Quoted from MBCgirl For the most part I understand what some of you are saying, but I think anyone who obviously spent as much time as Dreamscale did at writing this screenplay deserves a lot more input than just talking about the "Chatter" and whether there is too much of it or not.

I can see where you're coming from, but the purpose of this thread is to discuss one element of the script for a bit, and then move into something else.  At this point, it's the dialogue, or "chatter".  We'll eventually move into another aspect at some point.

The actual thread for the script is reserved for comments on the script on the whole, and that's where Dreamscale is actually able to comment back at this time.

I also forgot to tell you earlier...Welcome to the board.

Ahhhhh...that makes sense....I'm a newbie...so didn't realize that.  I stand corrected and more knowledgeable

I will address it after dinner...I'm starving!!!! lol

Thanks for the welcome too!

MBCgirl =)

Not to pile on but more to give examples of where there's extraneous cahtter:  From the scene in the cabin of the airplane to when we enter the bar is about ten pages.  Could (and should) very easily cut to about two or three.  YOu could work the cabin scene, set up the baby/no baby conflict without a word and do it in less than a page.  The entire bagge claim scene should be cut.  I like the catching a snowflake on the tongue buit in the parking lot, but again, could be done with minimum dialogue and in half the space.

Also, when we get in the bar, and the waitress brings the drinks, there's half a page of everyone telling the waitress which drinks are theirs.

Again,. this isn't meant to pile on.  I think it's a common thing with inexperienced screenwirters, and something I'm working through on yet another draft of the screenplay I'm working on.  I feel the need to connect every bit of action with dialogue, or another scene.  

Come in late and get out early.

Hey MBCgirl and Seamus,

Welcome to SS and thanks for chiming in on this.

Seamus, glad you pointed out some real examples.

The dialogue is fairly good, but like we agree on by now, it's too much of it. There are also a lot of characters and their way of speaking sounds very similar. There are several characters who end their sentences with "you/ya know" for example.

I have managed to read up to page 60 so far and have to agree really with the chatter. There really is too much of it and it could really do with being trimmed down some.

But it is not that chatter is bad, the dialogue in most parts is pretty much okay, there is an idea of who these characters are and they have become distinct enough that I am not having difficulty telling them apart. And while Pia makes a valid point about them having a similar way of speaking that does seem to be the case with many of these teen movies in general. But there is just far too much character establishment being shown in dialogue that could just as easily be done with action too. The example about the ordering of drinks is a great one. I tried to think about other movies that have bar 'ensemble' scenes and what would usually happen is that the waitress would arrive at the table with the drinks (we would just assume somebody has bothered to order the drinks). I can see good reasons to show us what people are drinking sometimes, it can help establish character, individual drinks can perhaps point to different personalities. But let the waitress do that in one quick scene.

I think the biggest problem with the chatter is that there is nothing else happening, I mean I am on page 60 and the movie has only just started. An hour is a very long time to sit in the cinema and watch a bunch of kids getting drunk and having small talk. A problem might be that because this opened up as a very chatty screenplay there probably is a need to keep it going otherwise we would start to wonder why everyone has gone quiet. I understand the whole Wolf Creek thing but that film had more happening during the slow build-up. They were driving around the Aussie outback, there was already adventure happening. Here all I have seen so far is a plane journey, a bit of shopping and a bunch of kids getting wasted.

I dislike Danny and Carlie immensely, far too smug and in love with themselves. Some of the dialogue between them at the beginning was just too much. I was going to say more about that but having just got to what I assume is the start of the film proper then maybe there is good reason for that so i will reserve judgement until I have read more. But Danny probably has some of the worst dialogue of anyone, I have just read him entering the shed and he talks about how it would be nice to have a shed like that at home. It just does not feel right at all and I wonder if he felt obliged to put some dialogue in there just for the sake of it. I would have thought an approving nod would say as much in much less time?

