All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I know I suggested we'd start this one on Friday, but it seems a little slow'ish on these boards so I thought we might as well start today.
We chose to discuss this script because it is a film in production and it would be fun to read and discuss a professional script and then eventually watch the film and see how it turned out.
I went to Youtube and watched the Twilight Zone episode Death Ship, upon which this is apparently based. (Sorry. I couldn’t resist.) I’m sure the Twilight Zone episode was really riveting at the time. It seems a bit of a jaded idea right now. People will almost certainly figure out the “twist.” Maybe they did something differently with this new one.
I’m going to try to read the script but I have to say, if it’s the same twist, I think audiences may be disappointed.
I've read this so I guess I'll start. I don't really remember the Twilight Zone episode so I can't comment on whether this is similar or not.
For the most part the script seemed like it would make a watchable movie - but then again I'm a sci-fi fan so the subject matter was enough to please me.
I guess the way we usually handle these script club threads is to choose one subject and discuss it. So rather than give all my comments on the script here, I'll bring up the one thing that surprised me the most about the script.
And that was the length of the first act. I could be wrong but I clocked in the end of this act at around pg 25 (or possibly as late as pg 32, depending on your interpretation of a first act) - which seems a bit long to me. I'm sure that the makers of this film with cut out some of the introductory story in order to close that first act sooner.
I’m just about to begin reading the script myself, but before I do, I have to say it’s interesting how mcornetto’s topic consist of a term (First Act – the terms gets away from me) may differ among every single participant. It’ll be interesting to see who thinks what.
So, mcornetto what action or sequence leads you to believe that the first act has ended, and? What action or sequence leads you to believe that the second act has begun?
I think this is a great topic because here at script club part of the job is dissecting the script, which means we each have an idea what a good script consist of. I’d like people not only to comment on what mcornetto suggested but also what events, actions you think should happen in the first act, and where in this particular script do those things happen.
Ta, BLB
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
I just started reading this... I'm reading this, Shelton's and Brea's at the same time so it might take over the weekend to finish. I think I might be insane! ;p
Anyway, I'm near page 20 right now and I do like it, but there sure are a lot of things that would get complaints by readers on these boards if this was written by a regular member.
When it comes to ACT I, I don't really call it that myself, but think of it more as plot point 1 or when something happens that changes the story. Takes it in a different direction if you will. So far I have not encountered that moment, but this script started early on with hinting in small details that something's up with Corvin. That keeps me interested, but I also like the sci-fi stuff.
I'm reading this, Shelton's and Brea's at the same time…
You mean you’re reading both Pimp Juice and Bee Girl? Girl, you’re gonna overdose!
I don’t know when I’ll get to this script. I have to hostess a little get together with one of my husband’s business associates tonight. Hopefully tomorrow or Friday I can get started on it.
"I have to hostess a little get together with one of my husband’s business associates tonight."
Breanne, I know you're smart. This will be the time when you in a subtle, but masterfully cunning way steer the conversation into funding for your movies. With the financial market's collapse you can hint towards investing in these kick ass scripts you have. Convince them it's a lot more attractive than putting money under their mattress.
I mean formal three act. Which means Act I is the setup and includes both the inciting incident and plot point #1. Though thinking about it if you use formal it should be structured so Act I and Act III are both a quarter of the film. I guess 30 pages is about a quarter of the film so that may be about right.
I consider the first act ended when they find the ship. I thought maybe it ended when they first mentioned the mission (which was the earlier page mention) but I changed my mind.
What a coincidence. I was reading scripts by Michael Brandt & Derek Haas - The Courier and Wanted. I came to know about Michael Brandt directing duty, that is Countdown. I started searching for the script... but never thought i had it under my nose hehe.
Thanks for the script first, and let's run with the discussions.
Damn you Pia, why did you choose this script? There are so few things to bitch about!
My main grip would be with the third act, but first things first, Michael already commented on the first act, so let’s go there.
Spoilers below.
You could say the first act ends at the end of page 32 after they notice whose ship they’re looking at. You could even say the act break is a little bit further…
The first act ends once the main conflict and the protagonist goal is introduced.
The conflict here is finding out the dead bodies of their future selves. The dramatic goal is to change their fate.
So I would say the act break happens after they know their terrible fate (i.e. after they find their own bodies). The second act kicks in once the protagonist is actively pursuing his goal.
A thirty something first act is a long first act; I agree with Michael here. But, IMHO, it’s not long enough to say there’s a structure problem.
Sci-fi and fantasy stories usually require longer first acts to establish the setting. Something you don’t need to do if your story takes place right here and now.
I personally think the first act was pretty tight and well written. Pages breezed by (at least for me). Did anyone feel like it dragged? Any boring scenes?
If I was the writer and you put a gun to my head and say “cut something”, I think I would cut the scene where they do physical training, since there’s no conflict there and doesn’t seem to help the story move forward. Loved the scene though (specially the cool training devices). It’s interesting how you can get away with a no conflict scene as long as you’ve got some interesting shit happening.
The only thing I would change about the first act would be the scene where the astronauts are introduced. I felt a little overwhelmed by having so many names and descriptions thrown at my face at once.
Won’t be much of a problem on screen since actor faces are easier to remember than names but… I think the script would read a bit better if the introductions were handed in quotas instead of all at once.
Read this last night. I'm sure I'm going to be standing by myself here, but I thought this was pretty weak in all regards, including the actual writing. I'll comment on the actual discussion in a bit but I do have some general comments I have to make.
First of all, I'm go to on record and say that this movie is going to be a commercial and critical flop, and if the budget is anywhere near where it most likely needs to be, it will lose a ton of money as well.
For me, this just didn't work at all. The characters were cardboard cutouts of characters we've seen a thousand times before. Very little characterization, and almost nothing that made anyone unique, or appealing.
The story, although unique in a few ways, didn't bring much to the table either. I found it quite dull, even though there were so many attempts at high action and the like. It just came off as too much being thrown together, in a sort of "Bang, Bang, Bang" way. The creatures were downright ridiculous and very poorly described (I didn't realize they were using their tongues until near the end). And when different colored creatures were brought in that did differnt things, it was like a video game from the early 90's...WEAK!
Finally, the writing itself...hmmm. If I didn't know better, I'd say this came from an inexperienced, amateur screenwriter. I found many mistakes, in terms of mis spellings, misuse of words, etc. Also quite a few clunky sentences and the like. The action scenes weren't done very visually at all, and I just found the writing overall to be subpar.
Sorry to get off track, but I just felt obliged to throw these comments out there.
Z and Dreamscale, glad to see you participating. NIK, looking forward to read your thoughts.
My own thoughts on the "First Act"...
As mentioned earlier, if this script was written by a regular member here, there would certainly be complaints about the writing style. Wee see, we hear, the camera does this, underlined words and sentences, not to mention all the 'ing words. Having said this though, I can say that I'm totally into this script and because of that I find it to be a fast read. The story had me hooked. I hope that's something we can analyze here and maybe figure out why? Why does this story hold our attention? What is it in this script that keeps us interested. For those of us that the script does work and of course why it did not work for DS for example.
I agree with Z and Michael that the first act may be long, but like Z said, sci-fi's take a little longer to establish the world the story will take place in.
I agree that the excersise scene didn't provide much as far as the story goes, but to me at least, the visuals in a sci-fi like this is part of what makes the film fun to watch so it didn't bother me at all. What bothered me more was that this was supposed to take place about 500 years or so from now and we still have a woman getting pregnant by mistake??? Hello!!! We know how to prevent that from happening now. Mills is supposed to be sooo smart and all that and still this happens? Sorry, but that one detailed really bugged me.
I also agree with Z that introducing the characters like they did here makes it hard to get a handle on all the characters, but as he mentioned, it would be easier to do on film.
I also found it a little bothersome that they were not strapped into some safe seats when entering the atmosphere. Even if takes place far into the future, physics is still physics. I know they encountered a shockwave, but it seems to me if you enter the atmosphere of a new planet, it might be a good idea to be strapped down to something solid.
The story had me hooked. I hope that's something we can analyze here and maybe figure out why? Why does this story hold our attention? What is it in this script that keeps us interested.
Two reasons: Mystery and conflict.
An amateur writer would have explained everything upfront: the need to find another habitable planet, the objective of these guys’ mission, etc. And this would have been done through a quite boring montage with a news reporter coldly spitting a ton of facts.
But here, you jump right into the middle of their mission, without a clue of who these guys are and what they’re looking for. Furthermore, the script opens with the most WTF moment possible, right when then characters are jumping in space and suffering unbearable pain.
From the first page, the first act raises questions. Why the pain? What’s their mission? That’s what kept me turning pages without even noticing that the first act was going on a bit long.
The sci-fi setting also helped; even watching a guy running a treadmill was interesting to watch here.
Amateur scripts usually spend the first fifteen or twenty pages showing how good the main character’s life is. Many writers think that screwing up the protagonist’s life on page 20 gives them carte-blanche to write 19 pages without conflict.
The writers here, bring conflict to the table right away: something’s wrong with Corvin, not everyone agrees with the captain’s decision, the captain’s relationship with his chick hangs by a thread, their ship almost crashes, the probe doesn’t work forcing them to explore an unknown and dangerous planet, etc.
Mystery and conflict is, IMHO, what keeps you turning pages till the act break. And this act break, what they find, is pretty cool; a clear and enticing premise. This is a text book example of High Concept.
What bothered me more was that this was supposed to take place about 500 years or so from now and we still have a woman getting pregnant by mistake??? Hello!!!
Later in the script, Mills has a conversation with Finn that kind of explains this... I think...
I don't know, Z. Until the bodies started showing up, I didn't see too much mystery or conflict (yeah, sure I guess the whole shockwave thing would be considered comflict). The conflict and "mystery"with Corvin was pretty obvious, IMO. Seemed to be lifted straight off of "The Abyss" with Micheal Biehn's character. I wasn't surprised in the least when he started acting odd. As for their mission, again, been there, seen that a hundred times already. Whether or not it was front loaded that this was the general idea doesn't matter. I don't remember exactly when it was made clear that this was their mission, but it didn't come as a surprise to me at all, and was far from unique. And the conflict between Riker and Finn was your standard fare good guy/not so good guy conflict.
I also agree with Pia in that it makes little sense that when entering the alien atmosphhere, no one seemed to be prepared for anything out of the ordinary, as in a rough ride, etc. Also, I don't remember anything about what anyone was wearing when they were going through the worm hole (or whatever it was exactly), but it seemed to me that everyone was just dressed in normal clothes, other wise, I don't think describing Drake as muscular or thick as a tree trunk would make much sense.
