This thread, optimistically titled "Script Club I" -- with the assumption that there may be more -- is the inaugural Script Club discussion, featuring "The Clean Up Crew" by Michael Prevette.

Formal reviews should be posted on the thread for that script.

This is planned as an informal "book club" type of discussion, and also a discussion of scriptwriting, utilizing "CuC" as a template and a source of examples.

We are not discussing typos or "unfilmables" here.  We will be looking at structure and story.  Are there clear act breaks?  Is there a strong protagonist, with goals and a worthy antagonist? Are good character arcs in place?  Did you spot any symbolism, intended or not?

These are the types of question we will be addressing.

So read the script this weekend, or early next week, and the discussion will begin when the first intrepid poster starts the ball rolling.  And we will see how it goes.  Everyone is more than welcome to participate, provided you have actually read the script.

Mike is banished from this thread for the first week or so.  He can pick his moment to enter, but is encouraged to let the discussion wind down before he does so.

And if this works out, we may have a "Script Club II".

The script is here:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-horror/m-1203170490/

Quoted from The Clean Up Crew "It's a normal Friday night for the industrial cleaners, as they arrive for the midnight shift at Better Life Chemicals. But soon they'll find that Better Life is not what they think as horrific bio-genetic experiments break loose from their cages deep in the complex, and come out looking for escape...and dinner!”

Discuss.

So I read it last night.  A few topics to consider or ignore:

1)  Not that it is a big problem, but I am pretty sure this script does not have a traditional first act.  It seems the first act does not end until page 40-50.  Is that acceptable?

2)  Most people will probably agree that Adam is the most compelling character.  But what were his goals, really.  Does Adam even know what his goals are?

3)  There were clearly a few comic aspects to this script.  Is there anything useful to be gained by looking at this script in the context of the "Ghostbuster" films?  This film does not have a clear protagonist, but rather, it is the team as a whole.  I kind of think Ghostbusters was like that, too.  Bill Murray may have stolen the show -- but in terms of the story itself, none of those guys was a clear leader.

On page 20..stopped, for now, but here are some thoughts..

Capitalizing ACTION, I'm just wondering how this is looked upon or what are the "Rules" on it. I do it, but not THAT much. The author had few on almost each line.

I would’ve liked to see more of the attack on tech # 6 or the others for that matter. I felt the author had missed a great chance to make the beginning of this piece more interesting and catchy, because after that, and for the next 20 pages or so, I felt things had really dragged on and on with too many descriptions and introductions...I clearly understand the reason for not showing much and wanting to peek our interest, but I still think this scene could've been executed better..

The call for retreat came too early. The men seemed pro and I expected them to put up more of a fight….I felt the AMBUSH scene was somewhat lacking…How about some POVs from the SHAPE tracking the men? This is an important scene and I think it should be more exciting and telling...Maybe this will be answered later in the story but I guess I just wanted more action at the start.

2 and half minutes of conversation between Odell and Chan…it really dragged…and Chris didn’t really seem like a frustrated young man with a can-do attitude to me.

Anyways, so far, the descriptions are good and I'm able to visualize the action. I just hope the story goes somewhere soon because at this point it's kind of dragging.

Will finish reading later on.

There were a couple of things about this script that bugged me but they had nothing to do with the story so I’m going to get them out of the way really quick (and I have to mention them because they affected the readability for me).  One was the plethora of caps, there was just too many things in caps. Second was numbered characters, I didn’t mind the TECHs all that much but I thought the GUARDs needed a name in order to promote attachment in the reader. There that wasn’t so bad was it?

The story itself kind of reminded me of a cross between Jurassic Park and Ghostbusters.  I thought the main issue with the script was the sheer number of characters and lack of a central one.  It was difficult to tell whose story this was and that would be ok if I felt the author actually meant this to be an ensemble piece – but I don’t think he did.   If I was going to hazard a guess at whose story this was I would have to say it was Adam’s story.

And if it was Adam’s story then a large opportunity was lost because Adam did not have a clear enough arc.  He could have been much more than he was.  I think, especially, his relationship with Badami should have been explored a bit more.