I am confident that Jeff could easily knock 20 pages from the beginning of this screenplay and not lose anything from the story. Just by being more economical with the dialogue and using action more to establish character.

But I am interested and despite my thoughts above the characters are fairly well set up know and am looking forward to reading the rest to see how they all (i presume?) meet their grisly ends.

Oh, and kudos should be given for managing to get a hint of girl on girl in there too

SPOILERS

So I finished it.  The payoff doesn't justify killing a kid.  Sorry.  

Here's my question.  Is it you're intention for us to know they'rw the killers at the beginning?  Because they're so creepy, that i knew something was up by the time they got to the bar.  So if you're trying to set that expectation up, than it worked.  But if we're suppossed to be surprised that they're the killers, you need to tone it down a bit.

I really don't get the point of all the flashbacks at the end.  I understand the point of the first one, where they explain things, but most of the rest of them don't really further anything along.

Again, the long middle part in the bar needs to be cut.  It does nothing to advance the story or character.  I do like the story about spring break, and I do like how Jake gets pissed.  Throws some suspicion on him.  

And I just kind of blew the ending, so help me out.  Where they targeting those kids specifically?  And if so, how did they know that they would be in the bar?  

I would do the Xavier scene not as a flashback but as them actually showing up to pick up the money they've been promised.

I'll probably have more, but it's time to go home now.  

Hmmmmmmmm...I still find the dialogue to be realistic...guess I'm standing on this opinion by myself. I find the characters in this script to be real, interesting and each do have their own personalities.  I will delve into this more tomorrow when I have sufficient time to do it justice by pulling out some examples of where I think the script is pretty brilliant actually.  

I DO still hold to my earlier thoughts that the script could be cut down without effecting the overall story and the "writer's" creativity. I'll include some examples of that as well.  

One thing I want to say tonight before heading to bed - is that I watched "Wolfcreek" again (just the first part before everything starts happening).  Honestly, the car scenes are pretty slow and there's very little if anything going on, let alone any kind of action or scenery to speak of...but what does work in this script is that I almost had to keep watching to see where it was going to go...if you know what I mean.  So is that the intended build up of curiosity that the writer was going for???  I don't know...but I think probably...not to mention they were on a very tight budget for making this film!

Here's another example to ponder...the movie "Superbad" which I thought was indicative of it's name...SUPERBAD...I have never heard so much worthless chatter or dialogue and yet this movie made a whopping 100+ million dollars...so who am I to say what works or doesn't work...in general I think movies coming out most recently have all been a bit long...even Batman the Dark Knight.  Ouch!

I will try to throw some constructive criticism for the "chatter" in here tomorrow.  

MBCgirl

  
  I think I have a different definition than others in terms of character development, I don’t think the bar sequence was character development.

  My definition is a challenging and changing of beliefs that cause new, hopefully moral, action. Sure we spend a lot of time with them so I’m familiar with them, which is something you want to do too.

  I don’t think that’s what we got here no one is able to change because no one is challenged. Also, it’s not that they even have to change, but they can still be challenged. I think it’s important that we’re familiar with the characters, which is all I think this sequence does. These scenes aren’t going to seem as long on screen as they do on the page because a lot that’s in the description are things that’ll be described in pretty much the same instance. For example, the description of all the characters in succession would be shown in split second.

  I also think I got a different definition for dialogue. I think that the conversation was weak most spent on drinking and how drunk one is, people may talk like that, but it’s boring. I point to Reservoir Dogs and the tip scene, which has conflict, which is the fastest way to establish not only character but also character relationships, who’s the boss of who. Also it makes the audience think and want to chime in.
  Do people really talk like that? In ‘Pulp Fiction’, Amsterdam, they appear to be talking about nothing yet it’s interesting one because it’s interesting topic the difference between country and culture, and two more importantly is that it comes back up in a more interesting way with the kids. In the bar sequence there was the story about the bouncer, which was good, but felt even that was long. There was some other interesting things, but the ratio compared to lot of drinking, and would be interesting if someone used drinking to help there on goal or to hinders someone else. Shelton mention that Mary and Janelle seemed to be the only interesting two, I agree, it’s obvious why because they appear to be the only ones with a conflict. I think the lesbians, Megan and Nicole, if I remember correctly why could that be revealed in the bar sequence they go to the bathroom and something happens. I mean that’s how you introduce a character.


