step children should take in their own chess pursuits. 'You have to find your love for the game,' he said. 'Otherwise, you'll kind of feel it is a chore. If you don't love it, you'll feel bored with it.'
The Advertiser
12-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
Good cop or bad cop? In Netflix's new Dept. Q, actor Matthew Goode plays both
Being a leading man? Matthew Goode quite likes it. He's the star of Dept. Q, based on the books by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen and set in the cold case division of the Edinburgh police. From The Queen's Gambit showrunner Scott Frank, the nine-part Netflix miniseries stars Goode as a one-man combination of good cop/bad cop. While Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck is a brilliant investigator, he is equally successful at annoying people - even begrudging respect for his talent quickly turns into intense dislike. Goode has been No. 1 on the call sheet before, but he didn't enjoy it: "It's something I shied away from after the beginning of my career where I was there for a bit and then I had some sort of bad things ... things weren't necessarily positive at that point, after that. And I just went, I just want to be, you know, not the lead any more". Goode acknowledges that actors don't get to choose if a main part is "bestowed" on them and notes that Frank fought to cast him in Dept. Q. The pair first worked together on The Lookout (2007). The English actor portrayed an American thief, a long way from the period dramas he's recently been known for, playing suave Brits in The Crown, Downton Abbey and Freud's Last Session. Goode and Frank talked and teased each other in a recent interview about working together and breaking Goode out of his period drama groove. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Question: Describe your relationship. GOODE: Father and son. FRANK: Taxing, toxic, troubling. GOODE: Well, he's the genius and I just do what he says, basically. FRANK: I wish. We go way back. We made a film together, the first film I ever directed, in fact. And I was lucky that I had Matthew because he was outstanding and made it easier for me at that point. And I think we both just really know one another and I love this man. I would work with him in everything I ever did, but he's a pain in the ass. GOODE: Well, you know. There has to be some cost! FRANK: He is Carl Morck, in many ways. To know him is to want to strangle him. Does that sum it up? GOODE: OK, so now you see what I'm working with. This is the second time he's given me a character that I genuinely don't think that many other people would have taken that chance, because I don't really scream Kansas City bank robber (in The Lookout). And I think this is a part that some people would have kind of gone, it's a bit more sort of Tom Hardy-ish, perhaps. But that's what we are, we're actors, but you don't necessarily get to be versatile a lot of the time, so I feel very indebted to you. Q: Did you write with Matthew in mind? FRANK: I had always thought he would be terrific for this, and I didn't know if we would end up doing it together, but from the minute I started thinking about it, doing it here, I really ... I knew he would love it. I think a lot of times people only see actors in one way or a particular way ... they just see the roles they've already played, they're not really paying attention to what else is happening. Q: Dept. Q is not a period drama. GOODE: There you go, that's a prime example, yeah. Q: So is that part of the appeal? GOODE: I mean a career is, for want of a better way of explaining it, is a bit like a river where essentially you can go, there's the main channel in it, but there's eddies and you get caught in certain things and you get cast in certain ways. So you're not really ever particularly in control of it. Certainly unless you have your own production company or you become a massive star where you actually sort of have the keys to Hollywood and then you have a bit more of a sphere of influence and you can dip your toes in different waters. And he had to fight for me a little bit for this one. He had to go bat for me to actually do the part. Q: Have you played a detective before? GOODE: No, this is my first time, I think. I've got a memory like a sieve now; I've got three kids, that's the only thing I really think about. But no, I think this is my first time. FRANK: I don't think you have. GOODE: Only with my wife with some dress up, but that's about it. Q: Carl is not a posh character. GOODE: No because (Frank) transposed it from the original Danish setting, Copenhagen, and it works brilliantly, obviously, in Edinburgh, and it becomes