Quoted from Grandma Bear The Clean Up Crew feels like they were just tagged on.

Or caught in the middle, maybe.  Perhaps if the Clean-Up crew became part of some larger mission -- if their goal was more than to simply "survive" -- it might strengthen the appeal of this story.

Going back to Ghostbusters -- that team was not just looking to survive -- they were rescuing the city.  That is why you rooted for them.  They were putting their lives on the line for the common good.

And back to this story -- weren't the creatures supposed to spread a virus or something?  And if these creatures escaped, wouldn't there be dire consequences for the whole planet?

Maybe the Clean-Up crew should get involved in order to save more than just themselves?

It would give the title a better meaning too.

I came up with a possible first and second scene: why not establish the monsters through a video that Malcom and the other scientists and generals are watching on one of those wall screens. And have each monsters involved pop up on the screen to identify them. It'll exaplin whats going on and the many people there (if I remember correctly not many workers were there. I understand its the middle of the night but those types of facilities do not stop working espeically for the military). And sets the monsters for early on.  

The next scene could follow, as Michael suggested, the clean up crew going to that place. Their character personalites will be revealed in the van similar to House on Haunted Hill.

What do you think Pia? But alot of things in this script can be cut out and give more room to story and character development.

Gabe

I type slow. lol. I don't remember that the monsters passed on viruses or it was dangerous for the monsters to escape, except that it'll get Malcom and other powerful people invovled in the project in trouble. That's what I saw, I may be wrong though. But I think that's what the author wanted. Them not saving the world, just they were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they need to survive. I think people can relate to that.

My thoughts in a nutshell, pulled from the larger reviewish stuff I wrote on the script thread would be this.

1) I don't think this is so much of a Ghostbusters story in as much as it's a Jurassic Park or Aliens story. The object is survival.

2) As such, are there too many characters? Is the Malcolm-Adam-Badami deal suited to this?

3) I think there are too many types of monsters. You have your cross breeding, which allows for a lot of creativity, but then, you've thrown in the biomechanical critters, the likes of which are not mentioned until page 63. I might also add that an army of cockroaches can't be held in jail cells, much less be fed in any manner apparently accessible in a dungeon, where the genetic cross breeds could be.

Those are my biggest issues.

Oh, and for those who dislike the length of the first act, you've got to note that this script has an intro to it that doesn't end till page 6. Act One ends, in my view, when they enter the plant, or around page 27. That makes act one about 20 pages, which is a decent length. I do think they could enter the plant sooner though, and save some of the exposition about themselves till they're inside.

To me the first act ends once the lockdown occurs.  That to me is the inciting incident and would put it at the page 36 mark.  Whether this isn't accepatable is, I guess, debatable.  The Jurrasic Park comparable is a good one since, with that film, there is similar incident where a group of people become stranded on an island after a security breech.  If memory serves, this occurs quite late as well, perhaps around the half-way mark although my memory could be a little off.

Even though Adam evokes the most sympathy, to me it's clearly the cleanup crew who are the protagonists.  This is sort of a 'man vs. nature' or rather 'man playing god' theme and the crew are our eyes and ears to the carnage that unfolds.  In a way they represent us - humanity - people with varying ages and backgrounds.  They're a typical sampling of the population.  I suspect that was the writer's intent to portray them as such.

One suggestion might be to maintain perspective by staying with the crew once introduced.  There's a lot of switching back and forth between them and events at the lab.  If we stuck with them, then their discoveries could be ours as well.  The opening chase scene on the road is probably enough of a reveal at that point to let us know something nefarious is up.

If you take the act structure as catalyst - big event (act break I) - pinch - crisis - climax, we would have to see who each of these events affects the most.

Click here for an explanation of the terms

Yes, this is pidgeonholing the script into some arbitrary labels, but all stories have a beginning, middle, and end, and most movies falls into these categories subconsciously. So please don't whine about the labels.

So where would the story start to take a turn into its eventuality? Not the intro. No main characters. Not even much of an effect on anyone. Could it be when Trish announces the job? Possibly. The Clean Up Crew is a single character broken into parts, so they are all affected by this. Arguably, it could also be when they enter the plant, but a plot having no direction until thirty minutes in is far too slow, and the job, itself, gives our characters some direction.