  I think there’s a debate in itself of “realistic”, MBCgirl mentioned how she thought it was realistic, and the writer is reaching for something similar to Wolf Creek. I think it’s weird, and consider it a bigger mistake, when it comes the bar kids and their dialogue because they repeatedly talk about how drunk they are, which shines a light on number of flaws. It diminishes all their character’s to a note “stereotype” character (unless you induce different type of drunks), it makes you think how unbelievable they are too drink and be so wasted, blah, blah than drive under the harsh weather conditions, and it also doesn’t make for much anticipation in that the how much of a fight these kids can put up if they are as drunk as they say and as much as the writer reminds us. I don’t have a problem with the sequence in the bar being as long as it is, but I don’t think it’s an even trade to long and drawn out for the sake of “realism” than commit and create all of the things I mentioned.


MBCgirl, you know you’re not going to get away with that Dark Knight reference. LOL. No, I just want to say it was a big long, but if you mole it over in your mind in terms of plot every scene was necessary. The only thing they could of did was trim down the action, but it was an action movie too, this is one of the many pitfalls of the action flick is that action stalls a story’s plot.

Movie off the chatter talk I won't to know what people thought about the characters. I really want to know what people think about what I said about them being drunk and whether or not in hurts the characters? and the anticipation, in that they want be able to put up a fight? And why would he mentioned it so much in the dialogue and the description, I'm not talking about "he stubbles to the car", which is ok. But "He's wasted" that's direct tell.

Not to get of topic.


I thought Wolf Creek was OK, but out of that whole bunch that started that movement I thought Hostel had a better idea, High Tension was second best too Saw I. Just so people don't think that I don't get the approach.

The only thing Wolf Creek had going for was that crappy "Based on True Events".

And I will mentioning that logline, again.

Hey Bee, you're right about the tip conversation.  A great example of dialouge working on a bunch of different levels.

And you're spot on about the dialogue in the bar.  It may realistic, and sound like a bunch of drunk kids in a bar.  But dialogue needs to do more.  It needs to advance the plot or give us some insight into character, and this doesn't.  It just keeps circling back to who's drunker.

The one exception is the bouncer bit, which throws some suspicion towards Jake as being the dangerous one.
,

Good comments from everyone here!

BLB, I didn't have that big a problem with them being drunk except for two things. One is that they constantly talk about how drunk they are and second being that they are a little more than past the happy stage. They can barely walk, throwing up and passing out in a car.  That is too much for it too be interesting as a victim. Even a cat could take one of them out without a huge struggle so good point there on their level of drunkenness.

My biggest problem with this script though is what I mentioned earlier. Besides the violent beginning, there's no hint of this being a horror movie anywhere. It could just as well be a drama. Until the shed scene.

  As I understood it, the reason for the slow beginning was to keep the audience wondering what’ll happen next. What I’m trying to point out in the argument about them being drunk is that I don’t expect much from intoxicated and/or inept characters. I just don’t see how that approach works. On hand it’s anticipation, but on the other it’s little evidence to suggest much surprise. I don’t have a problem with them drinking either, but the writer and character’s bring up how waster they are so much, it’s like I’m trying to ignore that for suspension of beliefs sake, but he keep gnawing on it.

I think that a long with the title, genre, premise and first 10 pages a writer enters a social contract with the audience about what the story is going to entail, or more specifically establish it’s genre. So, under that definition in my eyes, it is a horror. I mean I see where you coming from though, Pia.