this amazing character. But he made the character English. But we haven't given too much detail yet as to as to his past, which I love the fact, because we're aiming to be able to keep doing this because there's 10 books. AP/AAP Being a leading man? Matthew Goode quite likes it. He's the star of Dept. Q, based on the books by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen and set in the cold case division of the Edinburgh police. From The Queen's Gambit showrunner Scott Frank, the nine-part Netflix miniseries stars Goode as a one-man combination of good cop/bad cop. While Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck is a brilliant investigator, he is equally successful at annoying people - even begrudging respect for his talent quickly turns into intense dislike. Goode has been No. 1 on the call sheet before, but he didn't enjoy it: "It's something I shied away from after the beginning of my career where I was there for a bit and then I had some sort of bad things ... things weren't necessarily positive at that point, after that. And I just went, I just want to be, you know, not the lead any more". Goode acknowledges that actors don't get to choose if a main part is "bestowed" on them and notes that Frank fought to cast him in Dept. Q. The pair first worked together on The Lookout (2007). The English actor portrayed an American thief, a long way from the period dramas he's recently been known for, playing suave Brits in The Crown, Downton Abbey and Freud's Last Session. Goode and Frank talked and teased each other in a recent interview about working together and breaking Goode out of his period drama groove. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Question: Describe your relationship. GOODE: Father and son. FRANK: Taxing, toxic, troubling. GOODE: Well, he's the genius and I just do what he says, basically. FRANK: I wish. We go way back. We made a film together, the first film I ever directed, in fact. And I was lucky that I had Matthew because he was outstanding and made it easier for me at that point. And I think we both just really know one another and I love this man. I would work with him in everything I ever did, but he's a pain in the ass. GOODE: Well, you know. There has to be some cost! FRANK: He is Carl Morck, in many ways. To know him is to want to strangle him. Does that sum it up? GOODE: OK, so now you see what I'm working with. This is the second time he's given me a character that I genuinely don't think that many other people would have taken that chance, because I don't really scream Kansas City bank robber (in The Lookout). And I think this is a part that some people would have kind of gone, it's a bit more sort of Tom Hardy-ish, perhaps. But that's what we are, we're actors, but you don't necessarily get to be versatile a lot of the time, so I feel very indebted to you. Q: Did you write with Matthew in mind? FRANK: I had always thought he would be terrific for this, and I didn't know if we would end up doing it together, but from the minute I started thinking about it, doing it here, I really ... I knew he would love it. I think a lot of times people only see actors in one way or a particular way ... they just see the roles they've already played, they're not really paying attention to what else is happening. Q: Dept. Q is not a period drama. GOODE: There you go, that's a prime example, yeah. Q: So is that part of the appeal? GOODE: I mean a career is, for want of a better way of explaining it, is a bit like a river where essentially you can go, there's the main channel in it, but there's eddies and you get caught in certain things and you get cast in certain ways. So you're not really ever particularly in control of it. Certainly unless you have your own production company or you become a massive star where you actually sort of have the keys to Hollywood and then you have a bit more of a sphere of influence and you can dip your toes in different waters. And he had to fight for me a little bit for this one. He had to go bat for me to actually do the part. Q: Have you played a detective before? GOODE: No, this is my first time, I think. I've got a memory like a sieve now; I've got three kids, that's the only thing I really think about. But no, I think this is my first time. FRANK: I don't think you have. GOODE: Only with my wife with some dress up, but that's about it. Q: Carl is not a posh character. GOODE: No because (Frank) transposed it from the original Danish setting, Copenhagen, and it works brilliantly, obviously, in Edinburgh, and it becomes this amazing character. But he made the character English. But we haven't given too much detail yet as to as to his past, which