So why do I think the big event is entering the factory? The act break simply signals a point of no return. Once they're in, they're in it till the end. As the audience, we know something is up because of the conflict between Adam and Hopkins (or whatever his name was, sorry), but the Crew doesn't, so they don't know they're going into a potential minefield. Since it's a job for their "biggest client," they won't leave unless given a good reason to. It's also a locale change for them from being all separated to being all in one place.

The lockdown occurs just shy of the midpoint, and it fits the definition of giving the main character(s) direction. They are trapped inside the plant with no chance of escape. It's close to the act break, and it could also be considered the act break due to the seriousness.

Trouble is, after this point, the characters run around trying to escape, and while there are a good number of tense situations, they get bailed out at the end without much of a final act break at all. Adam gets them away from the baddies. Adam, Badami, and Malcolm have their shoot out at the end. So the characters don't do anything to redeem themselves until the final tag scene, which has been established as a little thin.

You need a main character in your rag tag group. Someone who we instinctively follow through the story. We get an early impression that Chan and/or Odell is this person, but they fade away. Trish acts like one for awhile, sort of. Ricky starts out as potential, but then he sacrifices himself, which isn't bad, but excludes him from being our main character. Karen comes up early, but she doesn't play a large role.

Random thoughts without a resolution...

Response to Eric11's post last week.

Eric, sorry I wasn't aware of this earlier, or I would have responded immediately.  Your post is also an open invite, begging for a rebuttal.

"You said you care about "story, action, and structure" but you cut away the vital elements that actually makes a great story. What's left, you basically pointed out the trival matters (like part time or full time employees in the company) that is frankly subjective wither it matters or not."

If you really feel that your technical terms are indeed the vital elements that make a great story, all I can say is that i disagree.  A great story is one that is unique or at least different, entertaining, engaging, and needs to contain the feelings and emotions based on the genre of the story.  There are soooo many examples of movies that are considered great (and wildly successful) that you would shoot down based on your "vital elements thought process".  Another vastly under rated piece of the story is that it makes sense and is believable (unless you're talking about a genre in which that doesn't matter, or some sort of spoof concept).

"To be honest, your position is like trying to write a musical piece for the orchestra without learning first how to read the notes, and time signatures of classical music. Learning to write for movies takes alot of skill and mastery. You can't fuge your way along and hope you will accidentally write a great screenplay."

I agree with your musical analogy to a certain point.  No form of art or creative work of any kind has to be a certain way.  New molds are cast all the time, and the fact that we're talking about story here, is a perfect example.  No one should tell someone how to write a story. New concepts and ways to go about them come along all the time (not often enough though).  When they do, they're fresh and unique.  Before "Pulp Fiction" or Memento", for instance,  I bet the writing community would think it was wrong, and just not doable because they broke many, many "rules".

"Are you kidding me! Have you not seen X man 1 and 2, Termintor 1 and 2, spiderman, Shriek, and Die hard to name a few?

The characters in these movies are not cliche's because the writer made them into interesting characters that we care about. That is why the plot works. Lazy writers tried to copy these movies to bank on their success."

I have seen the movies you mentioned.  X-Men and Spiderman are based on old comics that have been around forever, and for me offer very little (I'm not a comics fan at all).  T1 and T2 are indeed great movies with great characters, but written what, 25 years ago?.  Shrek?  C'mon, this is a cartoon, and most animated movies like this are indeed well written and have broad appeal, and great characters, but I don't feel they should be included in comparisons of non animated, serious features.  Die Hard?  Yeah, great movie, a great character, but you're talkiing about a classic movie here that was written well over 20 years ago.

My comment was that for the content of The Clean Up Crew, I didn't feel the characters were really that important, because it was more about the creatures, and action.  I also commented that I thought the characters were indeed cliched and needed some work and some fleshing out.

Finally, you pointed out that my comments were only on trivial things that had no relevance to the script.  I disagree again.  Many, many  times, it's the "trivial" things that do matter and make a big difference in how we feel about something, and how it works overall. Plot points or setups that are unbelievable (or just poorly done) from the beginning make for a tough time in a piece that's supposed to be taken seriously.