After reading the script though, I’m wondering why all the withholding when it came to the logline. Did he not want to mention a killer because it was his big reveal or? I don’t know I just don’t get it. I mean after reading the story I’m enlightened, but if it wasn’t for this I’m not sure I read it based on the title or logline.


The story is based on the kills, they are the best part of the script, more so than the reveal, which isn’t that surprising. I’m not going to say I knew they were the killers, but I was like these two are so nice, like he’s trying too hard not to draw suspicion from that you begin to believe the two aren’t the main character’s, yet we’re falling them, why? The possibility that they are bad seeps in. The slow deaths, thudding, the description of the pans, knives going into bodies, the way I imagine them screen is what makes this movie good. I quite enjoyed the later part of the movie. I think it’s a case of the writing being better than the story.

I think that credits clips thing is a tricky thing, it's like you get ready to walk out every ten seconds another scene, another. I don't know tricky.

Appologies for not keeping up with this part.

I'm up to page 73 at this point. Planning to finish later on. But from what I've read so far, there is a lot of slow pacing.

I mentioned in the beginning post that 124 pg script will turn away alot of readers. It should go to 90 or 100 most. Most of the slow pacing is due to Dreamscale developing character. But it takes too long and some of the characters are not unique. It should be cut down to only move the story along. And the characters need to be real enough so that we could feel for them. This applies to the bad characters as well. Psycho, Open Window, they revealed sympathetic bad people.

Danny revealed as a killer came out of left field since I didn't see it coming. There is no hint of this anywhere. (I haven't finished reading, but it makes me think Carlie is either with him or has no idea of what's going on, which will be an interesting angle.) But things should be hinted in the beginning that will help explain the end.

Logline is a tricky thing. It's a middle ground between revealing too much and too little. Especially if this is your first script, you're not going to want to reveal much. It's a mistake that gets us at some point, but it can be fixed after understadning what the script is about and reflecting it on page.

I suggest probably to cut down the number characters to help Dreamscale focus on the main characters arc. If you have too much, everything gets confusing. I didn't try to figure out whose the murderer since their were too many characters to keep eye on. So either delete them or if you find the characters important at least focus on the important ones and then go back and focus on the other characters.

Atmosphere wasn't really scary. It seemed to perfect. Everything was fixed in a timely manner. That is not real world. Everything is never fixed. Some things are but not all. He's got to explore other options of getting these problems solved. What if the teenagers were jerks? What if we meet the teenagers at the highway where the car messed up?

Hope any of this makes sense, I tried to recap alot.

Gabe

I'm reading the script now and enjoying it, but I do have some griefs. One of my overall problems with the script is that there are too many instances of pointless action interrupting the dialogue.

           MARTIN
   You guys skiing?

           CARLIE
   We're gonna be as soon as the slopes
   open tomorrow morning. We can't
   wait. It looks amazing.

She giggles.

           MARTIN
   Oh yeah, it sure was today, but that
   powder's tough, ya know. I'm so
   sore.

We as an audience understand Carlie’s excited about skiing because she just told us she couldn’t wait. Take out that line about giggling, and doesn’t this exchange read much better? There are too many interruptions like that in this script, and that’s probably why the chatter feels lengthy, as others have mentioned.

           CARLIE
   OK then, let's drink! And how 'bout
   some music?

Danny laughs, the others join in.

This sounds decent enough on paper, but in reality, it’s not that funny. All of these people are gonna look pretty stupid (and desperate) laughing their asses off over something as silly as that. This isn’t Austin Powers. Carlie isn’t Dr. Evil here.

A majority of the dialogue reads this way, and it bothers me because these people aren’t comedians. They’re friends.  I know most of them are drunk, but that doesn’t mean they’re gonna slap their knees every time one of them makes a little wisecrack.

Personally, I’m at the point in my friendships that, if one of my buddies makes a little joke, I barely even react to it. I’m accustomed to that type of humor because I hear it so much.