I thought, in general, the characters needed some work in this piece. There were some good relationships.  The one between Trish and Spook to name one of them, more of this sort of relationship between characters would give the script some of the depth it needs. There was a definite lack of history between the characters which gave me the impression that they existed just for this film.

Some of the slang used in dialogue seemed a bit outdated, especially when we first meet Odell and Chan.

I didn’t feel anything when any of the characters died.  I should have, at least, felt some satisfaction when Malcolm went but I didn’t.  I think the character of Malcolm needs a bit of revision because I didn’t find him believable or villainous enough to consider him a real threat.

The monsters were clever but I think that number and range of them turned the idea of the genetic experiments into a confusing mess.  The goal of the chemical plant was weakened by the mish mash of monsters it produced.  

The cockroaches needed a bit of foreshadowing, just suddenly there are hundreds.  The descriptions of the dogs reminded me of the Terminator and the Wallace and Grommit episode with the sheep and this made them very unscary because I kept chuckling at them. Not to mention that they didn’t really fit in with the rest of the experiments.  I would reconsider the dogs.  

The Manster needed to be more of a threat during the script rather than just at the end.  It should attack them at least once, otherwise the fact that it escapes means nothing (unless this is what attacked Trish and Spook).

Overall, I liked the concept and some of the characters in this script but I think that some of the characters and the story itself needs strengthening in order for it to reach its full potential.  

Got done with the sciprt. It reminded me alot of Resident evil being that these people are chased by monsters. But I could see the Ghostbuster's reference. The review is not exactly in order but it's comprehendable. (hopefully, lol. If anything, ask.)

I think it's Adam's tale. He's the protagonist. But he needed to be in the beginning probably the monster killing off the soliders and tech guys. He needed to be more visible so we can know him especially throughout the tale.

The other monsters needed to be foreshadowed. For the other monsters, I think it will be better to acknowledge them through noises when Dr. Balami first meets Adam.

Adam reminds me of "I Robot". He's a strong character but make him more unique through the dialgoue like a hissing sound or something. Also at the end when Malcom threatens him, I doubt he will submit easily espeically if he doesn't know what the weapon is (ex. stun gun) And isn't a snake's skin tough to restand a  pierce from a needle? Not sure, just asking.  

The dinner scene was intended to connect the audience with the other main characters however, it didnt do well. I enjoyed everything leading up to it. Seeing the relationships emerge between each one. But that's the problem. You show only one pair. What about the other members of the group? It's like that Resvior Dogs (diner scene in the beginning). I'm not saying to move it, just make each character talk to someone else as they work. They can talk to walkie talkies? So when they unite the audience already knows all of them.

I enjoyed Ricky and Kristen's relationship. This was my comic relief. Why not make Ricky more young like 18 to really show how lame he is with Karen. There should have also been some scenes where they should have been caught close with each other (show some sexual tension between the two). I don't think Ricky will stop. This relationship was funny to see. And why not have Ricky live so he can finally get Karen? I will like to see this relationship with a happy ending.

Odell appeared as Samuel L Jackson. But the way he lets Baxter talk to him doesn't seem right. He doesn't take it from Chan and Malcom so why from Baxter even in the situation that he is in.

You should probably reduce the number characters in the beginning since it gets way complicated to follow. Keep it simple. And also give Gaurd 1 and 2 names since they are part of the main characters.

Near the ending, will Malcom come alone as he did knowing what happened? I doubt it.  

All in all, he could lose alot of characters in the beginning. This will give him more room to develop characters. Also, some of the dialgoue can be trimmed. With these amount of characters, be precise in what scene each character  will show them to move the story along.

Gabe

Quoted from bert This thread, optimistically titled "Script Club I" -- with the assumption that there may be more -- is the inaugural Script Club discussion, featuring "The Clean Up Crew" by Michael Prevette. Formal reviews should be posted on the thread for that script. This is planned as an informal "book club" type of discussion, and also a discussion of scriptwriting, utilizing "CuC" as a template and a source of examples. We are not discussing typos or "unfilmables" here.  We will be looking at structure and story.  Are there clear act breaks?  Is there a strong protagonist, with goals and a worthy antagonist? Are good character arcs in place?  Did you spot any symbolism, intended or not? These are the types of question we will be addressing. So read the script this weekend, or early next week, and the discussion will begin when the first intrepid poster starts the ball rolling.  And we will see how it goes.  Everyone is more than welcome to participate, provided you have actually read the script. Mike is banished from this thread for the first week or so.  He can pick his moment to enter, but is encouraged to let the discussion wind down before he does so. And if this works out, we may have a "Script Club II". The script is here: http://www.simplyscripts.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-horror/m-1203170490/ Discuss.