I love the fact, because we're aiming to be able to keep doing this because there's 10 books. AP/AAP Being a leading man? Matthew Goode quite likes it. He's the star of Dept. Q, based on the books by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen and set in the cold case division of the Edinburgh police. From The Queen's Gambit showrunner Scott Frank, the nine-part Netflix miniseries stars Goode as a one-man combination of good cop/bad cop. While Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck is a brilliant investigator, he is equally successful at annoying people - even begrudging respect for his talent quickly turns into intense dislike. Goode has been No. 1 on the call sheet before, but he didn't enjoy it: "It's something I shied away from after the beginning of my career where I was there for a bit and then I had some sort of bad things ... things weren't necessarily positive at that point, after that. And I just went, I just want to be, you know, not the lead any more". Goode acknowledges that actors don't get to choose if a main part is "bestowed" on them and notes that Frank fought to cast him in Dept. Q. The pair first worked together on The Lookout (2007). The English actor portrayed an American thief, a long way from the period dramas he's recently been known for, playing suave Brits in The Crown, Downton Abbey and Freud's Last Session. Goode and Frank talked and teased each other in a recent interview about working together and breaking Goode out of his period drama groove. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Question: Describe your relationship. GOODE: Father and son. FRANK: Taxing, toxic, troubling. GOODE: Well, he's the genius and I just do what he says, basically. FRANK: I wish. We go way back. We made a film together, the first film I ever directed, in fact. And I was lucky that I had Matthew because he was outstanding and made it easier for me at that point. And I think we both just really know one another and I love this man. I would work with him in everything I ever did, but he's a pain in the ass. GOODE: Well, you know. There has to be some cost! FRANK: He is Carl Morck, in many ways. To know him is to want to strangle him. Does that sum it up? GOODE: OK, so now you see what I'm working with. This is the second time he's given me a character that I genuinely don't think that many other people would have taken that chance, because I don't really scream Kansas City bank robber (in The Lookout). And I think this is a part that some people would have kind of gone, it's a bit more sort of Tom Hardy-ish, perhaps. But that's what we are, we're actors, but you don't necessarily get to be versatile a lot of the time, so I feel very indebted to you. Q: Did you write with Matthew in mind? FRANK: I had always thought he would be terrific for this, and I didn't know if we would end up doing it together, but from the minute I started thinking about it, doing it here, I really ... I knew he would love it. I think a lot of times people only see actors in one way or a particular way ... they just see the roles they've already played, they're not really paying attention to what else is happening. Q: Dept. Q is not a period drama. GOODE: There you go, that's a prime example, yeah. Q: So is that part of the appeal? GOODE: I mean a career is, for want of a better way of explaining it, is a bit like a river where essentially you can go, there's the main channel in it, but there's eddies and you get caught in certain things and you get cast in certain ways. So you're not really ever particularly in control of it. Certainly unless you have your own production company or you become a massive star where you actually sort of have the keys to Hollywood and then you have a bit more of a sphere of influence and you can dip your toes in different waters. And he had to fight for me a little bit for this one. He had to go bat for me to actually do the part. Q: Have you played a detective before? GOODE: No, this is my first time, I think. I've got a memory like a sieve now; I've got three kids, that's the only thing I really think about. But no, I think this is my first time. FRANK: I don't think you have. GOODE: Only with my wife with some dress up, but that's about it. Q: Carl is not a posh character. GOODE: No because (Frank) transposed it from the original Danish setting, Copenhagen, and it works brilliantly, obviously, in Edinburgh, and it becomes this amazing character. But he made the character English. But we haven't given too much detail yet as to as to his past, which I love the fact, because we're aiming to be able to keep doing this because there's 10 books. AP/AAP Being a leading man? Matthew