I also understand that Danny and Carlie are new to this crowd, but that doesn’t mean every member of the group will bend over backwards to make them feel welcome.

I just feel that the writer is responsible for the dialogue, and the actor is responsible for how it’s delivered. I don't think the writer should include the reaction unless it’s imperative to the story or the character, and most of the reactions in this script are not.

Just something to think about and discuss.

[still reading...]

Just joining the discussion and I think what most have said is dead on.
Addressing dialogue:   There is an excess, but the good news is that the page count is about 25-30 pp too high anyway.  Meaningless dialogue is like meaningless characters -- they are there to be cut or cut up.

Did anybody have problems keeping track of the characters?  So many people, some who were also addressed by more than one name: Janelle or Janey, Johnny or McD, Jake or Frosty, Lisa or Lees,  Nicole or Nikki, and later Jill Jacks. Whew, a lot of J-names, too.  
And somebody named Big Boy Kusick or Kus?  He gets some character D and isn't even in the story.

I know Jeff was trying to reveal character in the bar scene, while delivering a long, slow buildup to the payoff.
But character development seems to come at the expense of story.
I agree with Mike Shelton that even after all of the bar talk, I still don't feel I knew the characters.
I know their "type" (hot girl, hot head, low self-esteem guy, etc.), but that's it.  What I learn of the characters plays little or no role later in the story.

SPOILER**
Take Jake for example.  He's the star of the barf story/the guy who took a pipe to a Mexican bouncer's head. A regular wild man.  Did anybody think that Jake would be the story's killer?  I didn't.  
I'm asking this because I have a feeling that is where Jeff (the writer) was leading us.  Creating a red herring.
Did anybody think Jake would be the hero?  I also didn't, but thought he would play a bigger part in the battle with the killer.
He's a spontaneous-combustion guy, the toughest in the group.  Remove him and you are left with the weaker characters to fend off the killer.

If Wolf Creek is a sort of model that Jeff is shooting for, there are some big differences.
Location, location, location.
A bar does not equal the Australian Outback.  A bar is a pit stop.  Driving to the craters or whatever the destination, is driving the story forward.  A bar is familiar and friendly.  The Outback is dark and mysterious.  And isolated.
There is no sense of dread or impending doom inside of a bar. So Jeff needs to get his characters out of there sooner than later.

I'll throw out some other topics and see if we can't stimulate talk.

How do you feel about the comparisons to Hostel?  A couple of differences is that Hostel is set in a foreign country, with different laws.  I thought Eli Roth established the rules of the thrill kill in his story.  Greed is at the heart of the industry.  And that the kills were in a controlled environment.  In Jeff's story, we don't have a controlled environment.

SPOILERS***
Any problem with inconsistencies in the Danny-Carlie characters?  They came off as very "Stepford," but I thought that they had killed before.  They seemed very cool and removed (plane scene for example) from the act they were about to commit.  This was their first kill, right?
If it was to be their "first kill," did it seem off-kilter that they would go after a large group of people?

If they have killed before, they wouldn't need Xavier.

I was thinking if Jeff wants to set Danny and Carlie up as potential victims, why not have Carlie pregnant.  Just enough so we see the baby bump.  When was the last time we saw a pregnant woman as a remorseless killer?

And in the flashback scene, I for one wanted Danny or Carlie to blow away Tobias.    Xavier should have slid the gun to them.  It's a test.  If they can't off a child killer, then no ski trip for them.
And I thought their reaction to seeing Tobias getting killed should be more of a rush.

*

However, my gut tells me we're being HAD.  My money is on writer Jeff Bush trying to pull the "wool over our eyes?"
There is a bigger and more dangerous picture in this tale of ski-resort slaughter.  
Xavier, as in X for the unknown.  He's the key. We should be questioning his Intent, his Motivation.  This part needs retooling.    But focusing more on the X-man's role, does the story work better?
Beware world, here comes a new breed of All-American assassins.