I could only get through 21 pages before I put it down. First off, there are too many problems with the first act making it tough to get to the proceeding acts.

I will start off what I liked about what I read. The first sequence of events was exciting and fast.

It did not feel like a real begining because we were immediately plunged into the action without a proper leading up scene. Yet that is not always important for a good action movie, ie, Termintor 1 and 2, Star wars etc. So that didn't bother me at all. I really liked it.

After the action sequence, the script totally slowed down and I stopped caring.

Here is what I didn't like,

1) The characters and concept are cliche's.

Man this is the number one problem with being a new writer. We start off not having the developed sense to know what makes a strong character compelling to the viewer, thus we conjure up a prototype from past movies, cut and past him/her into our screenplays then say walla! That is all around poor execution of writing of any genre period.

I.E. Chan and Ordel were blatant stereotypes of their euthnicity. Now I know there are some truth to stereotypes but there is a fine line to be said. In a way I felt the writer knew he was creating stereotypes and wanted to make fun of it.

If that were true, this piece should have been catogorized as a comedy not a suspence thriller.

Karen's and Ricky's intro read like a bad porno movie. In order for the reader to believe a woman would unstrip her jump suit at the drop of a hat requires some decent back story first.

Again I will stress the writer did not take the time to know his characters, hence he glossed over them according to his own logic. That alone will not get this script optioned, guaranteed.

For what it's worth, professional male screenwriters have a hard time portraying realistic woman characters because undertandibly we base them from our own fantasy's and desires. The same would go for a woman trying to write a realistic male character.

I advise any male writers to study female psychology and behaviour. If a woman wants to be sexy it is in her body language. ie, the chair scene from Basic Instincts. A truly sexy woman does not need to be overtly obvious to make a man think sex, all she has to do his interact with the man in the right way.

2) Exposition galla!

If you want to bore the audience and take us out of the movie, fill your dialogue with exposition instead of drama.

Almost from page one, the writer narrated everything he wanted us to know about the scene and characters by spelling it out in the dialogue - it drives me up the wall when I read exposition in the dialogue.

When the writer should explain a detail or insight to the audience is after we FIRST feel the need to know it. Otherwise, it comes across as meaningless narrative dribble.


3) Very little drama within the first 20 pages - was why I put down the script before reading the rest and one of the main reasons this script won't get made.

Good slow movies are likable because they have interesting characters and because there is a buid up of drama through out the movie.

Conflict is drama but drama isn't always conflict.  

Quoted from bert There were clearly a few comic aspects to this script.  Is there anything useful to be gained by looking at this script in the context of the "Ghostbuster" films?  This film does not have a clear protagonist, but rather, it is the team as a whole.  I kind of think Ghostbusters was like that, too.  Bill Murray may have stolen the show -- but in terms of the story itself, none of those guys was a clear leader.

That sounds spot on. Personally, I think the protagonist is the group itself. Each crew member has a unique personality and is able to stand out on there own but all of them seem so distinct, none of them can really serve as representitive or leading the entire group. They all work well together though, have some interesting chemistry, and are sort of united by their oddball personalities. I think the group works.

I wouldn't say there's really an antagonists. I guess the creatures fit the bill but they're all just trying to get free, aren't they? No real villain to speak of. Malcolm and Hoskins are prime candidates but aren't really utilized.

I also thought there was some Island of Dr. Monroe in this (a seriously underrated film), especially with Adam, an intelligent creature struggling to find a purpose. It's a good concept, really. I thought Adam was a little too civil from the start though. I would've liked to have seen some more of his bestial side.

Quoted from eric11 I could only get through 21 pages before I put it down.

While that is not really in keeping with what we are trying to do here, it does have to be acknowledged as a fair criticism.

I also found the script to be a bit front-loaded, and it seemed to take forever for the promised action to arrive.

