Bugonia's Screenwriter Details the Many Unexpected Twists of Emma Stone's Latest Science Fiction Movie

Bugonia writer Will Tracy doesn’t really remember what happens in the original Korean movie. It's a little surprising, considering he crafted the screenplay for Yorgos Lanthimos’s new reimagining of the 2003 Korean dark sci-fi comedy. Rather than studying the source material for inspiration, the writer behind The Menu watched the film a single time, took a few notes, and started the process.

“I’ve only seen the original the one time,” the screenwriter states. “My memory was foggy on the film all that well. I didn't want to feel as though I had to be faithfully adapting or remaking or paying tribute to someone else's vision. The most respectful approach to those movies was to have them be judged separately.”

While the basic plot of a mentally unstable man (Jesse Plemons in Bugonia) who abducts a pharmaceutical executive he’s convinced is an extraterrestrial hiding on Earth is largely the identical in both films, the differences are significant. Firstly, the writer rewrote the executive character, originally male in Jang Joon-hwan’s first version, as a woman. (Lanthimos chose his frequent collaborator Emma Stone in the role.) The conclusions vary a bit too, in the way they address their shared core mystery: Is this person an alien in disguise or not really?

The screenwriter feels that resolution is somewhat not the main focus.

“I never was really concerned with the surprise element,” he comments. “My intention wasn't for the film to just be a toy that performs a single trick, and then once it does that surprise, it's like: OK, well, what else does this toy do?”

However, Tracy has plenty to say on the topic. The interview with the screenwriter touched on the film’s ending and what it all means, along with the ways he and the director worked together to execute those surprises.

Spoiler Alert: Full spoilers ahead for the ending of the movie.

Therefore, is the character an extraterrestrial or not?

In brief: Absolutely.

Similar to in the original film, the end of this version discloses that the CEO, a big pharma CEO named her character, is actually alien royalty in disguise. After tricking her captor Teddy (the actor) into ending his own life using her advanced device, Fuller transports to her Andromedon spaceship.

The reality that this comes as a surprise is a proof to Stone’s acting skills. During the two-hour film, she keeps audiences guessing through a layered performance that may require multiple viewings to fully understand.

“She frequently discussed how it was the first time she had to give a performance where she felt she had to be conscious of people viewing it again. How those rewatching are going to perceive,” the writer explains. "She knew the second time a person watches this film, They are aware I am conscious of… you know?”

Tracy pauses, before adding, “Thus, her performance needed to reflect this awareness in her performance.”

Designing the aliens and their spaceship

Once the CEO ultimately shows her true nature, we get a brief glimpse of her ship and fellow aliens before the film ends. Their ship has a distinct appearance, which the writer shares was intended to look like a sea creature while steering clear of high-tech visuals.

“[The director] was really fascinated by almost like a jellyfish-type design for the vessel, something quite organic,” he comments.

The goal was for them to seem oddly somewhat primitive or primitive.

The aliens' attire is equally fascinating as their vessel: rounded dress-like garments made from thick, woven cords. Again, the aim was to go against sci-fi movie tradition.

“Regarding the attire, rather than being advanced, they [were meant to|aimed to] feel strangely somewhat tribal or primitive, and yet also quite ornate and not primitive, because it's a very detailed and beautiful design on those strange knit costumes,” Tracy states. He notes that Lanthimos “thought of it as being a very ancient civilization. He wasn't into the idea of any element being sleek and silver, or some ultra-modern cosmic vision.”

The conclusion of the Earth (or only humankind)

Perhaps the most significant change between Bugonia and Save the Green Planet is that in the first version, the extraterrestrials react to their ruler's abduction and mistreatment by blowing up planet Earth. This adaptation adopts a slightly subtler method, with its beings opting to snuff out all mankind, while leaving the Earth and its remaining creatures intact.

“My intention to do in the screenplay was a depiction of the planet after humanity,” Tracy says.

In the film's conclusion, we see a series of shots of existence across the globe. Every person lie dead where they were standing moments earlier, but the world continues. What we, as an audience, are meant to interpret these events is up for debate. Is the ending of the film hopeful or bleak? Are people fated to perish or deserving of rescue? Is the planet be better off without us?

The screenwriter does not wish to provide a clear resolution in any direction.

“Certain viewers see it as a extremely dark conclusion, or a tragic ending, a hopeless outcome,” he says. “Different audiences see it as being a oddly optimistic or happy conclusion. In my opinion there are various interpretations to understand it.”

The film is currently in limited theatrical release now, with a broader opening on Halloween.