I also don't think the shockwave thing was handled well or played out at all believable. It wasn't at all visual for me. Based on what was apparently going on, I think there would be quite a few major injuries, if not actual deaths, but that's just my opinion.
The best part of the opening act for me, was actually the exercise bit, which most don't appreciate, it seems. I actually think it should have been longer and more detailed, because it was indeed interesting, and "cool" in alot of ways. I feel that it's these type of scenes that distinguish futuristic, scifi movies, and add some originality over and above the usual low budget dreck.
I didn't feel that Act 1 was overly long at all, actually. I just didn't think it was at all impressive either. It was far from a page turner for me, and I continually found myself laughing to myself or shaking my head, because I wasn't buying much of anything I was reading, or seeing in my head.
I would also like to add that there is almost something new or exciting, mysterious, interesting or whatever being added in just about every single action paragraph. There are no dull moments. I think that makes a difference.
DreamScale didn't like some of the descriptions. I do and the way I pictured the planet's colors and such was like that place in Contact. Beautiful, but too beautiful, unreal looking.
This was a great story but not a great script. The description was filled with words like F**k, S**t, i mean it looked like a teenager had written it. Don't get me wrong i enjoyed it, but i think the writing could have been (like they say in the script) F@#%*G BETTER. I wonder what could have been the reaction of the member here on the board if one of us had written it?
Anyway, now i'm curious to read the short story by Richard Matheson, and i will search for the TZ episode on youtube.
Glad someone finally sees the light! I thought I was the only one who was not impressed by this thing.
As Nik and Breanne pointed out (and I agree 100%) it was very odd how the writer used fuck and shit in his descriptive text, but very little in the actual dialogue. It comes off as a PG 13 rated movie, without even a hint of sex or nudity, but an R rated script read, based on the meaningless use of swear words for no reason whatsoever.
As I said earlier, and want to re-emphisizet, for me, this came off as a very immature, juvenile, and even amateurish script. Seemed like it was writen by a teenager who doesn't know what relationships are all about. Because, basically, there weren't any in here! Riker and Mills supposedly had this hot and heavy thing going on, but you sure wouldn't know it based on their actions and words. And really, no one seemed to have any real interactions with anyone throughout the entire script.
Glad Bre also saw the ridiculousness of the red creatures, which again, was just a very immature (and cheap!) way to bring in a new beast, without even bringing in a new beast. Just so weak!
As I said earlier, this movie is going to be a total flop, and will lose money hand over fist. To do this right, it's going to cost at least $50 Million. If they bring in any decent level talent, which they most likely will have to, it's going to cost alot more. I don't see this even grossing $40 Million, and it could be alot less.
As Bre hinted at, there are so many far better written and more interesting and unique scripts in here. Too bad Hollywood plays by their own rules.
No no, it's totally okay. This script club thing is a new thing. There are no rules. In the past though we've taken one subject at the time to discuss about a script, but those previous scripts also had their own script threads for regular reviews.
I liked this script and I probably will go see this when it comes out.
I'm glad you/DS and Breanne have your opinions about this script and it would be great if you elaborated on certain elements. If you guys want to move on to plot, or characters, character arcs, emotional decisions, dialogue or whatever that's fine with me.
I'll go back to the first act. IMO, Act 1 is where we meet our characters for the most part. This where they need to be established, find a voice, and relationships need to be defined. I don't believe the writer here was at all successful in this regard. Riker and Mills relationship does not come off as either real or in any way interesting. It seems like hey hardly even know each other the way they communicate.
Many have said that Act 1 feels too long. I guess it really depends where Act 1 actually ends. But for me, Act 1 is too short. I feel like we get to the action of Act 2 too quickly, which takes away from any chance our characters have of being established. I agree that typical scifi movies need a bit more time to establish "the world" they're portraying, so I'd say that Act 1 needed alot more to it, and if it came off as slow, I think it would help in the long run, because I just can't root for anyone here, as I don't feel like I know anyone here.
Let's just talk further about certain aspects of the script.... Bert HELP!!!! I'm being misunderstood every way I turn!!
It’s okay Pia. It’s copied and pasted. I still have it. I can post bits and pieces as they become relevant. Writing stuff out just helps me sort my thoughts, that’s all. It’s not a big deal.
Quoted from Dreamscale
Yeah! Bre, put your post back up! Without it, I'm all alone here! Please, don't leave me liike this!
Haha. I’m not leaving you. I just don’t want to disrupt the order of things. I’m confused about how this works.
So, I’ve only gotten as far as page 50ish. I’ll finish later tonight, but figured I got the first act covered so I’ll comment. I think the fact that Dreamscale, and I guess a few others agree that the story was good, but the writing not proves that nothing beats an interesting story and/or hook. Producer probably think we can work on the details later, by details I mean removing F***, S***, but this idea is a taker.
I’m also not sure that ‘this’ is the particular script that the writer sold or production picked up. Can anyone say for certain? I think that’s important. Because otherwise I can understand why the writer takes this narrator within a story in his description for actor and directors notes. Just a thought.
What I like about the beginning is that prior to where the story begins plenty has happen that we never saw, but creates subtext – Finn joining the crew, Ryker and Corvin’s friendship, Ryker and Mills affair and the Earth being over populated or worse, I’m still not sure. I also like that along with that the dialogue between characters’s picks up where the character in their real life seem to pick up, and not for the audience sake. I mean of course it really does. But it doesn’t seem like just exposition, also with what explain early with things happening prior gives the effect that these people were living before we got this window into their lives and will continue after the window closes, assuming they survive, even if they don’t, I’ll always wonder what of Earth? Will they send another crew after this one? Will they find another planet to inhabit?
Which brings me to something I think the first Act requires and I do think the writer accomplishes, now the matter of whether what they came up is anygood is a different debate, but some stories don’t even have these things… like along with original desire: locate a suitable planet for Earth’s inhabitants, comes motive: the Earth is overpopulated and probably worse, and stakes: if they find a suitable planet they save human race, if they don’t find anything human race won’t survive. Those are big stakes and motives.
I think stories open with an original desire like I explained and then the Act 2 begin when that desire changes after a major revelation. I’d say finding your future self dead is one hell of a revelation. It’s also where the hook begins; this is what sells the story.
Continued....
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
In terms of the exercise scene I loved it, along with the vegetarian snake. It added texture, context. I also thought it was important to establish character mainly, Finn whose exercise was purely mental. I know in the description there’s mention of how cerbal he is, but this is something you can see on screen plus it adds credibility to his character traits, when he’s explaining that he shot Corvin. Even though you don’t like him it makes it easier to believe his analytical decision to shoot Corvin more believable. And then the part where Ryker is like the heart beat didn’t raise above this, first thing I thought was that would be evidence against anybody else, but Finn would be the type of person whose heart rate didn’t jump. Ryker tests him, which takes thinking. So, in some instances where Ryker may seem less well rounded it’s moments like this where he does. He’s a thinking character that’s what you want.
As far as the shockwave and people not being strapped in, I read it as one of co-pilots mentioned the computer didn’t show any atmospheric mumble-jumble reason for them to be strapped in, this came after the shockwave. But it explains why they weren’t strapped in before. At first I thought the same thing, though because that’s common knowledge in entering another planet. But, they didn’t know they were going to be launched into a near future, which I assume what the shockwave was.
Pia, brought up the begin pregnant part I thought, enhances the drama. I also can’t fully justified the stupidity here other than, woman are stupid, joking, calm down totally joking, lol. I love woman.
To answers Pia about why it had you hooked, it was a good hook with a good opening with not only subtext created prior to where the story picks up but also conflict in the beginning, which created more subtext, and which is also the launching pad for the rest of the story, most stories weakness can be tracked back to weak beginnings. What makes a good launching pad isn’t necessarily mystery, which is great, and I think this story has, but it’s dramatic potential. It’s confidence that the write has established his ability to write conflict with the promise of more conflict.
That’s plenty, I think I’ll finish the script. I just had to say something before things went away from Act I. I just thought some people were focusing on budget which is fine, but as an unproduced writer I find it more interesting to figure out why this story is getting produced, what is in this script that people want to put money into it. And believe it will succeed, it may not, but they think it will. I think some of the things I’ve mentioned are valued reasons why it’s getting produced.
All done.
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
Seriously?! You think there are writers here that write "far" better than these A-List pros?! I can't help but smile at that notion. But it's that level of ignorance that keeps many pre-pro writers below-the-line. These comments are very typical of VERY inexperienced writers/readers.
I would say this script and writing easily outranks many of the Nicholl finalist/winning scripts I have read these past few years. And if you consider this writing p!ss poor, well then, placing at top-level contests and getting Hollywood heat should be a walk in the park for you.
As for cursing in the descriptive text, I guess that makes Oscar level writers like John Logan, Frank Darabont, Akiva Goldsman, Tony Gilroy etc "juvenile and amateurish". This clearly indicates that you don't read many professional scripts.
If you can't spot the quality difference in the writing between this and pre-pro scripts within the first 5 pages, then you're obviously not looking at it right.
Just to clarify my own comments, since my name is mentioned in Dreamscale’s quote above, in my own review (which has since been deleted), I think my thoughts were taken as far more negative than I intended. I thought (and said in my review) that there were a lot of positive things about this script. Overall, I liked it.
But I didn’t think it was perfect. I do think it had some problems, including one serious plot hole.
My exact comment with regard to other scripts here at Simply Scripts was this:
I couldn’t help but think of some scripts from some unproduced writers right here at Simply Scripts, whose work I would rather see on the screen.
All I said is that there were some scripts here that I would rather see at the theater than this one. And I stand by that. And you’ve said nothing to make me think there’s anything wrong with that.
If you choose to automatically assume some people are better than you simply because they’re Hollywood insiders, that’s certainly your right. But I don’t agree with you and if that makes me an ignorant, VERY inexperienced writer, then so be it. I can fix that with experience. To me, plot holes are plot holes and on the nose dialogue is on the nose dialogue no matter who writes it.
Hey no problem. I understand what you’re saying. I understand that this is the kind of stuff that sells in Hollywood. I was just giving my honest opinions of the script. I think the kind of people who will go see this film are people who like films like Alien or The Abyss and I think this story is pale by comparison.
As far as success in Hollywood, I don’t know if an unknown could even get this script read, much less sold. Assuming it was read, I think whether it sold or not would depend on other factors, such as the current market.