How could we shrink things up from the outset?  Skipping the diner scene is a good start.  Could the crew be arriving at the plant -- simultaneous with the action that starts the script?

Perhaps the action is far enough removed from the plant that the crew only gets a sense of something going on elsewhere -- but Spook has his radar up -- and we could get a wee bit of quick exposition that way -- and a sense of tension right from the start.

I also think Malcolm and Baxter could be combined into a single complex and conflicted character.

These changes would give more room to play with the fun stuff later on in the story.

I don't see why the crew couldn't be at the plant from the start.  The scenes with the Adam can be intercut.  By the end of the script it's obvious that most of the folks in these scenes are there during this time period anyway.

I do think this could work very well in foreshadowing the creatures because if one of them has to clean this area then they could be curious about what's in the cages.

Quoted from bert While that is not really in keeping with what we are trying to do here, it does have to be acknowledged as a fair criticism. I also found the script to be a bit front-loaded, and it seemed to take forever for the promised action to arrive. How could we shrink things up from the outset?  Skipping the diner scene is a good start.  Could the crew be arriving at the plant -- simultaneous with the action that starts the script? Perhaps the action is far enough removed from the plant that the crew only gets a sense of something going on elsewhere -- but Spook has his radar up -- and we could get a wee bit of quick exposition that way -- and a sense of tension right from the start. I also think Malcolm and Baxter could be combined into a single complex and conflicted character. These changes would give more room to play with the fun stuff later on in the story.

You are right, I should have read the whole thing for the sake of the discussion. I think it is still important for Mike to understand how many problems he has in the first act.

For me the problem isn't legistics or content. I am not the artist and I feel strongly against telling people how to make their master piece. His ideas are fine, and they work for him. The only thing I can criticize is the execution of his ideas.

His first act lacks consistent scene charges. Every scene should have it's own mini turning point, something that will change a scenes mood, "a scene charge" - going from positive to negative, negative to positive or negative to double negative, there should always be a change of charge from begining to end. A properly written scene advances the story with a turning point. We take notice of the key turning points calling the biggest one the inciting incident, which by convention comes usually by the end of the first act. Some writers forget about the mini turning points that gives their characters continued motivation to work through their journey.

His first act should not have slow scenes. The slowest act is usually the second act.

There are two things that are missing in his story. One is a called the Story's Spine and the second is called the protagonist GAP of expectation.

The "spine" weaves everything together in a coherent story structure. It gives the first incident and the last incident it's purpose in the naration. It doesn't matter what crazy things happen in between but their must always be a clear objective the audience understands to be his story.

IE Monty Pathon's Quest for the Holy Grail. We have a group of knights looking for the grail and along the way they get into many rediculous problems. It seems the story can go anywhere but the writer reminds us they are always looking for the grail. Everything that happens in the story is for that purpose, without a spine we have a bunch of moments that are not tied together in anyway.

The second concept is called the GAP. The protagonist expecations are not meet. He has a moment of disillusionment about everything around him. The audience needs to feel this disillusionment if they are going to feel any emotional connection to the character.

The GAP creates drama, because it is in this window of disillusionment, we see the guts and soul of our protagonist. We witness the way he/she reacts to the situation.  

Thirdly to make his characters compelling he needs to write them from the inside out. Mike needs to become each character and see the world through their eyes. I have no doubt the writer is a compelling person in real life so why should his characters come off as flat one dimensional stereotypes.

Once a writer knows story structure like the back of their hand, it doesn't matter what content he puts in his story?







  

I read this about a week and a half ago, but the site's been down for ahwile.  Let's get to it.

There are obviously so many different directions to go with this discussion, and it seems that each participant has gone his own way pretty much.  I'm going to focus on several aspects that for me are the most important to any script (movie).

I like to keep things simple and broken down to their most basic principles.  I really don't care about such things as charcter arcs, typical 3 act plotting, scene charges, Story's Spine, or protagonist GAP of expectation.  Obviously, many do care about this stuff, but for me, it comes down to story, characters, action, and structure.

So let's look at these aspects of the script.

Story - Nothing unique here, but definitely interesting and for the most part entertaining.  I like the intro scene, but the characters lack of names and personality is a big drawback.