As far as I'm concerned, you can be the best writer "technically" but not have a clue how to craft a "good" story, and interesting setup, believable action, and a satisfying conclusion.  I think that's why we rarely get to see what I call good movies.  Hollywood is so concerned with going with tried and true screenwriters even when their history with commercial or critical success is less than stellar.

Don't mean to be difficult here, but that's how I feel.

Quoted from Dreamscale New concepts and ways to go about them come along all the time (not often enough though).  When they do, they're fresh and unique.  Before "Pulp Fiction" or Memento", for instance,  I bet the writing community would think it was wrong, and just not doable because they broke many, many "rules".

Pulp Fiction and Memento were not new concepts.  Check out films like Rashomon 1950 or  Last Year at Marienbad (1961).  There have been non-linear movies for a long time, I believe the peak was during the '60s.  Those who forget history - repeat it, can sometimes have positive results.

*****
If you really feel that your technical terms are indeed the vital elements that make a great story, all I can say is that i disagree.
*****

If you have tried and tested these techniques then okay but please don't disagree for the sake of disagreeing.

*****
A great story is one that is unique or at least different, entertaining, engaging, and needs to contain the feelings and emotions based on the genre of the story.
*****

Agreed!

****
There are soooo many examples of movies that are considered great (and wildly successful) that you would shoot down based on your "vital elements thought process".
*****

Try me. I have studied what makes a great movie. If these films are truly great. I will not shoot it down.

*****
Another vastly under rated piece of the story is that it makes sense and is believable (unless you're talking about a genre in which that doesn't matter, or some sort of spoof concept).
*****

Suspension of belief is vital. I think Hollywood has prooved that the audience are willing to follow the story any where if it is set up well.

****
No form of art or creative work of any kind has to be a certain way.
****

That's why I don't believe in rules or formulas.

****
X-Men and Spiderman are based on old comics that have been around forever, and for me offer very little (I'm not a comics fan at all).
****

Bryn Singer did a good job making a comic book come to life with true characters but in the end they are still comic book characters. If you are not a fan, that's okay too, but my point remains.

****
T1 and T2 are indeed great movies with great characters, but written what, 25 years ago?.
****

Why does that matter? A good story is timeless.

****
Shrek?  C'mon, this is a cartoon, and most animated movies like this are indeed well written and have broad appeal, and great characters, but I don't feel they should be included in comparisons of non animated, serious features
****

They are of course linear differences, but a well writen character is still a well writen character. I have seen animated movies that sucked because the characters were shallow, but I see your point. It's a bit of a stretch to compare the two formats.

****
My comment was that for the content of The Clean Up Crew, I didn't feel the characters were really that important, because it was more about the creatures, and action.  I also commented that I thought the characters were indeed cliched and needed some work and some fleshing out.
****

On the surface that sounds like a good argument but in retrospect it sells the quality of good character develpment  short.

No matter what genre, good characters are important.

Rocky for example can be considered an action movie. The very first one had significant character development. It gave his cause that much more appeal. We not only cared what he was fighting for, but we also cared about him.

I think shallow characters are easily killed off, but strong characters are immensly hard to kill off because we want them to live and fight another day. James bond might seem kind of shallow but he isn't just a man with a gun, he is a man with a savior's complex who really believes what he is fighting for.

That is emotional truth. Only great characters are written with emotional truth.

****
Finally, you pointed out that my comments were only on trivial things that had no relevance to the script.  I disagree again.  Many, many  times, it's the "trivial" things that do matter and make a big difference in how we feel about something, and how it works overall. Plot points or setups that are unbelievable (or just poorly done) from the beginning make for a tough time in a piece that's supposed to be taken seriously.
****

Einstein said, there is one major item of importance in every great idea, the rest are just details.

For me the little things don't usually sink a movie. What sinks a movie for me is when the writer does not have something to teach me.

****
As far as I'm concerned, you can be the best writer "technically" but not have a clue how to craft a "good" story, and interesting setup, believable action, and a satisfying conclusion.  I think that's why we rarely get to see what I call good movies.  Hollywood is so concerned with going with tried and true screenwriters even when their history with commercial or critical success is less than stellar.
****

Being technical does not prevent a writers sponteneity. We are to be resourceful and aware of what we are writing at all times. IMO a good writer does not write a great screenplay by accident. He has complete control over the craft at all times.