My personal view is that it basically takes talent, perseverance, and opportunities to succeed. Talent can be honed. Perseverance is something where I think a lot of people fail. You just have to keep trying. But opportunities are sadly not entirely within our control. So I don’t think success is entirely up to the individual. I know successful people always like to say that you can accomplish anything you set your mind to but quite frankly that’s easy to say after you succeed. To some degree I do think luck or whatever you want to call it plays a role. But I also think there are things to do to maximize one’s chances, such as being prepared for opportunities if and when they arise. That kind of goes back to perseverance. But then I’m speaking from the viewpoint of a failure.
In any event, I think there’s an enormous amount to be learned from reading this script. And I for one will take away from it everything I can.
Wow, I had a feeling I'd get something back like this.
So, AnotherWriter, you're telling me that you think this is a well written, great, pro script, huh? You think it's a unique, intriguing, and entertaining idea, like nothing you've ever seen before? You think it's well put together? Good characterization? Believable relationships? Strong, visuallly written action segments? How about those fearsome creatures? Scary stuff, huh? Did you like the red ones, yellow ones, or blue ones the best (I'm sorry, I think there were also some striped ones, weren't there?)?
Whether or not you or anyone else thinks this is good, in no way means that it's better than something else, just because it's a "produced" script, from a "professional" screenwriter. I'm curious what you will say when this thing bombs at the box office. How many movies that are released (even with big budgets) actually have "good" or solid screenplays behind them, anyway? Not many, really.
As Bre said (and I don't mean to put words into her mouth), this thing wouldn't go anywhere if it came from an unknown writer. It would be shitcanned before anyone even knew what it was about. Being a successful writer definitely involves some inherent talent, but also alot of luck. You think that every single screenplay written by produced, professional screenwriters are great, just because they wrote them? Look at the highs and lows of Joe Eszterhas, for instance. Obviously we could all name numerous writers who have written great scripts, as well as horrid ones. And there's also many pro writers who've written nothing but garbage...c'mon, man, get real.
Let's hear some things that are so great about this script. I'm an inexperienced, frustrated newbie who wants to learn from the masters. Please, enlighten me.
Breanne - I think you should have left your review. It was insightful and brought up many valid points. I especially would like to agree with you about the rope.
I have to agree that this isn't the best written script I've read. Too many times during the script his asides and choice of language took me out of the story. The fact that it is getting produced and others aren't simply indicates to me that someone somewhere along the line who was able to greenlight it was caught by the story. Either that or they thought it would make money either because of the content or because of who was attached to it.
Was I caught by the story? Not really. Sure I would enjoy watching it because I like sci-fi. But I have to agree this script had it's plot holes and weak points. I thought the Corvin bit at the beginning was too obvious and underexplained. I also thought the relationship between Ryker and Mills was not clear until much later in the script than it should have been. And that whole thing with the little pill seemed to be little more than pro-life propaganda.
The characters in this script were not the highpoint but certainly the world the writer created was. But even that was flawed. The different creatures that were generated by the hook ants were just too convenient. Far better to take the ant analogy further and have them overcome their problems by their ingenuity and their hive nature. That would have been much more frightening.
It's been a hard couple of days because I've been stressing over my kitty cat, Merlin. He's been sick with that urological syndrome, but it had resolved itself the last time.
I couldn't have took him in yesterday really because there was a tanker truck that flipped and another truck that closed our big highway-- the #2 from the morning until late at night and the traffic was being diverted onto the small 2A that I take into Olds. It was so bad that I was travelling 20 miles an hour-- if I was traveling at all because there was a lot of stopping.
Anyways, I took him in today and he's back home now and feeling better already. He's on antibiotics because he had a bladder infection. Now, I've got him on a special diet to minimize the development of crystals which he's been prone to. I feel like I can work again finally; so I'll get to reading this one this weekend.
Pia, you're not insane; you're passionate and this is something to be admired.
Regarding the little disagreement about this script, I lack the ability to get my point across a lot of the time so please forgive me if I don't accomplish that here either. I read a LOT of scripts. Some produced, some non produced (pre-pro). I've read some really great ones and some REALLY bad ones. I may not be able to tell you exactly why, I think Mr. Z and Another Writer comes closest to my views, but regardless of writing style and everything else, there was something about this script that kept my attention from page one and that's something that is often missing in the non pro scripts. I think that might be something that H-wood readers saw too...
Good job Cornetto, I think you're right on. I'm in complete agreement with ya. And the fact that you're a scifi fan, makes your comments even more appropriate. Bottom line that I agree with, is that this script, or maybe story is the better way to make this point, isn't that interesting or "great". Nothing that will make this commercially successful, IMO.
Pia, as I said earlier, and always will say, everyone has their own opinion on everything, be it a script, a painting, a song, whatever. It comes down to personal choice, or opinion, and that's what makes the world go round! Nothing wrong with differing view points, cause we're all gonna have them.
Sorry for my earlier rant, but that AnotherWriter took things to a different level, and a level that we don't need to go to. We're all just offering our own opinions here and that makes for good discussion. No need to make any universal assumptions or attacks, based on what someone likes or doesn't like. I really don't appreciate the comments made, and think they were way out of line.
I've tried to back up everything I've said with examples, and if someone wants to add opposing viewpoints, that's totally cool, as that's what this Script Club stuff is all about.
I just hope that everyone in here bases their opinions on the source material, and not read in that because it's a produced screenplay from a professional screenwriter that it's "great". There are so many examples of produced scripts from pro writers that are downright terrible, and that is a fact that cannot be argued.
I say we move on to another aspect of this script...what do you think people?
Hope you're all cool with what I'm saying and where I'm coming from.
Seriously?! You think there are writers here that write "far" better than these A-List pros?! I can't help but smile at that notion.
If you read scripts here, you would already know the answer which is F@#$%&G YEEESSS. Sorry i got carried away hehe. Man, leave that Worldplay article we all know them, and tell me this if i'm right "Screenplay is visual writing" or this is a notion that is used in Europe. Now, where in God's name where there visuals. There was more like "He know there is no f*****g way out" gimme a break please.
And read some of Mr.Z scripts which are great in visuals and everything. Z for me is far better than those guys. And another question to you: Stephen Gregg & Scott Burn, what other have they done????? Are they really pro? Because the pro which is Michael Brandt said in a podcast these boys came with these idea to us, and they were about to make a rewrite or something. Be realistic. Give this script to Terry Rossio and you'll probably see another column at worldplay . Screenplay is visual storytelling.
Now another thing you guys, did you notice there is not Computer that talks in the ship? This is like the thing with the belts when they enter in the planet's atmosphere
Well finally got round to reading this today from my sickbed - a really severe case of Man flu (i.e a slight cold but I am milking it for all it has got! )
I tend to think the writing in a screenplay is like a picture frame, its existence should be almost invisible to my conscious. If anyone has anything at all, good or bad, to say about the writing style then I would maybe think that the writer has not done their job 100% correctly. A great picture needs a plain frame, while an overly ornate or detailed frame might actually be trying to compensate for an inferior painting. I might be wrong in that, but it makes sense to me anyway, if the story and structure is strong enough then we really do not need the writing getting in the way of telling us the story. I think this writer did a good enough job, I read this screenplay and the action just flowed from page to page and only a couple of times do I remember being pulled out of the story or stopping to think about something the writer said - more on that later. So I can only say that this was for the most part a nicely framed screenplay. It is worth noting however that i use swear words in my language and the really weird thing is not once did I notice any swear words in this script! How odd? I am only aware of it because of the comments on here.
Anyway, None of that probably makes any sense and you lot are probably thinking what the hell am I on? Haha, maybe I am a little doped up at the moment with lemsips. Anyway enough of the frame and onto the painting...
First of all, and nobody I think has mentioned this yet, what about the title? I think it is pretty crap as far as titles goes. I can see it related to the time counting down to when they died in the previous time, but i don't know, surely a better title could be found that sums up this movie more nicely. I mean, Countdown could really just be some mindless sci-fi action flick with Claude Van Dam in it. Anyway, that was my first thought when I finished reading it.
Just reading back on the comments I would agree fully that Act One ends on page 32 with them revealing the name of the "other" ship. I don't think it is when they find their own bodies, finding their own ship is the first major plot point and thus the end of the act. I would say the Second Act ends with the ship taking off again in an attempt to go and get help. The screenplay in this regard is perfectly paced with each act being very close to a third of the script in length. The inciting incident should appear very early in the script and this one is probably a little late coming on page 7, but it is the moment they realise that the probe is faulty and means they must land on the planet "blind". As people have already said I think there is slightly different rules for Sci-Fi and the initial set-up is often a bit longer as we are establishing a world that is unfamiliar to us, so page 7 seems a good time to introduce us to what the plot of the movie for the first time. Though it is worth noting that in this case I am not sure the writer has given us a world unfamiliar to us at all really, there is nothing about the ship that we have not already seen. This is hardly Arthur C Clarke here, we are not breaking new ground, but it certainly does help us quickly find our feet. Saying that though, the exercise sequence was well done and original but is really just a set piece and if I was to be cynical I would say it provides a nice opportunity to get some "Nike space gear" product placement into the movie. In fact if someone had told me that the studio has asked for this scene to be added primarily for that reason I would have little trouble believing it .
And here lies my first problem, at the top of page 7 we have Finn turning into Basil Exposition and giving us the plot in a nice tidy package by explaining it to the crew. I cringed when I read that and think it is lazy writing. You would probably get away with it in an episode of CSI Miami but I would like to think that an experienced screenwriter would be able to handle exposition in a better way than this. Am I really expected to believe that he is saying something the crew really do not know already? This could have been much better as a conversation, maybe one of the crew asking "so how many probes have they sent out now", "ten thousand? wow, never realized it was that many. ten thousand and only four of them found a planet with hope?, never ceases to amaze me how big this universe is" etc.. etc.. You could easily get the same amount of information to the reader/viewer but make it a little more realistic.
That, plus the title and one or two other things in the screenplay make me think that this is going to be marketed as more of a mainstream action flick rather than a sci-fi thriller/drama. I might be wrong but you would expect dialogue like that in an action movie. And looking at the writers C.V. that would certainly make sense.
Sticking to the first act I think that once we get the inciting incident out of the way then the build up and establishing of character is handled fairly well. It does indeed follow a basic and expected formula, I would hesitate to use the word cliche, but all the ingredients are there as one would expect. The wise and experienced captain, the love interest, the Company man who is on the ship to make sure that orders are followed. There is a black woman, an asian man and an East Indian woman to make sure all out bases are covered with regard to race but of course our 3 main characters are all white. This does cause me a problem by the way, I would only ever specify a characters race in a screenplay if it was important to the plot that that person was a certain race, I really do not understand why the character introductions tell us the race of the three people who are not Caucasian, are we saying that a black actor cannot play Ryker or Finn? Is there really any reason given that either of these two cannot be black?