Goode quite likes it. He's the star of Dept. Q, based on the books by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen and set in the cold case division of the Edinburgh police. From The Queen's Gambit showrunner Scott Frank, the nine-part Netflix miniseries stars Goode as a one-man combination of good cop/bad cop. While Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck is a brilliant investigator, he is equally successful at annoying people - even begrudging respect for his talent quickly turns into intense dislike. Goode has been No. 1 on the call sheet before, but he didn't enjoy it: "It's something I shied away from after the beginning of my career where I was there for a bit and then I had some sort of bad things ... things weren't necessarily positive at that point, after that. And I just went, I just want to be, you know, not the lead any more". Goode acknowledges that actors don't get to choose if a main part is "bestowed" on them and notes that Frank fought to cast him in Dept. Q. The pair first worked together on The Lookout (2007). The English actor portrayed an American thief, a long way from the period dramas he's recently been known for, playing suave Brits in The Crown, Downton Abbey and Freud's Last Session. Goode and Frank talked and teased each other in a recent interview about working together and breaking Goode out of his period drama groove. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity. Question: Describe your relationship. GOODE: Father and son. FRANK: Taxing, toxic, troubling. GOODE: Well, he's the genius and I just do what he says, basically. FRANK: I wish. We go way back. We made a film together, the first film I ever directed, in fact. And I was lucky that I had Matthew because he was outstanding and made it easier for me at that point. And I think we both just really know one another and I love this man. I would work with him in everything I ever did, but he's a pain in the ass. GOODE: Well, you know. There has to be some cost! FRANK: He is Carl Morck, in many ways. To know him is to want to strangle him. Does that sum it up? GOODE: OK, so now you see what I'm working with. This is the second time he's given me a character that I genuinely don't think that many other people would have taken that chance, because I don't really scream Kansas City bank robber (in The Lookout). And I think this is a part that some people would have kind of gone, it's a bit more sort of Tom Hardy-ish, perhaps. But that's what we are, we're actors, but you don't necessarily get to be versatile a lot of the time, so I feel very indebted to you. Q: Did you write with Matthew in mind? FRANK: I had always thought he would be terrific for this, and I didn't know if we would end up doing it together, but from the minute I started thinking about it, doing it here, I really ... I knew he would love it. I think a lot of times people only see actors in one way or a particular way ... they just see the roles they've already played, they're not really paying attention to what else is happening. Q: Dept. Q is not a period drama. GOODE: There you go, that's a prime example, yeah. Q: So is that part of the appeal? GOODE: I mean a career is, for want of a better way of explaining it, is a bit like a river where essentially you can go, there's the main channel in it, but there's eddies and you get caught in certain things and you get cast in certain ways. So you're not really ever particularly in control of it. Certainly unless you have your own production company or you become a massive star where you actually sort of have the keys to Hollywood and then you have a bit more of a sphere of influence and you can dip your toes in different waters. And he had to fight for me a little bit for this one. He had to go bat for me to actually do the part. Q: Have you played a detective before? GOODE: No, this is my first time, I think. I've got a memory like a sieve now; I've got three kids, that's the only thing I really think about. But no, I think this is my first time. FRANK: I don't think you have. GOODE: Only with my wife with some dress up, but that's about it. Q: Carl is not a posh character. GOODE: No because (Frank) transposed it from the original Danish setting, Copenhagen, and it works brilliantly, obviously, in Edinburgh, and it becomes this amazing character. But he made the character English. But we haven't given too much detail yet as to as to his past, which I love the fact, because we're aiming to be able to keep doing this because there's 10 books. AP/AAP
Business Insider
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Insider
Netflix hitmaker Scott Frank on Hollywood: 'People are afraid now.'