A big problem for me in the story is the fact that this huge multi million dollar facility is out sourcing their cleanup to a group of goof balls.  It doesn't make any sense.  With all the obviously dangerous and illegal stuff going on inside, why in the world is some clean up crew being brought in once a week, or however often it is?  A facility this size would require cleanin up on a constant basis.  The clean up crew should be full time staff employees just like everyone else there appears to be.
By correcting this simple "mistake", a bunch of slow, throw away scenes in the beginning could be done away with.

Once things get going, the story moves along pretty nicely.  I think that the "real story" should involve Adam much more though, and I also feel that the creatures should all be large, dangerous sorts, as opposed to the cockroaches and the like.  More is needed of the "Manster" as well.  This is the true "Big Baddy", and he needs to have more screen time.

The ending is the biggest let down for me.  Much more is needed in Adam's demise, and the last scene with the Manster getting out is too short, poorly plotted, and unbelievable.  And the final scene with the handcuffed chick?  Nope...get rid of it!

So, all in all, story-wise, I'd say that it's fairly well done, but needs some tweaks here and there.

Characters - Mostly a underdeveloped, cliched bunch, but for this sort of movie, I don't think the characters really need to be too much more.  In reality, pretty much anyone and everyone is cliched in some way.  The guards and the like all need names for sure. If they're in the script for any amount of time or action, they need some characteristics as well.  Without them, we don't care for them at all.

In terms of being likeable and believable, it's hit and miss here.  I'd focus on 1 or 2 of the clean up crew and make them your main protagonists. Spook should be 1 for sure, and from the rest, it's up to you.  Adam should be fleshed out much more for sure.  He's interesting and likeable, even in the fact that we should fear him...or maybe downright dislike him, but based on what he does, it's kind of both.  I also think Badami needs alot more screen time and characterization.  Her relationship with Adam should be fleshed out.

I don't think alot of the characters act very believably though.  I guess that's understandble for this type of genre, but I'd tone down the joke cracking when they're in periless situations, and try to make their actual actions more realistic.

Action - Your action scenes are prety well done, but again, many instances seem unrealistic to me.  Also, I think there needs to be more action...as in show more.  We don't really get to see too many of the creatures, and the ones we do, aren't that special (other than Adam).  If you create some more menacing beasts, it would add to the overall story.

In terms of the action, the end just seems to come too fast, both in terms of the final showdown in the facility and especially the Manster scene at the end.  I felt let down by the quick deaths of several main characters and especially Adam going down without really doing much.

Structure - Well, as I've reviewed before with your writing, I dislike the way you write your action scenes very much.  The long run-on sentences and fragments all spliced together makes for a difficult read.  It speeds up the read but makes for "getting" the details almost impossible.  I had to continually go back and re-read passages to see what really happened.

The fact that you only do this in intense action sequences is also tough for me, as I get a disjointed feel from the read.  Obviously this is a personal gripe, but for me, it really detracts from the overall feel of the script.

In terms of transitions from scene to scene and the like, I found many instances of things going on too long, while other times, characters just seemed to disapear.  Some scenes seemed too short, while others seemed to drag.  There was definitely a lack of continuity throughout that I think yuou could pretty easily correct.

Overall - I wanted to like this, because the subject matter for me, is what i enjoy in a movie.  But I had trouble routing for anyone really, I didn't like the mish mash of creatures, I didn't appreciate the over the top attempts at humor, and the ending was a big let down.  So, I'd say that there is potential in this script, but a number of things need work and revision.

Hope this helps and others can comment on my thoughts and views.

****
I like to keep things simple and broken down to their most basic principles.  I really don't care about such things as charcter arcs, typical 3 act plotting, scene charges, Story's Spine, or protagonist GAP of expectation.  Obviously, many do care about this stuff, but for me, it comes down to story, characters, action, and structure.
****

After I read this, it was an open inventation for me to respond. 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.

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.

****
Characters - Mostly a underdeveloped, cliched bunch, but for this sort of movie, I don't think the characters really need to be too much more.  In reality, pretty much anyone and everyone is cliched in some way.
*****

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. This is what a cliche is -

A cliche is taking a common theme and trying to recreate a unique human experience within it.

A fresh story is the opposite-

An original idea takes a unique theme and uses a common human experience to tell a story never seen before.  