But the first act gives us a good premise, there is an original idea going on here but it is wrapped up in familiarity, anyone who has seen Alien/s or Sunshine knows this world already, it is not difficult to sell the set-up to the viewer and therefore we can concentrate on unravelling the plot. This is clearly a screenwriter who has read Syd Field, as has been discussed, all the plot points are there, inciting incident etc.. and he even produces an excellent piece of conflict early on with the Corvin storylne and in the process delivers us an antagonist nice and early. I say an antagonist because obviously as the story progresses we realize that Finn is not really the antagonist of the movie at all, but it is important I think that we have one during the first half of the movie and Finn is a good stand-in. Most people who watch Sci-Fi and have an awareness of the genre will know that usually the antagonist turns out to be the planet they are on, or the alien they have found and I while I never did believe than Finn was really the antagonist of the story it certainly needed him to be one for the first 50 or so pages. While Finn's character was incredibly cliched and nothing we have not already seen in Aliens it was still well done and without it this would have been quite a tiresome and boring first act. - Haha, a bit like this post time to wrap it up I think.
I just want to add that I think this thread has been brilliant so far, It is exactly what I had hoped the script club would be like. I like probably everyone on here have read the books but I always had problems with them. I hate the whole idea of writing by numbers and Syd Field always makes me feel exactly like that. But as this script clearly highlights there is probably nothing more important that how a screenplay is structured and pieced together. You may say the story is the most important thing, I think that only applies to great films. I think most of what Hollywood churns out are not great films with great stories but because they are written to the formula can still be very entertaining and will make money. My first goal is to write screenplays that sell, my overall goal is to write great screenplays but I do not believe that the former is dependent on the latter.
This is not a great screenplay in the grand scheme of things, the story was not that great and I doubt it will make a really great movie. But despite one or two issues I have with it it is a well written screenplay and there is no reason not to think this movie will go on and make it's money. If someone on these boards had written it I would certainly have heaped praise on them for their technical ability to craft a script that would be certain to sell as well as a story that while being pretty average was engaging enough to make me want to keep reading. Despite what people are saying there is very little on these boards that could be considered in the same class as this script as far as screenwriting craft goes. I could maybe go along with the idea that there are one or two better writers on here, but not screenwriters, i think there are some people who are getting close though.
Clearly, there are two schools of thought, and they’ll reach an agreement the day hell freezes.
But since it has been brought up, for the record, I’ll say I’m with Anotherwriter on this one. I think the writing style was pretty good. I won’t try to explain why I think this nor I will try to convince anyone about my point of view; I think this horse has been beaten to death in the thread linked above.
Quoted from Murphy
but i don't know, surely a better title could be found that sums up this movie more nicely.
You know, while the title doesn’t bother me, I agree with you. I think they need to find a title that conveys something more specific of this world. Like “Minority Report” in Tom Cruise’s movie.
Quoted from Murphy
And here lies my first problem, at the top of page 7 we have Finn turning into Basil Exposition and giving us the plot in a nice tidy package by explaining it to the crew. I cringed when I read that and think it is lazy writing.
Overall, I think the exposition was well handed, but I agree with you here. I also had the feeling that Finn was spitting out information that the rest of the crew should know already (so it was for the audience’s benefit). This bit could definitely use a polish.
Quoted from Murphy
This does cause me a problem by the way, I would only ever specify a characters race in a screenplay if it was important to the plot that that person was a certain race
I might be wrong, but I think these characters were given different races in order to help the reader visualise them. It would be a bitch to tell apart these guys from each other if the whole crew was formed by young good looking Caucasians.
Quoted from Murphy
are we saying that a black actor cannot play Ryker or Finn?
Something tells me that if Denzel shows interest in playing Ryker, his character would automatically change colors.
Quoted from Murphy
I say an antagonist because obviously as the story progresses we realize that Finn is not really the antagonist of the movie at all
This is an interesting angle. I think this script shows that while antagonists are usually necessary to sustain the dramatic tension, the antagonist doesn’t have to be a person. It could be a force.
The antagonist here, IMHO, is fate. It’s an invisible antagonist, but it’s definitely there. That’s what the characters are fighting against. Not the first time I see this approach (Final Destination, anyone?).
Question to our hostess: Can we officially move to the second act?
I’m sorry. I’m confused as to how this whole thing works. I thought we discussed particular aspects of the story at a time. It appears we discuss entire acts at a time? Now it appears we’re moving on from that. To me this has been a confusing discussion.
Are we not supposed to mention format in any way? If not, then why are we discussing story structure, which is format?
The only mention I made of his writing style was that a couple of techniques he used got annoying. It wasn’t a big deal. If we want to skip that stuff then fine. But on the nose dialogue and poor character development isn’t a matter of writing style. That’s format.
Having a great idea for a story is one thing. How to tell a story in a compelling way is another. Those two are inseparable for telling a great story. Story structure is format though.
And by format, no I’m not talking about this “rules” silliness. I don’t even know where that shit came from or why anyone would waste their time talking about it. All I care about is a great story and the best way to tell it. The way you tell it is format.
Now with regard to Countdown, I think the story is great. But I don’t think it’s told entirely the best way it could be told. And I think GM has a great point here:
Quoted from Murphy
And here lies my first problem, at the top of page 7 we have Finn turning into Basil Exposition and giving us the plot in a nice tidy package by explaining it to the crew. I cringed when I read that and think it is lazy writing…Am I really expected to believe that he is saying something the crew really do not know already? This could have been much better as a conversation, maybe one of the crew asking "so how many probes have they sent out now", "ten thousand? wow, never realized it was that many. ten thousand and only four of them found a planet with hope?, never ceases to amaze me how big this universe is" etc.. etc.. You could easily get the same amount of information to the reader/viewer but make it a little more realistic.
This is not a matter of the author’s writing style. This is poor storytelling. GM said it was lazy writing and he’s absolutely right. It is lazy writing. That’s not an attack on the author’s style or the author himself. We’ve all been guilty of it at some time or another. It’s a problem for all writers.
The problem here is that he has Finn speak very contrived dialogue while his other characters need to be better developed. The problem is that I like GM’s suggested dialogue better than the dialogue in the actual script. The writer could have divided this information up over the other characters and taken the opportunity to differentiate his characters personality wise as well as present more credible dialogue and emerging relationships.
Breanne... welcome to the club... I'm confused too. This is something sort of new here so there are no rules really. In the past we've discussed different aspects of the scripts. Usually what happens is that something sticks out and creates more discussion than other areas. In SC 2 it was the darkness of the script and if it work as humor or not. In SC 3 it was the long bar scene with lots and lots of dialogue that could be trimmed. In this case we seem to have got stuck on format. I know what you mean when you refer to format, so that's fine. Personally I hope that we can at least move past the problems with the writing itself in this script. As I mentioned early on in this thread, if this was posted by a non-pro member here at SS, the author would get slammed for a lot of those errors.
Maybe we can move on to ACT II and III and talk about the plot some more regarding the entire script. Where the mid point, end of act 2 and so on are and if they are strong/effective enough or whatever. Or whatever you guys want.
Geez, I sound like the weakest hostess ever... can I get you guys something to drink. (that usually works)
We can go in any direction you guys want to take this, but for me, going over the various Acts, isn't accomplishing much. I'd much rather discuss the writing format, the characterization, the story, the action scenes, the description, etc.
I'll sit back and wait for someone to get us back on some sort of track.
Half time... Here you go Jeff. A double shot of Jäger. Let me know if I can get you anything else...
I may suck as the SC hostess, but I do know hot to keep people happy with food and drinks. I'm pretty good at parties.
Back to business...
Okay we don't have to talk about specific acts, but I have a question. I really enjoyed this script (except for the creatures) I thought it was well plotted and and exciting. My question is in regard to the action. This script, IMHO is relentless, non-stop action in act 2 and 3. Every page something new pops up causing more stress, fear and urgency. If this would play out on film as one page/minute that would mean roughly 80 minutes of action. Is that too much? Don't we need to come up for a breather every now and then?
Feel free to chime in on that. We can also talk about character arcs. To me it seemed Finn was the only one who really changed. I guess Elster did as well even if a bit late. And like Mr. Z said, without the racial descriptions, how would we tell the characters apart. They all acted very even for the most part and no one really had any distinct language characteristics.
I must have typed while you posted your comment because I missed it at first.
To me what makes this one a "winner" is that there are no dead moments what so ever. Almost every single line of dialogue, every action paragraph moves the story forward. The action and tension grows constantly. Are there things that could be improved? Absolutely, but for me at least, this one was a page turner...
To me what makes this one a "winner" is that there are no dead moments what so ever. Almost every single line of dialogue, every action paragraph moves the story forward. The action and tension grows constantly. Are there things that could be improved? Absolutely, but for me at least, this one was a page turner...
See, it had dead moments for me in the beginning. I felt the beginning was rocky. But then after it kicked in, I agree with you that it moved along. But I also think sometimes the action was muddled.
So why do you (anyone, not just Pia) think it sold? Do you think it was the premise?
I do like the premise. I like the story of people finding their own bodies and trying to figure out how to prevent their own deaths or alter their future. Even in the old Twilight Zone episode this is based on, it was a powerful moment when the astronauts found their own bodies.
I also liked the sort of unfolding murder mystery feel, although that never really played out. It never really went that direction (and I kind of hoped it would) but I still found the possibility intriguing.
Ultimately I don’t think they took full advantage of the premise. And in many ways, the creatures detracted from the story. I also think this script is clearly doctored and suffers from obviously different writing voices at different times. I think some of the action was unclear and I don’t think it reached its full potential.
I liked the sort of claustrophobic sense to it, the astronauts all sort of “stuck together” in this confusing world. And I think that makes it cheaper to produce than beginning the story on Earth and learning about the population problem firsthand. However, I didn’t feel we got to know enough about the characters.
In fact, I’m kind of torn about whether or not I think it should begin on Earth. On the one hand, I kind of like the claustrophobic sense that these people are all out here alone far from home. On the other, their motivations are never quite clear. Other than Ryker and Mills having a relationship and Kwon’s message to his loved one, we never hear anything about any families for these astronauts. I think that causes them to come off as one dimensional.
I think the character introductions could have been clearer although I can completely sympathize with the difficulty here. The setup is probably the hardest part of any script and introducing nine characters in one location is a very difficult task. Honestly, they did a pretty good job under the circumstances.
I did have to write the characters' names down and basic descriptions to keep them separate as the story progressed. On screen, the visual differences would certainly help with that. But I do think the characters could have been differentiated more with their personalities. The Daya character turned out to have a very strong commitment to mission and goal. I wish that had shown up earlier for her character.