Scott Frank figured out how to thrive in Hollywood. Now he's doing it at Netflix. But the writer/director has advice for young people who want to follow in his footsteps: Try something else. If Frank were starting out his career in 2025, he said he wouldn't mess around with movies or television. "I'd want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on," he told me this month. That's quite a comment coming from someone who spent years as one of the most in-demand writers in the movie business, and has now established himself as a reliable hitmaker for Netflix. " Dept. Q" — his third series for the streamer, following his "Godless" western and the pandemic megahit "The Queen's Gambit" — is his take on the British mystery genre, and it's been near the top of the Netflix charts since it debuted in May. But Frank says the wave of digital distractions and options makes it incredibly difficult for traditional movies and TV to capture audience attention today. For all of Netflix's massive success, it still lags behind YouTube in terms of time viewers spend on screens, he notes. And teens are now spending an astonishing two hours a day on TikTok. "So, how do you get people to go to the movies? How do you get people to pay attention to your show? There's so much stuff," he tells me. "Whereas gaming — you're not folding your laundry while you're playing a game. You're not texting while you're playing a game. You're involved. And that seems to me like an opportunity for storytelling." That won't be an opportunity for Frank himself — "I'm too old," he says — and he says he'll continue to try making movies and TV shows. He'd love to make a second season of "Dept. Q," which is based on a series of crime novels by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen. You can hear my full conversation with Frank on my Channels podcast. The following is an edited excerpt from our chat: Peter Kafka: Some Netflix shows and movies seem like they'll generate huge numbers, but don't feel like they have cultural resonance. But it seems like people are talking about your show. Do you feel that? Scott Frank: You're certainly correct in that a lot of the movies, in particular, don't leave much of a ripple. There's not a lot of cultural wake. That being said, they are watched a lot, and people enjoy watching them and seek them out. And Netflix has 300 million worldwide subscribers, so way more people are going to watch your movie. As opposed to something getting released in theaters that no one watches, and it doesn't create any kind of long tail, either. With the television shows, it's a little different. Because when they hit, they tend to leave a mark. They tend to resonate. What accounts for that? Is it simply because there's more of it? There's 10 episodes, so you're spending more time? And there's more reason to talk about it, because it's episodic — you can tell people, "Wait till you get to episode five?" Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I think that's why. It's a different sort of investment. When you're sitting down to watch a show, you are hoping that it's something you're going to stick with. Whereas when you're watching a movie, you know: "I have a couple hours, an hour and a half, I'm gonna watch this thing." I don't have an easy answer other than to say that, for me, the engagement and narrative in the world right now have never been higher. During the Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes a couple of years ago, AI didn't start off as the big issue, but then became one, or at least the dominant talking point. What did you make of that discussion then? And how are you thinking about AI and tech now? Tech has been a bit of a disaster for the country in many ways, but it's also been an amazing boon to the world. I just think that these guys run the companies, so many of them are compromised and … Let's narrow it down to your world. We could have the other discussion … But I think it affects my world because they now own my world. We probably were striking against the wrong people that time. Because we're owned by tech people now. This is increasingly more and more a tech business. And so, ultimately, we're at the whim of these people at the very top of these companies. We saw after, after the election, everybody's sort of paying, essentially bribes to [ Donald Trump ]. So that affects us. That really does affect the business. People are afraid now. And so you see that. You see people are too careful. They're afraid because of the political climate, or they're afraid just because it's an era of consolidation and there just aren't that many places to go if you upset a studio chief? I think all of the above. I just think it's all at the same time. Also, the ground is shifting. This business hasn't landed where it's going to land yet, and people keep looking backwards and saying, "No, we just need to get moviegoing back to where it was." That boat's sailed. That's not gonna happen anymore. So we're not thinking about, "Well, what is the business now? What does the business want to be?" The audience is trying to tell us, and we're not listening. How do you feel about using tech and AI in your work? There's one theory that says someone's going to type in a prompt and the AI spits out an entire movie. The more conservative argument is, "We're going to improve flows, and instead of using 10 visual-effects people, you could do it with four