If the writer is to have any hope of marketing his idea, he should learn the basic principles of story structure.

Okay, I've read this a while ago, but since there were issues with the boards for a while I didn't write a "review".

Are we supposed to discuss this script or not?

Let's pick an issue to start with and go from there.

Unless someone has a problem with it let's start with the protagonist. This was my biggest problem with this script. Not the fact that it was a group, but for other reasons that may seem weird to you guys. First of all, IMHO, if the "clean up crew" are the protags then they are introduced too late. The way it is now, I thought it would be about Adam and the scientists, which I probably would have liked better... The "clean uo crew" doesn't really work for me. Which also makes the title not fit. Again, this is just MHO. They do clean, but only bathrooms and dining room type areas. It would be more fitting if they managed to clean away the creatures better. The creature Adam is also made sympathetic in the beginning, so it got me confused when he escaped because I was cheering for him.

I have more opinions, but was hoping we could start a discussion starting with this. Unless everyone already abandoned this attempt at screenwriting discussions.

I saw it more as Adam's tale. Nevertheless, the clean up crew do join the protagonist (in trying to get out). That's what I liked about it. There is no definite bad guy. However, having a break from reading it, Malcolm should have been hinted as the bad guy in the beginning when we first meet him in the lab with Adam. But the guard takes that role for the time being. OVerall, characters need to be fixed.

But I do agree that the clean up crew do start out late in the game. I suggested in my reivew that Adam (and the other monsters) should be in the first scene where the soldiers are attacked. This will establish sturdy ground to explain the other scenes. The followup scene could be the clean up crew.

Gabe

Okay Gabe, I guess you and I can discuss this.  

Isn't the protagonist supposed to be introduced pretty much right away in a script?

I agree with you that the way it starts out, we are lead to believe this is Adam's story. We sympathize with him immediately and we think the scientists are the bad guys . That's the major flaw for me with this script. I think it should have been the "experimental creatures" against the people who created them. The Clean Up Crew feels like they were just tagged on.

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.

Since the thread seems to be over, I'll pop in and add my comments then ( have been away for a few weeks, strange how being out of work somehow made me busier ).

It was good to read the comments, some good, some spot on target with my feelings on the script, some not so much.  One thing to begin with, when Bert asked me to contribute the first script in this experiment, I had to pour over what I had and in the end chose The Clean Up Crew specifically for a few reasons, ones that were pointed out here with varying degrees of rationality :p

The script itself was tasked to me by the producer I worked with as my script Feral took it's long ugly journey through La La Land. When Feral was belly up after 2 years in development, I was handed less than a dozen script pages and the assignment to rework the idea for Clean Up into a full feature. In our first discussion, I was told what they wanted was " Resident Evil meets Ghostbusters", so it was funny to see people use almost those exact words. After a first draft and a second revision, the producer just lost interest and moved on, so basically it was left as is, a project that never really was rewritten to my satisfaction. That's not to excuse anything anyone alluded to, as some points made I agree with and some, no.  It's just...wait...here it comes....the backstory.

It IS an ensemble piece. The intent was to have the most interesting character be Adam. Obviously visually he'd be the most striking, but he was the only one really intended to have an actual arc. Successful or no, that was the idea. The other characters in the crew - someone in the review thread pointed to them as "cannon fodder" - not quite apt, but no, they're not deeply developed characters. In fact, they're intentionally broad - not cliches, but TYPES maybe might be the right description.   On purpose - we have the Asian kid, the older black grumpy guy, the harried owner, the dude, the hot chick, and the gloomy war vet ( who yes WAS an intentional cliche, poking a rub at all those "I seen stuff" types, so no matter what any previous post may assume, that was the only intentional stereotype) . I suspect at times a reviewer might just not "get it", that is, might be too wrapped up in being a wonderful...critic...that anything is springboard for criticism. In no way am I going to defend the characters as being finely drawn human beings, they're not, but I am going to say I do not need a lecture from anyone here. If Scott Frank wants to bend my ear that's fine.