As it turns out, I thought the Daya character was a better female character than Mills. So in the early stages, I think it would be important to establish both Mills and Ryker as strong main characters.
I found Ryker and Mills both too weak to really carry this film. I never felt Ryker was really established as a strong leader in those early pages. And I think the story would benefit from that.
Now with the Mills character, I’m going to state something I’ve found generally true of all writers. When it comes to the opposite gender, characters often come off as idealized more than realistic. I felt Mills suffered from this trait. She seemed to be an idealized version of male expectations for women. And in those cases, often the writer uses some outside influence in lieu of genuine character flaws. For example; Mills gets upset over Ryker’s promotion. That certainly helps create some dramatic tension but it’s not really a character flaw.
I felt the relationship between Ryker and Mills should have been more substantially established. A look at the beginning in which the writer describes, “Clearly there’s something between these two,” isn’t enough for me. Nor does it help me sympathize with their characters. I felt their characters and their relationship were too weak initially. I could have forgotten that if they had progressed more fully. But they didn’t. In my opinion, their relationship stayed weak throughout the story.
I felt the Finn character was…well….hmmm….kind of a cross between an informer and the big bad corporate villain. Of course, he later turned out to be not quite so. I actually like that his character remained so enigmatic throughout and I also like the way he was sort of “above the law.” I felt that created a lot of unpredictability and added freshness.
I think his character suffered a little from having so many writers tinker with the script. Sometimes he seemed to wax philosophical but then he never really gets too deep.
A couple of times, his dialogue got too contrived, but overall, he remained fairly enigmatic.
The exercise scene didn’t move the story forward. Maybe it was a bit too long. It was okay but it did come off to me as a bit of an attempt to mimic 2001. I was okay with it but was disappointed to see so much effort put into that scene while character development opportunities were being passed up.
The Corvin character - whom we barely get to know - is pretty much just a plot device. I’m not sure what they really could have done with him though. He had a purpose and he served it. I almost forgot about him until the end.
Since Ryker, Mills, and Finn turned out to be the main characters who would later make the most important decision in the story, I think their development should have been more thorough. I think we should have learned a little more about their back stories.
Later in the story, there were some really good action sequences and some good writing that I really felt. I didn’t get any of that in the set up of the story. At times I felt it really showed that different writers worked on this because it seemed to change in tone after the beginning.
So what was it? The Premise? Did the good just outweigh the bad for whatever executive gave the go ahead? Was it strictly business? Did they just think they could market it to teenagers and make some money?
We can also talk about character arcs. To me it seemed Finn was the only one who really changed.
I am not sure anyone changed, I think the only thing that worked out for Finn is that the crew found another fight that was a much bigger one than Finn. People tend to band together and overcome their differences when fighting something much bigger and I think that is what happened with Finn. I don't think you necessarily change as a person, your priorities just change slightly. Besides, Finn was in the right all along really, he was only cast as the early antagonist because he pi$$ed off our hero, not that he was bad in any real way.
So no character arcs for me at all, as Pia said as soon as we reach the first plot point we get 80 pages of non stop action and heroics from our hero. There is nothing much else going on here, what you see is really what you get.
.So what was it? The Premise? Did the good just outweigh the bad for whatever executive gave the go ahead? Was it strictly business? Did they just think they could market it to teenagers and make some money?
So when this script was pitched for the Script Club I was very interested, A story by Richard Matheson, an early Twilight Zone episode, two ingredients for what could be a really interesting movie. Matheson also wrote the book that Omega Man / I am Legend was based on. I liked Omega Man, I did not really like I am Legend really, and for very similar reasons to this.
From the outset this script has almost certainly been crafted with a big budget action movie in mind, this is a popcorn movie and will get bums on seats. Personally I would probably not go see the movie unless there was nothing else showing, not my cup of tea at all, but it will no doubt make money and do alright. I personally think a waste of a good premise. But like I said earlier, I am not saying it is a bad script, for what is expected of it then it is a good script, just not a script for a movie that I would really want to see.
I am not sure anyone changed,...So no character arcs for me at all,...
This was also a problem for me. I didn’t feel any of the characters really went through any sort of transformation.
Maybe that’s where the non stop action became a liability. It essentially caused everyone to be under stress incessantly and hindered any further development.
Maybe Finn and Daya should have been the main characters.
So why do you (anyone, not just Pia) think it sold? Do you think it was the premise?
for me it was a lot of things... and they worked well together. I admit I LOVE sci-fi, especially anything to do with space. I was intrigued by the premise, thought the "mystery" revealed itself at a steady pace, action was great, something new added all the time. Just when I thought they had figured something out, had a solution, something else entered the scene.
I agree the characters for the most part were flat, but I found myself not really caring. I was too caught up in the plot and action.
I liked how they are forced to band together while distrust against each other grows. The creatures almost become a side thing.
(I'll respond to the rest later, I'm in the middle of a football "high".)
Gary,
Finn to me changed a lot. He goes from being this semi-villain government type to smug asshole who thinks none of this will affect him, then when they find his corpse he totally changes his tune and becomes one of the good guys. At least that's how I saw it.
…for me it was a lot of things... and they worked well together. I admit I LOVE sci-fi, especially anything to do with space. I was intrigued by the premise, thought the "mystery" revealed itself at a steady pace, action was great, something new added all the time. Just when I thought they had figured something out, had a solution, something else entered the scene.
I agree the characters for the most part were flat, but I found myself not really caring. I was too caught up in the plot and action.
I liked how they are forced to band together while distrust against each other grows. The creatures almost become a side thing.
Oh I love sci-fi too. I wrote a sci-fi feature length script. What I’m trying to figure out is why this story is so much better than mine; why an executive would think this movie would do better at the theater than mine. Mine had action, blood and guts. No monsters though. And personally I think mine was more inventive with the imagery and the devices than this one.
I’m preparing to revise my own script and I’m trying to figure out what makes this script superior. I’m just trying to get the most out of this.
So thanks for your response.
If there’s anyone out there who’s read this script Countdown and has also read my sci-fi script Kill the Person Next to You, I would love to hear your thoughts on how mine can become more salable. Other than the suggestions that had already been made.
Quoted from Murphy
So when this script was pitched for the Script Club I was very interested, A story by Richard Matheson, an early Twilight Zone episode, two ingredients for what could be a really interesting movie. Matheson also wrote the book that Omega Man / I am Legend was based on. I liked Omega Man, I did not really like I am Legend really, and for very similar reasons to this.
So I wonder how much of this script’s appeal was in the name Richard Matheson. This makes me wonder if the premise didn’t sell initially and then two pros were hired to punch it up.
Ok, I'm going to give my comments before I read any so I'm not swayed by opinions.
Some of the obvious problems in the script such as writing what can't be filmed and writing in camera directions can probably be forgiven because we're apparently dealing with professionals who've paid there dues and can do whatever the hell they want. (Did I just say that?)
Well, that's the way it feels to me anyways. The way I feel about this script is that it's a bit paint by numbers-- but hey-- if paint by numbers works-- then why not use it. The only thing is that I felt like this might have been a Star Trek but with different names plugged in. For all I know, that's what they did. But really, the only reason I'm saying that is because I'm supposed to criticize and so if I've got to-- then this is where the fault lies as far as I'm concerned.
I just didn't feel like there was anything really new here and the character development (what little there was) just seemed to exist for the sake of the movie.
...and yet, I think that the script delivered its "thriller" promise and it needs to be applauded for that. And afterall-- the truth is that thrillers aren't always meant to be beefed up on the character side anyways.
At first, I found the underlining irritating, but I think that's just a matter of the style that was chosen.
Some of my notes:
Camera directions:
Close on.
Widen to see.
There's nothing wrong with this if you're a pro and already in the biz, but I would caution writers to try and write in such a way that the director can shoot the scene the way he wants.
I think the fact that a woman lies there in agony is enough to tell the story.
>is holding it back
Should read just:
holds it back
I don't know why "Bald" is put into its own distinct sentence when it could go along with the rest of the character intro. Seems strange to me.
Well-- there's a brilliant way to begin dialogue: Fuck. It really does work. Maybe I should try that.
>Elser's an overachiever, a copilot at 21 thanks to quick wits, quicker reflexes. How do you film that?
How does Torrance know-- by simply looking at the slug-- that the mucus he's leaving behind is fertilizing the plant?
>where they all shared
Should be "share".
I didn't get how you could see a missing lock of hair from an entirely thick head of woman's hair-- and to check DNA all you need is a single strand.
I have a question: What are they eating on this planet? What are they drinking? ... ok, finally we see (settle yourself- this is only a little itty bitty crit) Fin eating an energy bar, but I guess thrillers are meant to thrill and eating and drinking aren't too thrilling. This is actually a good thing for everyone to keep in mind no matter what they're writing. Every scene needs to fulfill the purpose of the "great goal" of the movie and if a dinner sequence fits, then that's great, but if not then: Feh!
My favorite scene was the one with Daya working with that Firefly/mosquito in her eye. I think this was really good and it showed how an insignificant bug can make a BIG difference!
I think the script did well with the sound effects and also with writing the action. Writing action is a difficult thing because it doesn't always read so great compared to its movie form; so I have to give a thumbs up there. I really admire anyone who can write action that moves us along but doesn't bombard us on the page.
Ok, that's it for now.
I'm going to take a look at some of the other comments and find insight there.
I’m preparing to revise my own script and I’m trying to figure out what makes this script superior. I’m just trying to get the most out of this.
I didn't read your sci-fi script but still I probably wouldn't call this script superior. What I would call it is more marketable. And that likely doesn't have much to do with your writing or your script - it mostly comes from name-recognition. This script automatically had Matheson attached, once Brandt came on board it was probably a given that the script would be green-lighted. No matter what changes you make to your script it isn't going to give it name-recognition so don't knock yourself about over it.
Though to add some fuel to the discussion, one of the main differences I find between the produced and unproduced scripts is that the produced scripts don't seem to care about asides from the writer. In a number of cases in this script (and others) I have noticed the writer flat out stating something about a characters internal stuggle or something "we" see or don't see or just general notes. They could care less if they distract us. I think their intent is to make their vision as clear as possible for people reading and their expectations of the readers level of understanding is low.
Read this last night. I'm sure I'm going to be standing by myself here, but I thought this was pretty weak in all regards, including the actual writing. I'll comment on the actual discussion in a bit but I do have some general comments I have to make.
First of all, I'm go to on record and say that this movie is going to be a commercial and critical flop, and if the budget is anywhere near where it most likely needs to be, it will lose a ton of money as well.