I don't think you are being difficult.

I dispute the overall relevance of the last three posts to our discussion.

The point is to discuss the script, not the rules.

Okay George.

Do we want to talk about the protag/antag some more or should we move on to structure, characters, dialogue or whatever you feel like?  

I apologize.  George, you're correct.  Let's get back on track.

I say we discuss the structure.

Quoted from George Willson I dispute the overall relevance of the last three posts to our discussion. The point is to discuss the script, not the rules.

George you're right. We got off topic with the main script. Thanks for pulling us back in.

My initial remarks that spawn off the discussion were inregards to some comments I made relating to the story's structure.

Okay, structure it is.
I only have a minute right now, but I'll start with saying that although it was a quick and pretty good read, it was almost like one long action scene. It's been a while since I read it now, but I don't remember there really being three acts. Am I wrong? As mentioned earlier in regard to the protagonists, "the clean-up crew' is introduced way too late into the script IMHO. Also, what was the B-story? Adam and the female scientist?

Maybe I need to go back and read this!  

bbl

One problem in determining the structure here is that there's no real "main character." The opening as it is is ok, since we have a scene to get us into the issue very quickly, and we get the individual members of the clean-up crew introduced right after that building into the coffee shop scene where they're all together and it's established that they're going into the place where all the bad stuff is going down. It's kind of an easygoing opening that could be potentially rewritten to have a lot of the exposition interspersed into their drive to the plant and their initial duties there. It is important to establish a normal day, and he does that just fine.

Where we break down is once stuff starts happening and this is your long action scene. We get one fantastic scene after another and as cool as it is, it gets old because the plot doesn't move on for quite some time, and no one in the group is ever established as a lead character. Is this a bad thing? I am not sure.

Part of me wants that one character to come out of the group and become a leader to take both the crew and us out of danger and move us through the climax to a meaningful resolution. To draw a correlation, Ripley in Alien was just one of the crew and during most of the film, we are lead to believe that Dallas would be the one in charge. The second act of Alien is when everyone is bumped off and the third act is when Ripley is left to make the decision to face the thing. It's this critical decision that never happens in The Clean-Up Crew. Instead, they're bailed out by Adam.

Is the bail out necessarily a bad thing? It can be made to work, but not as something that leads into the climax. You see, I think that might happen too late and isn't used very well. What if the bit where Adam bails them out is earlier and instead of getting them out, it only serves to leave them behind the barred doors? Adam can keep the creatures at bay, but unfortunately, he can't save them. That priviledge is reserved for the crew themselves. The deux ex machina resolution always sucks in films because it's too easy. Adam gives them an easy out.

So what if Adam only seems to give them an easy out? Instead, they go into the boss's office or something, which is still inside the lockdown. Well, Malcolm can do his schtick and the shootout happens, and that resolves them, but that would also leave us with a third act to get through since they didn't get out. If you can firmly establish the manster as the "villain", the audience would understand that the whole bit with Adam bailing them out, and Malcolm threatening everyone's lives wasn't the end because we're left with two problems when that's over: 1) there are big nasty creatures still trying to kill us, and 2) we're still stuck inside this stupid plant. So thanks a lot Adam, you didn't help at all. I know it blows his poetic ending with the outside and all, but he's not the main character either.

This would allow one character to come out and make a decision. Maybe establish that there are explosives in the plant and the whole thing has to be taken out. They would decide to go down and blow the place up. With a narrow escape from the dungeon, they charge out of Malcolm's office, but oh wait, there's that stupid manster blocking their path. They're kind of on a schedule or they get toasted with everything else, so battle, battle, battle and they defeat it just enough to be able to escape. Can they get out of the lockdown? Of course. Once Malcolm had his shoot out, they had some big guns to blow away some door locks (or maybe even some leftover explosives, who knows?). Or it could even be as easy as when the guards see them running like bats out of hell with a manster on their tails, they do the human thing and let them out, though it would be better for them to have their own tense moment of "how the hell do we get past this door?"

My two cents on that.