or eight." The even more positive spin is, "Those eight to 10 visual-effects people could do much better work." We've always used versions of that. If it wasn't proper AI, there were always ways to shortcut those kinds of things, to create a smoother workflow and all of that. If an actor couldn't do a certain stunt, and we wanted to put their face on something else, that's been happening, and that's going to get easier. Which is scary if you're an actor. I think the bigger problem is not making stuff with AI, but deciding what to make with AI. That's the bigger threat, at least for me, in the immediate sense. Have you played around and asked ChatGPT to write a script in the mode of Scott Frank? Yeah. It was silly. But if you want to write a letter, a business letter or something … my wife needed to write this letter, and she just thought, "Let's see what ChatGPT said," and she sent me the letter and it was damn good. It was really good. I think it's more about the future of the algorithm. The algorithm is great for marketing after something's done. [But] it's death to the industry to use it to decide what to make because you're gaming something. And if everybody's using the same algorithm, it becomes a snake that eats its own tail eventually. That's my big fear. You started in Hollywood the old-fashioned way — you moved there and spent years trying to get work as a writer. I wrote one script over and over that no one wanted — " Little Man Tate" — until somebody wanted it. What would that path look like for you now if you wanted to get into making movies or television? Would you move to LA, for starters? That's easy. I wouldn't go into movies or television. I'd go into games. If I were 24 now, I'm not gonna fuck around with movies or television. I want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on. Other than the fact that lots of people play games, what's appealing to you? They seem pretty narratively limited. But they're at the beginning, in a way. I mean, the first movies were narratively limited, too. And I wonder what you can do with them. I'm really curious. I just feel like that world is way more interesting. You know, more people watch YouTube stuff and TikTok stuff than Netflix. YouTube is No. 1 [for time spent] and Netflix is way down [the list]. And then the next closest thing, Disney, is way down. And people on average spend two hours a day on TikTok. So that's what you're competing with. So your next project is an immersive game … No. I'm too old. There's a series of "Dept. Q" books. Will you do more of them? I'd love to. It's up to Netflix. I would absolutely love to.
Business Insider
11-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Business Insider
The man behind Netflix's 'Dept. Q' thinks the future of entertainment is … games
Scott Frank figured out how to thrive in Hollywood. Now he's doing it at Netflix. But the writer/director has advice for young people who want to follow in his footsteps: Try something else. If Frank were starting out his career in 2025, he said he wouldn't mess around with movies or television. "I'd want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on," he told me this month. That's quite a comment coming from someone who spent years as one of the most in-demand writers in the movie business, and has now established himself as a reliable hitmaker for Netflix. " Dept. Q" — his third series for the streamer, following his "Godless" western and the pandemic megahit "The Queen's Gambit" — is his take on the British mystery genre, and it's been near the top of the Netflix charts since it debuted in May. But Frank says the wave of digital distractions and options makes it incredibly difficult for traditional movies and TV to capture audience attention today. For all of Netflix's massive success, it still lags behind YouTube in terms of time viewers spend on screens, he notes. And teens are now spending an astonishing two hours a day on TikTok. "So, how do you get people to go to the movies? How do you get people to pay attention to your show? There's so much stuff," he tells me. "Whereas gaming — you're not folding your laundry while you're playing a game. You're not texting while you're playing a game. You're involved. And that seems to me like an opportunity for storytelling." That won't be an opportunity for Frank himself — "I'm too old," he says — and he says he'll continue to try making movies and TV shows. He'd love to make a second season of "Dept. Q," which is based on a series of crime novels by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen. You can hear my full conversation with Frank on my Channels podcast. The following is an edited excerpt from our chat: Peter Kafka: Some Netflix shows and movies seem like they'll generate huge numbers, but don't feel like they have cultural resonance. But it seems like people are talking about your show. Do you feel that? Scott Frank: You're certainly correct in that a lot of the movies, in particular, don't leave much of a ripple. There's not a lot of cultural wake. That being said, they are watched a lot, and people enjoy watching them and seek them out. And Netflix has 300 million worldwide subscribers, so way more people are going to watch your movie. As opposed to something getting released in theaters that no one watches, and it doesn't create any kind of long tail, either. With the television shows, it's a little different. Because when they hit, they tend to leave a mark. They tend to resonate. What accounts for that? Is it simply because there's more of it? There's 10 episodes, so you're spending more time? And there's more reason to talk about it, because it's episodic — you can tell people, "Wait till you get to episode five?" Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I think that's why. It's a different sort of investment. When you're sitting down to watch a show, you are hoping that it's something you're going to stick with. Whereas when you're watching a movie, you know: "I have a couple hours, an hour and a half, I'm gonna watch this thing." I don't have an easy answer other than to say that, for me, the engagement and narrative in the world right now have never been higher. During the Hollywood writers' and actors' strikes a couple of years ago, AI didn't start off as the big issue, but then became one, or at least the dominant talking point. What did you make of that discussion then? And how are you thinking about AI and tech now? Tech has been a bit of a disaster for the country in many ways, but it's also been an amazing boon to the world. I just think that these guys run the companies, so many of them are compromised and … Let's narrow it down to your world. We could have the other discussion … But I think it affects my world because they now own my world. We probably were striking against the wrong people that time. Because we're owned by tech people now. This is increasingly more and more a tech business. And so, ultimately, we're at the whim of these people at the very top of these companies. We saw after, after the election, everybody's sort of paying, essentially bribes to [ Donald Trump ]. So that affects us. That really does affect the business. People are afraid now. And so you see that. You see people are too careful. They're afraid because of the political climate, or they're afraid just because it's an era of consolidation and there just aren't that many places to go if you upset a studio chief? I think all of the above. I just think it's all at the same time. Also, the ground is shifting. This business hasn't landed where it's going to land yet, and people keep looking backwards and saying, "No, we just need to get moviegoing back to where it was." That boat's sailed. That's not gonna happen anymore. So we're not thinking about, "Well, what is the business now? What does the business want to be?" The audience is trying to tell us, and we're not listening. How do you feel about using tech and AI in your work? There's one theory that says someone's going to type in a prompt and the AI spits out an entire movie. The more conservative argument is, "We're going to improve flows, and instead of using 10 visual-effects people, you could do it with four or eight." The even more positive spin is, "Those eight to 10 visual-effects people could do much better work." We've always used versions of that. If it wasn't proper AI, there were always ways to shortcut those kinds of things, to create a smoother workflow and all of that. If an actor couldn't do a certain stunt, and we wanted to put their face on something else, that's been happening, and that's going to get easier. Which is scary if you're an actor. I think the bigger problem is not making stuff with AI, but deciding what to make with AI. That's the bigger threat, at least for me, in the immediate sense. Have you played around and asked ChatGPT to write a script in the mode of Scott Frank? Yeah. It was silly. But if you want to write a letter, a business letter or something … my wife needed to write this letter, and she just thought, "Let's see what ChatGPT said," and she sent me the letter and it was damn good. It was really good. I think it's more about the future of the algorithm. The algorithm is great for marketing after something's done. [But] it's death to the industry to use it to decide what to make because you're gaming something. And if everybody's using the same algorithm, it becomes a snake that eats its own tail eventually. That's my big fear. You started in Hollywood the old-fashioned way — you moved there and spent years trying to get work as a writer. I wrote one script over and over that no one wanted — " Little Man Tate" — until somebody wanted it. What would that path look like for you now if you wanted to get into making movies or television? Would you move to LA, for starters? That's easy. I wouldn't go into movies or television. I'd go into games. If I were 24 now, I'm not gonna fuck around with movies or television. I want to go work in the gaming world, where I think there's some really interesting stuff going on. Other than the fact that lots of people play games, what's appealing to you? They seem pretty narratively limited. But they're at the beginning, in a way. I mean, the first movies were narratively limited, too. And I wonder what you can do with them. I'm really curious. I just feel like that world is way more interesting. You know, more people watch YouTube stuff and TikTok stuff than Netflix. YouTube is No. 1 [for time spent] and Netflix is way down [the list]. And then the next closest thing, Disney, is way down. And people on average spend two hours a day on TikTok. So that's what you're competing with. So your next project is an immersive game … No. I'm too old. There's a series of "Dept. Q" books. Will you do more of them? I'd love to. It's up to Netflix. I would absolutely love to.