For me, this just didn't work at all. The characters were cardboard cutouts of characters we've seen a thousand times before. Very little characterization, and almost nothing that made anyone unique, or appealing.
The story, although unique in a few ways, didn't bring much to the table either. I found it quite dull, even though there were so many attempts at high action and the like. It just came off as too much being thrown together, in a sort of "Bang, Bang, Bang" way. The creatures were downright ridiculous and very poorly described (I didn't realize they were using their tongues until near the end). And when different colored creatures were brought in that did differnt things, it was like a video game from the early 90's...WEAK!
Finally, the writing itself...hmmm. If I didn't know better, I'd say this came from an inexperienced, amateur screenwriter. I found many mistakes, in terms of mis spellings, misuse of words, etc. Also quite a few clunky sentences and the like. The action scenes weren't done very visually at all, and I just found the writing overall to be subpar.
Sorry to get off track, but I just felt obliged to throw these comments out there.
Dreamscale, everything you've said, I am very close to agreeing with. Maybe I'm not being quite so harsh sounding and I won't go so far as saying it will be a flop, but I do feel exactly what you're saying: especially, the cardboard cutout characters. As I mentioned in my review, I thought it might be dredged up characters from an old Star Trek, but just different names attached.
Also, I too wasn't sure about the creatures. "The Hooks" I really didn't get until later.
Regarding Michael's comment about Act 1 being too long-- I think I know exactly where he's coming from. I'm not so swift with structure yet, but what I felt was that I was very DRAGGED DOWN by the long beginning-- the many names flung at me in the beginning-- and I know it would be better visually, but for a read, it felt hard to take.
I agree with Pia in that if we feel that SOMETHING IS WORKING HERE-- then we need to ask ourselves: What that something might be? Especially since I get the feeling that many of us agree that there are certain "put offs" regarding it. But still, it has its attraction.
Seriously?! You think there are writers here that write "far" better than these A-List pros?! I can't help but smile at that notion. But it's that level of ignorance that keeps many pre-pro writers below-the-line. These comments are very typical of VERY inexperienced writers/readers.
You may be right in a sense, but let's not forget the value of inexperience. Please don't put it down in a derogatory fashion. I can't comment on Dreamscale's level of ability, but I sure do admire his insight in this thread.
Please put me on the list!!! I'll sign my name to it gladly as one of those who think that yes!!! There are writers here that are working at a "far" better level than "those A-List Pros".
I'll start with Mike Shelton, Pia, Cindy and Michael Previtt who is exceedingly humble about his works. Yes, a lot of the work needs the typical revisions and polishing, but I'd invest in these people.
Also, I should mention here, in defense of A-list pros who maybe bang out something without the substance we admire, that when one gets to that level, it's easy to fall into the "comfort zone". You know-- when you've got it down pat and it looks good and is basically a winner, but to a serious critic-- the flaws are obvious.
I do think they deserve the level of comfort they're at-- even if their work isn't quite as good as it could be. They are only human and they might be terribly burnt out from just getting to where they are.
I'm about half way through the posts so far and I feel that when I read someone's comments, whether positive or negative, I can agree. I'm terrible that way-- really easily swayed and that's why I don't read the comments until after I've done my critique, but I feel that I tend to resonate with what dreamscale has said.
It's not that I don't think the movie will do well, but I feel like it's cookie cutter-- like there's nothing new here. Again though-- this is coming from someone who's jaded from age. I think that a whole new up-and-coming generation will love this movie.
Maybe we should do that one of yours next just for comparison's sake?
Pia,
I wasn’t trying to suggest such a thing and I don’t want to bypass others who are waiting to have their scripts read. I just wanted to put my own head on the chopping block instead of someone else’s. I know my script already needs to be revised. It’s three years old and I’ve improved a lot since it was originally written. I wouldn’t feel good about using it before it had a chance to be brought up to my current standards.
The reason I ask is because, other than the ordinary desire to improve, I’m intrigued by these remarks:
Quoted from AnotherWriter
So, yes, I would definitely say that if Countdown was written by a newbie, he/she would get picked up. Because (IMO) it surpasses the writing quality of many Nicholl finalists -- and these guys get hot reads in Hollywood. Some get repped by a top-three agency, some get studio-level assignments. Thus, Countdown will take a writer very far -- if not through a top contest, then by cold reads.
According to AnotherWriter, this script would sell if it was written by an unknown. I wish there was some way to test that hypothesis because I can’t help the sinking feeling that if I tried to sell this script with my own name on it, I would get nowhere.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
I have read A LOT of scripts in my time.
So have I. And I’m intrigued by this professed ability to tell pro from amateur. Because I haven’t been able to do so. Certainly I can tell a script that’s obviously not professional quality. But I’ve also read pro scripts I would have sworn were written by amateurs if I didn’t know better.
I wonder if someone could tell the difference between a pro script and an amateur script written by a good writer - without knowing up front who wrote which script.
I wish there was some way I could write a script anonymously and have it presented alongside a pro script to see if anyone could really tell the difference. But how can you get a pro script without anyone knowing it’s by a pro?
With Bee Girl, although it’s admittedly absurdist in nature, I attempted to write a much tighter story technically than I usually do. And I think I succeeded for the most part. But I’m not sure how much of that was due to trying to do it and how much was due to improvement over time.
So I’m very intrigued by the notion that a script from a Hollywood pro is of such quality that it would sell even if shopped by an amateur. I would like to break into screenwriting professionally and I’m just trying to figure out what exactly the problem is. I believe I have the talent to succeed (although I could be delusional) but I certainly don’t want to fail solely because of a problem that’s so obvious to someone else.
What I‘m getting from AnotherWriter is that success is guaranteed if the script is as good as Countdown. Is it possible to write a script so good that it cannot fail? That you’ll be guaranteed to get noticed? Because if it is, I’m certainly interested in doing so.
And to AnotherWriter, please don’t take what I’m saying as being a smart aleck. I’m being totally serious here.
Quoted from mcornetto
I didn't read your sci-fi script but still I probably wouldn't call this script superior. What I would call it is more marketable. And that likely doesn't have much to do with your writing or your script - it mostly comes from name-recognition. This script automatically had Matheson attached, once Brandt came on board it was probably a given that the script would be green-lighted. No matter what changes you make to your script it isn't going to give it name-recognition so don't knock yourself about over it.
Well, see, I tend to agree with you on this. One person will say, “Hollywood is full of favoritism and nepotism. You pretty much have to know someone.” But then another person will say, “Oh you’re just making excuses for your failure.” As a writer, I want to improve. And I want to write a salable script. But if someone can read my script and instantly tell I’m an amateur, then I certainly don’t want that to happen either.
This SC thing is not meant to promote anyone nor their scripts, but rather to try to learn something. I thought perhaps it would be a good excercise to discuss a script that one of the participants here wrote a script and wonders why this one and not mine....
Especially if it is the same genre.
Fuck!! I'm toasted. I can't evn spell. Football season is BAD for my health... Please forgive me....
I think what Breanne is asking is getting us dangerously close to the breaking the rules thread. But it is exactly the same question I ask myself every time I read a produced screenplay and the reason why I was all for us reading a produced script here. Just what is the mystery ingredient that we are all trying to achieve?
Michael has had a go at answering and I agree with what he says, these guys just write a script, they break the rules we try so hard to stick to and just write a scene in the way that gives us the information in the clearest and easiest way they can. This is one main reason why I am 100% confident I could tell you whether a screenplay I am reading is from a pro or from an amateur (there are always exceptions, and I have read a couple of scripts from members here that get close to it, Michael Previtt is one, Sandra got that right, I have still not read Pimp Juice yet but Shelton of course is close to being a "real" screenwriter anyway I guess).
Is this a spec script or has been come out of someone seeing I am Legend and taking a look at something else Matheson wrote and assigning this script to be written? Because this is a no brainer, popcorn action movie I tend to think this is on assignment and the pitch was for exactly that. But it is not just the writing, it stands out for me because of the way it has expertly been structured, Sandra called it a cookie cutter script and she is right, it is exactly that. It is a professionally written script that follows the expected winning formula exactly. The vast majority of the specs on this board do not do that and it does make this script stand out a mile. And the best thing is that it seems to do it so effortlessly, nothing seems forced, everything just seems to fit together. The the hardest things to make often look simple, I think anyone who thinks this is no better than many of the scripts here are being deceived by the simplicity of it.
To sum up, to me it feels like a "proper" script when reading it because it has been written by a professional screenwriter who knows what he is doing. Screenwriting is as easy and as difficult as that. I think anybody on here who manages to pull of a screenplay like this will become successful.
I've just read Gm's post #46 and I agree and appreciate much of what he's said. The only thing I disagree with is his opinion that there's: not much real good stuff on Simply; otherwise, I think he's put a great deal of thought into his post and he's also mentioned the idea that was similar to my feeling of "paint by numbers". This was regarding Syd Field and although, like I've said, I'm not swift with structure, I intuitively feel that this one's very spot on.
It's true. The structure is very important as is the premise and these two things might be the glue that holds it together even if it fails in other areas-- especially character, which to me really fell flat.
I think what Breanne is asking is getting us dangerously close to the breaking the rules thread.
Well I wasn’t trying to do that. I’m not really talking about “rules.” I’m talking about ingredients.
Quoted from Murphy
…I am 100% confident I could tell you whether a screenplay I am reading is from a pro or from an amateur…
I wish there was some way to test that. Sounds awful easy to say.
Quoted from Murphy
…I think anyone who thinks this is no better than many of the scripts here are being deceived by the simplicity of it.
I don’t think anyone said that. I said there are some scripts here I would rather see at the theater.
Quoted from Murphy
I think anybody on here who manages to pull of a screenplay like this will become successful.
Well, if that’s the case, we should all become successful because there’s no reason why we can’t pull off a script like this.
What I want to know is what specifically is it about this script that makes it so salable.
1. Good concept. 2. New things regularly introduced. Surprises every page?
What else?
About the “rules:”
There aren’t any rules. There never were. There’s only an industry standard and the best way to tell the story. Industry standard is something that yes, even the pros use. This script is written in industry standard format.
If people hate format altogether, then write your scripts in Times New Roman if you want. I don’t care. No one can make you do anything. People can write their scripts whatever way they want. There’s an industry standard. Abide by it or don’t.
I want to know what makes this script salable. That’s all I care about.
I hear you.... and for me it is the concept/idea that I like. Sure, some parts remind me of Aliens/Contact and whatever, but I think it is the premise along with the constant introduction of new information/danger/mystery whatever that makes it a page turner for me. Even in the "down" moments, the story is moved forward.
I seriopuslty did not want to put this down...
