Tatino Encounters | Cyril Tysz on the future of series

TATINO has a long history of collaborating with some of the series industry’s most relevant and accomplished voices to support creators in developing narratives that are not only compelling, but culturally and emotionally resonant. Recently, our very own Anastasia Hoppanova has met with three distinguished professionals to discuss the future of series.

Second encounter to discuss that fascinating topic:

Cyril Tysz | Screenwriter | France

Cyril Tysz is a a French screenwriter and head writer with degrees from La Sorbonne and UCLA. He worked at 20th Century Fox Television before focusing on screenwriting, contributing to over 40 TV properties including Marvel’s Fantastic 4, Iron Man, and the French adaptation of Skam, which completed its 10th season with millions of views. Cyril is currently developing new shows for international platforms like Canal+ and Netflix, including KONGO and Ouija. He also teaches film and series development at various institutions, including Sorbonne and Cannes Series Institute.

In the microdrama environment, do you think it’s possible to design narrative beats so that the story still feels coherent, rather than just a sequence of cliffhangers?

Yes, absolutely. There was, before vertical drama, another thing which was vertical and that you had, you know, to go from one page to the other and that was called comic books. That’s been here for years and basically it's not because, you know, you have to turn the page every time that it doesn't have any content. So I think it's absolutely possible.

"There was, before vertical drama, another thing which was vertical and that you had, you know, to go from one page to the other and that was called comic books. That’s been here for years and basically it's not because, you know, you have to turn the page every time that it doesn't have any content."

What do you feel the industry is projecting onto AI in relation to creative work, and how does that align or clash with your own experience?

AI is like every tool. It is both the best and the worst thing at the same time. So it completely depends on the use you make of it.

"You still need that person that narrates the show. So AI is going to be a good tool, able to materialize this and turn that into a show that people are going to watch directly. But you still need that person."

I don't know if you've seen the third, or fourth season of Westworld where actually the main character goes into a booth and basically dictates what we're going to see on screen and actually it appears magically in front of her. Maybe that's one of the directions we're going. I don't know, but you still need that person that narrates the show. So AI is going to be a good tool, able to materialize this and turn that into a show that people are going to watch directly. But you still need that person. Well, in that case, that was a robot. But you need a person who can actually prompt or whatever it's called, or will be called in the future.

So you feel that the role of the creators could be shifting to that a little bit more?

It's very possible. I used to write on a typewriter. Then I used a computer and the computer didn't make up the stories for me. I was still there to make the story. So I think AI does whatever you want to do at this point. It's learning very fast and you can just see the translation, which was pretty bad not that long ago and now it's very good. So maybe at some point they will be able to generate stories, but I believe that you still need the artist or the creator to be there to help that tool get there.

In adapting IPs, what tells you that the story can generate multiple seasons of conflict? (a sustainable series engine rather than just a strong premise)

To me, it's not really the role of a story to do that, it's the characters. Whatever IP you read, basically you have a character in one situation, which is your book, pretty much like a movie. You have one character in one situation. And that's the experience that you want to renew a number of times in a series.

So, if you have a striking character who has deep conflicts and flaws that they need to fix, you're going to be watching the series waiting for these characters to overcome that flaw. In a specific situation, which is kind of the arena you got in the IP in first place. So, once you got this arena and this strong character, you can pretty much come back forever.

If you have a striking character who has deep conflicts and flaws that they need to fix, you're going to be watching the series waiting for these characters to overcome that flaw. In a specific situation, which is kind of the arena you got in the IP in first place. So, once you got this arena and this strong character, you can pretty much come back forever.

As long as the character within this arena, which encounters a similar situation, is not going to solve their problem. So, after that, they solve a problem at the end of season one. That creates a bigger problem in season two. And as long as they don't figure out that the problem is within themselves, you can go on forever. So, IP or not IP, I think that's kind of the same process.

Interview by Anastasia Hoppanova