Now...is this a bad thing or a good thing? My way of looking at this was ( and is) - this was intended to be a special effects horror/action/comedy. Adam, the living snakeman, was the one we feel for in the end. The other characters, while not deep, are there as part of the ensemble, the group we follow. Each pretty much has their own visual look by design and to a degree, a modicum of character. But yeah they're here to make jokes, run, and keep the story moving. In this type of script, to me that's acceptable. It's true there are instances where a horror or sci fi can delve deeper, but I still feel putting likable ( yeah I think they're likable) but not deep characters in the mix is fine for this genre piece.  Could Adam be deepened a bit ? Maybe so - if I do go back and finally give it good overhaul, there may be more that can be done with him, as he is introduced, lets loose the hounds, and then disappears. That's a bit sloppy on my part.

At this point, I'll go ahead and say it was funny the script was so traumatic to two readers that they could not sludge past page 20. That's disappointing and indicates more to me than any issues with the script itself.  Is this a good script?  Maybe a good one with issues, in need of a big rewrite. Is it bad?  Well...it's not as bad as some things we've all read here. But no matter it's issues...the script is readable.  Also let me point out I'm not a "new writer". I loved that tirade "oh here's the problem with New Writers"...am I a great writer? No. But I've been doing it quite a while, off and on.  I understand story and structure - even though this script has unorthodox structure, which will be mentioned below.  

Yep - I agree the script is..lopsided. Something that was never corrected, so I have no defense for it. Going in the intent was to build mystery and expectation : Open with an action scene - introduce characters - by page 13 we have the reveal of Adam, so wow, there's more here than meets the eye - and almost right away we have an antagonistic relationship between Adam and his keeper, foreshadowing bad things in the future - by page 30 , act two has begun already and the main action is underway -

My hope was, the introduction of Adam and hints of other creatures would be mystery enough to keep our attention until hell breaks loose. But yeah I do agree too much time is taken to just get the crew into the plant...I can see it's a slow and methodical in the build up. There's no need for the diner scene. And thank goodness someone pointed out that it really makes no sense for the company to outscource their cleaning...if they're guarding such secrets, heck yes they'd be handling this in house with no outsiders. That never occured to me until I looked at the script to use as the first "script club" entry, and had to laugh. Well...suspend some disbelief, at least until it gets re-written. So yes...the first act is botched in construction, gotta go along with that. The aim was for a slow burn buildup, but general view is that didn't work out.

The mix of critters/creatures...well yeah it's a mismash. I don't see an issue really with having Adam, and then having a biomech dog...the bugs...maybe a bit much and a bit sloppy. The Manster and it's involvement in the story - was always a wrestling match. The original goal was to keep it in shadows, hint at what it could be, then play out in the action coda. That scene was my tip of the hat to the James Bond films in the late 60s and early 70s, where after the main story is over, a henchman comes back for a final attack. That was the inspiration. Now it's not a literal use of that device, more something used as a springboard. The end of the story ends with Adam, but the intent was - in keeping with what was supposed to be an adventuresome tone - to throw in one more scene, one more short thrill ride capper. On another board, people were disappointed there was never a showdown with Adam and the Manster, so was surprised that more here didn't mention that as well. I think 6 of 12 reviewers had brought that up back when it was originally posted at another board.

I like lots of the suggestions, combining Malcolm & Baxter in particular, and think most everyone who commented had valid points. Thanks to all who commented and hope it was a good exercise for everyone involved.

Interesting stuff...very interesting!

"The Script Club" kinda died I guess.  I think the site being up and down pretty much spelled it's doom, and instead of helping with constructive critisism, a few people went into tirades and personal attacks on others thoughts and ideas.

I'm glad you posted this, as I was the one who brought up that a big problem for me was the mere fact that this mega complex was outsourcing their cleanup.  It just didn't make any sense and right from the beginning, I was having trouble in the believabilitgy of everything.  Someone else then shot me down for bringing up something so trivial.

Thinking back on your script now, the things you brought up here make alot of sense, and actually answer some questions I had.  I did think it was very Resident Evilish.  I also thought it was no big deal whether or not your characters were completely developed, cliched, or whatever.

Interesting to see what kinds of comments you'll get back on this.

Too bad the boards were down so much of the time. I think that killed it. Now it's been so long that I don't think I remember enough details about it and as much as I liked it I don't want to read it again.  

Should we try another one or is this it?