Maybe that's not a good explanation, but that's the best way I can describe it....
I hear you.... and for me it is the concept/idea that I like. Sure, some parts remind me of Aliens/Contact and whatever, but I think it is the premise along with the constant introduction of new information/danger/mystery whatever that makes it a page turner for me. Even in the "down" moments, the story is moved forward.
I seriopuslty did not want to put this down...
Maybe that's not a good explanation, but that's the best way I can describe it....
Okay. What about character development? Is it seriously not that big of a deal?
What I mean is; can this script have better character development without sacrificing the other ingredients? Would more character development slow it down and ruin what’s already there that’s strong?
Or is character development something to be sacrificed for to keep the story flowing? It’s a page turner. Would more character development hurt that?
If I can come up with a good premise. And I can have some twist or another on every page. And if GM and AnotherWriter think it’s pro quality. I’m guaranteed success.
And if I can develop my characters along the way, that’s even better.
No... there are no guarantees, but you would be ahead.
From what I hear from people "that know" is that there are sooooo many scripts floating around and everyone is looking for "IT" (not the movie). If you truly have a KICK ASS script and it's floating around. It will get noticed.
SS is a perfect place to post your script because industry pro's ARE perusing this site. But as mentioned already, the market is flooded by crud and it takes something special to get noticed. High concept, great logline and so on. If you truly have a kick ass script that studios are looking for, I do believe they will find you...
I'm not talking about Breanne now, she's an awesome writer, but a lot of the times writers think their scripts are gold when they are not. Listening to fellow writers feedback is IMHO key to improve your work. Don't think you know better and that comments don't apply to you...
... a lot of the times writers think their scripts are gold when they are not. Listening to fellow writers feedback is IMHO key to improve your work. Don't think you know better and that comments don't apply to you...
This is excellent advice!!! Listening to other writers-- their opinions, their subtle or blatant insights is a way to open up a whole new reality to the way you view your script.
So much to read here, but let me get my reply to AnotherWriter. Well, i read Tarantino's script Inglorious Bastards and he used words like F***, S***, but hey, he had them even in the dialogue.
I don't know who wrote it but this script looks more like a PG-13, so what's the purpose of it? As for Terry Rossio's paragraph you posted, did i read any of those words? No!!! Look i don't wanna make this somewhat personal, and i think we could never end with this discussion.
I have read more scripts that you could think, but saying that Darabont, Gilroy write like this doesn't justify anything. I'd wait for another script of these guys before calling them pros, like you did in a previous post and i'm not talking about Michael Brandt & Derek Haas.
Above all i liked it, just i don't think the cursing words are at their right place.
Between, page 48 Ryker and Daya go into the jungle and in the dialogue is written Drake.
Wow, this thread really took off. Lots of interesting points.
Here is an interesting question: “If written on spec, would a script like this one help to launch a newcomer’s career?”
I say yes. Lots of reasons, but IMHO, here’s the most important: it has a commercial premise.
“A group of astronauts get stuck in an alien planet where they find their own dead bodies and struggle to flee before their dark fate comes true.”
The premise is definitely interesting and for those not familiar with the Twilight Zone episode (like me) it’s even fresh.
Enticing. Original. And it can be described in one sentence. This is the definition of High Concept.
The problem with most amateur scripts is that they are written around lousy premises. Based on ideas that are not interesting, not fresh, and/or not simple. That’s why amateur writers hate loglines so much. They usually can’t sum up their scripts in one interesting sentence because, usually, the script isn’t based on an interesting and simple premise.
In his blog, Christopher Lockhart, formerly the Executive Story Editor at ICM, now working at William Morris Agency, talks about this same issue, explaining that the problem with most amateur scripts floating around is the lack of a compelling concept.
I anyone’s interested, check the link below and scroll down to the post titled “Think Hallewood”, which illustrates a Hollywood’s top dog view of the subject discussed (and it's hilarious)
I’m not saying the premise is the only thing important, but it’s the first thing to consider. I think that coming up with a strong concept puts you ahead of most of the other struggling screenwriters.
Of course, the execution of the premise also has to be good. While I’m in the minority here, I feel that the execution here, while not flawless, was pretty good. If this gets made, I don’t see it sweeping the Oscars or making any critic’s best list, but I can perfectly imagine a group of teenagers coming out of the theatre and texting their friends “Cool movie, go see it”.
Some interesting comments have been made about the story. I’ll hold off my comments for now, while the commerciality of the project is still being discussed.
Now, I have a question because of something Breanne mention (love to here you comment) I’ve never used the words “format” and “story structure” interchangeable. To me they are different. The way I understood it is…
Format is Slug Line, Narrative (4 lines or less), Character/Dialogue at the center of the page at however many margins, basically the rules for a professional ‘looking’ script easily accomplished with Final Draft… there’s a little star system that Don uses three is the best, but the stars are no reflection on how good the story is just how whether the ‘format’ is correct…
Story Structure which is Ghost, Hero, Opponent, Ally, character introduction, character relationship introduction, hero’s world, inciting event, plot point and where they are placed how they escalate, Acts
Then there's genre which is twist on the story structure. And I agree that adding more character development will likely hurt the pacing, combining genre is always a battle because they requre different story beats. The Dark Knight was great with the crime genre, but the action genre caused it to draw on maybe 20 mintues to long, because action takes up alot of time, but only it's out adds plot. I think we have to remind ourselves the writer isn't here to defend himself. Like Dreamscal was prior and was able soundly defend some of his decisions.
I agree with Pia, this script had me too. I do agree though with the criticisms about the descriptions but that’s only in script and it is problem there, but, and I don’t want to trivialize that I thought the writer was way too intrusive with is colored commentary, I thought there’s a lot of “tell”, but that doesn’t me he didn’t show as well; therefore, I will say this and I’ve always believed this, when it comes to a script, it’s about images, moments because that’s what will translate onto the screen. I’ve never watched a movie and thought, wow, that’s good format. Like Saw when that guy that’s been dead the entire movie rises up and it’s revealed he’s Jigsaw. I don’t care, what they actually wrote on the page as much as I do that they’ve created a good, great moment. I’m not saying this had moments that big, but it sure did have a lot small and consistent ones.
The best compliment a screenplay can get is if after reading your script someone refers to a moment in a movie they liked, but it came from you’re script that’s because of a good character, moments, actions, plot points in the form of relief, tension, redemption, revenge and so on
I don't know what else we can discuss I always find it difficult to stay on one topic, which out justifying which means going into another topic, but at least we have an idea whose on TEAM Another Writer and TEAM Dreamscale, lol.
For the record I enjoyed both Alien and The Fifth Element.
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
i read Tarantino's script Inglorious Bastards and he used words like F***, S***, but hey, he had them even in the dialogue.
I've read that one as well. To be honest with you, if I read a script here by one of us members I would complain about it in my comments. The difference here, (I hate when I can't articulate my thoughts!!) is that in IB and in Countdown, I never even noticed those things. I was too caught up in the story.
I don't know who wrote it but this script looks more like a PG-13, so what's the purpose of it? I'd wait for another script of these guys before calling them pros
Pro or professional really just means you get paid to do it. I can hire two different plumbing companies to come and do work at my house. One may be excellent and the other might suck big time... they are both professionals though...
I have a question because of something Breanne mention (love to here you comment) I’ve never used the words “format” and “story structure” interchangeable. To me they are different…
You asked for it ….
To address this, I first have to point out that the story itself and story structure can’t be the same thing. You can tell two different stories with the same story structure and you can tell the same story with two different story structures. You can get a story credit while not writing the screenplay. You can write a screenplay and then alter the story structure in a rewrite.
So where does story structure belong? With the story or with the format?
If you want to say that format is only the font you use, etc., or whatever, then I see your point.
But what is story structure?
Story structure is the form your story takes.
Here’s a definition of format:
for·mat
for·mat [fáwr màt] n (plural for·mats) 1. structure: the way in which something is presented, organized, or arranged
vt (past for·mat·ted, past participle for·mat·ted, present participle for·mat·ting, 3rd person present singular for·mats) 1. arrange layout of: to arrange the layout or organization of something
The instant you start to tell a story, there’s some sort of structure to it. It takes on some sort of form. Since the story structure you choose to write your story in is the form your story takes, I would consider that part of the format arena. The story structure can be examined independently of the story itself.
However;
While the story and story structure may be technically separable, as a writer, I think of them as inseparable. What I mean by that is that you can’t tell your story in the most effective way possible without utilizing both the creative and technical aspects of storytelling.
You can make a story up off the top of your head. But if you want to maximize its impact, then you examine what makes an effective story effective. In that regard, for a writer, story and the form it takes are inseparable. I would basically consider anything that’s a common technique of storytelling to be format.
It seems like the word format has become a taboo subject. If you criticize something now, suddenly it seems there’s someone crying, “Oh you’re the format police. You’re trying to throw a bunch of ‘rules’ on me.”
Well, if someone hates or resents placing their story into some sort of form, then they are more than welcome to do with their story whatever they wish. If a writer’s idea of format is Courier Font, and that writer hates format, then he or she can put their script in any font they wish. But that writer shouldn’t complain when agents won’t look at it because the industry standard is Courier. Writers can rage against the machine or make whatever concessions they’re willing to make.
I personally am willing to make many concessions, and make no apologies for it, because I believe my work is of more value being seen at all, varied from my original vision, than remaining true to an original vision that’s never known.
My point is that there’s no point in arguing over anything that doesn’t serve me as a writer. I simply don’t want to argue about it. Whatever way sells your screenplay is the correct way to write it, in my opinion. Whatever makes your script valuable in the market.
Viewing audiences criticize movies with their wallets.
The problem with most amateur scripts is that they are written around lousy premises. Based on ideas that are not interesting, not fresh, and/or not simple. That’s why amateur writers hate loglines so much. They usually can’t sum up their scripts in one interesting sentence because, usually, the script isn’t based on an interesting and simple premise.
I’m not saying the premise is the only thing important, but it’s the first thing to consider. I think that coming up with a strong concept puts you ahead of most of the other struggling screenwriters.
Hey Z, thanks for your post. I understand what you’re saying. I would like to discuss what makes a great premise.
How can you know your premise is good or bad?
I understand what you’re saying about simplicity. And that’s a great criterion. But what else? Even simple ideas can be bad. I find it difficult to know. While I may personally love a premise, someone else may think it stinks.
It seems like either way you look at it, there’s some element of chance when you’re unknown. That’s why I get frustrated when people try to insinuate that this script would sell even if written by an amateur. I like the premise too but I don’t see how anyone can consider the fact that this is based on the work of Richard Matheson, originally written by an already produced director, and doctored by previously produced writers, and conclude that had nothing to do with this script being produced.