Quoted from Grandma Bear Too bad the boards were down so much of the time...Should we try another one or is this it?

Yes, I think the "up and down" boards kept this from really taking off like it might have -- but at 30+ posts I would still count it as a success.

It does sound like Mike got something positive out of it, which was the real point of any of this.  I think we can hang a "closed" sign on this one.

If people are up for another one, Pia, why don't you "host" it -- since it was really kind of your idea to start?

You can wake up the old "Script Club" thread and discuss possible candidates (James' new one springs to mind), and what you might do differently based upon how this one went.

Yeah this a very cool idea.  I wouldn't mind submitting my script for input some wheres down this road.  I'm sorry I never got around to commenting on The Clean up Crew.  I was actually reading another of your scripts, Mike.  Cold Chill.

Quoted from bert You can wake up the old "Script Club" thread and discuss possible candidates (James' new one springs to mind), and what you might do differently based upon how this one went.

Ok... as soon as I find it....  

"It IS an ensemble piece. The intent was to have the most interesting character be Adam. Obviously visually he'd be the most striking, but he was the only one really intended to have an actual arc. Successful or no, that was the idea. The other characters in the crew - someone in the review thread pointed to them as "cannon fodder" - not quite apt, but no, they're not deeply developed characters. In fact, they're intentionally broad - not cliches, but TYPES maybe might be the right description.   On purpose - we have the Asian kid, the older black grumpy guy, the harried owner, the dude, the hot chick, and the gloomy war vet ( who yes WAS an intentional cliche, poking a rub at all those "I seen stuff" types, so no matter what any previous post may assume, that was the only intentional stereotype) ."


I never had the chance to join this thread as every time I tried to get on the site, it was down.

Anyway, I just thought I'd question this idea about the ensemble cast. To me it is contradictory to have an ensemble piece with stereo typical (or "broad") characters. Isn't the whole point of an ensemble cast that the films are character driven and therefore the characters need to be strongly developed, real and  three dimensional?

I think of Reservoir Dogs or even LOTR's.

I'm not criticising you for the attempt, but it seems to me that people often cause major problems for themselves when they experiment with the structure of genre films. I think the decision to go for an ensemble cast in a spoof horror/action film is probably a poor one. It is probably more fitting for a serious drama.

Since I must be stupid because I can't find the original Script Club thread...

I'll post the question here.

Is anyone interested in doing another one? I had planned on reading James new one. Since he's a great contributor at SS, I think it would be a perfect one for the next attempt at this.

Any thoughts?

I'm very interested in getting this going again.  Hopefully this time, we can have a meaningful, helpful discussion without jumping down each other's throats.

What is "James new one"?

Quoted from Grandma Bear I can't find the original Script Club thread...

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-cc/m-1212603825/

Quoted from Dreamscale What is "James new one"?

"Tis the Season", a dark Christmas comedy.

Whatever you select, it should be something other than a horror script.

I'm up for it.

Gabe

OK, I'm in, but I'd much prefer a horror script.  Where do we find it?  What is the agenda, adn how should we proceed?

Quoted from Dreamscale I'd much prefer a horror script.

It can be.  I only offered up James as one suggestion, since the last one was a horror.

Whoever it is, it should be an author who participates on the boards, usually has scripts that do not suck, and often reads more than they get in return.  My thoughts on that, anyway.

Quoted from Dreamscale What is the agenda, adn how should we proceed?

Talk to Pia.  She's the boss this time.  I have not got the time to run one of these right now.

[EDIT:  And move the conversation to the old thread, linked a few posts up.  This thread is for "Clean Up Crew"]

I'd actually even offer up my script, which no one, other than Correnatto has read. I've been leary about throwing it up on here, especially with all the negative reviews I give.

I'd do it though...let me know.

I think you should offer up your script, Dreamscale.   It was a pretty good read and I think it would benifit from having an indept reviewing.

OK, I'm game...if the others are cool with it.  As I said, I'm more than a but leary about this, but I trust that you guys will give me real feedback that will push this script where I want it to go.

Let me know.  If not, that's totally cool.

Thanks Mike for the push...I definitely need it.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, I'm game...if the others are cool with it.

That's cool!

We're doing this one first though...