In my mind, this script had an obvious advantage over an original one by an unproduced writer - even if they were of the same writing quality.
I’m not trying to blame failure on being a Hollywood outsider (despite what some may say), I just can’t ignore the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room, you know?
But I don’t deny that this script could sell on its own merits. I don’t deny that at all. I just think it’s silly to ignore its obvious advantage. But I do think it could sell on its own merits.
But assuming you don’t have a Richard Matheson short story to base your script on, and you want to create a compelling original premise, how do you know it’s good enough?
Like you well said, you may love a premise which somebody else may think it stinks. I agree that this is extremely subjective.
And the thing gets even trickier when you’re evaluating the potential of a concept you came up with. It’s always harder to be objective about your own work.
I think it’s impossible to come up with a definition that could include every possible good concept and rule out every bad one. The best thing we can do is to try to spot some common characteristics that good concepts have, like “simple”, “fresh”, “enticing”. If you haven’t already, check out Rossio’s articles linked above; he does a pretty good analysis.
And there’s also your gut. I’ve read many times that high concept is like porn; you can’t define it but you surely recognize it when you see it. When you read a logline in the trades or see a movie trailer and the concept is compelling, you just feel a little something. Something which makes you think “I wanna see this movie”
The “wow” factor. You can’t define it but it’s easy to spot.
“A young cop must disable a bomb”
Lame concept.
“A young cop must save the passengers of a bus that has a bomb set to explode if the bus goes below 50 MPH”
Wow factor. Some may think this is lame. But most didn’t.
“An wrongly accused man struggles to prove his innocence”
Lame concept.
“In a future where criminals are arrested before the crime occurs, a despondent cop struggles on the lam to prove his innocence for a murder he has not yet committed.”
Wow factor.
“A psychologist struggles to cure a troubled patient”
Lame concept.
“A psychologist struggles to cure a troubled boy who is haunted by a bizarre affliction – he sees dead people”
Wow factor.
I think the best thing we could do is to study and analyze loglines as much as we do with screenplays. We have to keep track of which kinds of concepts are circulating the spec market right now.
New posts are pa$$word protected, but after a couple of weeks they are free for anyone to read. You can check out who’s buying and (more important) what are they buying; they usually post the loglines.
Oh, and by the way, I think you made some very interesting comments about the script we’re discussing. I plan to address them (and add some of my own) once we shift to other subjects of discussion.
Thanks for the response. I appreciate your examples (although the lame concept about the guy proving his innocence is practically the logline for The Fugitive -- haha).
I think you made some very interesting comments about the script we’re discussing. I plan to address them (and add some of my own) once we shift to other subjects of discussion.
Hey I’m sorry I’ve been clogging up the discussion here. I’m just trying to get the most out of this. You guys can go on and talk about whatever you want.
Honestly, I really don’t feel like I can discuss this script. Everyone seems to agree it’s not perfect yet I feel as though I can’t really criticize it either. Because I feel like it gets taken differently than I intend.
If I praise it, that seems to get ignored. If I criticize it, it seems to get taken as if I hated it utterly. If I say anything about problems with the script, I get told I’m treading dangerously close to bringing the dreaded f-word (format) into the discussion. Or I get basically told I’m just jealous because these pro writers are so much better than me, it’s silly to question them.
At least that’s the way I feel. I feel like I’ve spent more time trying to explain myself than engaging in any genuine discussion. I just can’t seem to effectively express myself here. I feel worn out -- haha.
All I can really say is that I’m not as impressed as I think I should be. I think it’s a good story and a good premise but I’m very disappointed in a way because I felt the writing quality was much lower than I expected. And as much as I liked it, ultimately I thought it was forgettable. As a movie, it would be the kind of movie I would see on TV a couple years later and say, “I think I saw that.” (Well honestly, I probably would never go to see it in the first place.)
But yeah, you guys feel free to move on anytime you want.
It isn't the dreaded f word. It's just that these discussions came out of a thread called breaking the rules and therefore are not supposed to be about rules. They are supposed to be about story and what works in the script and what doesn't. There isn't a problem with you bringing up format issues as a personal dislike. But there is a problem with trying to make them a topic of discussion. So that is why people were coming down hard on you when you wanted to discuss format issues.
Probably this script could be the one to open a career to a new screenwriter, even one of us here and this is where i agree with Mr.Z.
The script ain't a big a deal over all, but if you consider what their doing with Star Wars saga (i mean the cartoon flick that just hit cinemas) this is a gem. I'm not a sci-fi fan, and i don't pretend to be but i can see this script turned into a movie, make it own money (probably more than its budget).
As Mr.Z already pointed out having a great concept not just makes your script marketable but i guess it makes you more enthusiastic in writing it. Or am i wrong?
The concept of Countdown is very interesting, and keeps you interested in reading the script. Z made a logline for the script, and he did it right with just a simple sentence.
Now, i do think the script is not that good, particular reasons are that i never really felt anything for any of the characters, they were too many and to me it was hard to give everyone the right amount of scenes. I think the character of Mill is weak, to me she needs more scenes to give us more insight about her personality. But, i hardly felt anything for any characters, more than them i was curious how all this fate thing would turn out, it was mystery that made me read it not the characters.
The only character with a decent ark, is Finn, because he changes not that much but he does. To me Ryker was the right guy that we all have seen on TV, film, books etc, there was nothing interesting about him. Somehow i knew it that he was going to make the right decision and not break his own rules.
Geez, now that i remember i think there's a film out there, in space i guess it's called Robinsons in Space with William Hurt, Heather Graham and the great Gary Oldman. If anyone has seen that film will see that there are some similar things. In the end we understand that when they landed in that planet they had gone ahead in time, they were in the future. I don't wanna ruin the ending for those who haven't seen it, but the other will know the similarities.
As for the format, the script bothered me with all that cursing words somehow i still feel that they don't feet to this script even if they seem right for others. Huh!
The script is dated November, 2005, that leads me thinking there will be or there is another draft (maybe a better one) out there with some changes but i could be wrong.
So as i posted before, i like the premise or lets say the concept, but i still think it could have been written better. When it comes out I'll get myself to watch it, first for the great story which i love, second I'm curious about Brandt directorial debut.
I get told I’m treading dangerously close to bringing the dreaded f-word (format) into the discussion.
Breanne, I think you are referring to something I said and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression. I never meant it like that at all. Like Michael said it just reminded me of that Breaking the Rules discussion that incidentally until the script club started I thought was the best thread to ever appear on these boards. It was just me trying to explain my my own cackhanded way how I can tell the difference between a pro and an amateur script, in terms of the writing style anyway. Not once was I having a dig at you nor anybody else in here. I enjoy reading peoples different opinions on these matters, I value what you bring to the discussion. We are all here trying to learn something after all.
Quoted Text
All I can really say is that I’m not as impressed as I think I should be. I think it’s a good story and a good premise but I’m very disappointed in a way because I felt the writing quality was much lower than I expected. And as much as I liked it, ultimately I thought it was forgettable. As a movie, it would be the kind of movie I would see on TV a couple years later and say, “I think I saw that.” (Well honestly, I probably would never go to see it in the first place.)
I am of the same opinion as you here. I can see that it is a very well written script and an amazing premise but it does fall flat. I don't however think this is the result of the writer not doing a good job but more that the script has been written exactly to hit a target that will perhaps bring the movie the most success but not necessarily bring the best reviews. Certainly not something I would rush to go and watch.
* For what it is worth I would much rather this had not been such a high action obvious big budget popcorn flick but more of a drama led, character driven drama/thriller. That was what I was expecting from the premise anyway. And If I had written this script that is what I would have tried to achieve. HaHa, notice I did say try!
everyone appreciates your input and thoughts. Everyone elses input and thoughts as well of course. I actually think this discussion about the commercial appeal/concept/premise was a good one. Why it worked for some and not for others. Why this was picked up and why others don't get picked up. At least I got something out of it.
This script was chosen because we decided to discuss a produced script instead of a board member's script this time. We decided on thriller for a change and a script where the movie had not come out yet. Fitting that criteria, there were simply not that many scripts to chose from, haha. The list was pretty short. It would have been nice if this one was Oscar quality, but...
Anyway, I think with this one we have come to the conclusion that sci-fi is not everyone's cup of tea. The writing could have been better, characters could have been developed more, but the action was pretty good. At least I think that's what has happened here. I don't want to read through this thread just to double check.
Btw, for anyone who find it discouraging that this one got made when there are other better scripts out there by pre-pro/amateur/newbie writers, I can tell you that there are some really sucky scripts out there that somehow made it to film. Horror is my one of my favorite genres and I try to read a lot of them. I've read some that I can honestly say, I was totally amazed it made it to the screen.
What do you guys want to discuss next about this script?
What do you guys want to discuss next about this script?
Let's try to imagine who's gonna play who hehe. I still can't find the TZ episode on youtube.
Pia, i read a horror script, Drag me to hell by Ivan & Sam Raimi, that SUCKED. I love horror but somehow i can't find a decent film out there anymore. Bring the Farm dammit.
I see what you’re saying, Breanne and it’s difficult to come across or say what you really want to say from the ‘typed’ word. Kind of like that little, but important difference between script and movie. We really ought to sit down and talk some day. Fighting with all I can to not write this big, I can’t believe you, lol, you gave me the definition that’s classic, lol. The TEAM Another Writer comment was an inside joke for myself, I have this love-affair for pigeonholes, they’re ridiculous sometimes – hockey mom, nascar dad what does that even mean, lol. Yeah, we’re all one team.
2. the general physical appearance of a book, magazine, or newspaper, such as the typeface, binding, quality of paper, margins, etc.
All I keep thinking though is what are people comparing it too. I mean I definitely don’t think it’s perfect, like fast flow and great character development, but I’m I like what are you comparing it too that that’s something attainable, and done a lot. I know some of you don’t want to sound like Hollywood outsiders, you think I want to sound like a sheep, like I only like it because it’s getting produced. It's way cooler to rage against the machine, lol. I just can’t confidently read this script and say it’ll never be as good as Minority Report (which I loved) because though I’ve seen Minority Report, I never read the script. To me from script to screen is a process that can make or break the film.
I will say though that Minority Report had a great premise, as does this Countdown, for the record I don’t like that title either, but I see why they’re using.
I think Mr. Z hit it on the head when he explained a good premise, a lot of it is a matter of taste. I what makes a good premise is incorporating you’re hook or most interesting thing in you’re story in the premise.
Like, ‘The Thing’ mentions a shape-shifting alien that takes the form of its victims. Now, I think and fear that some writer’s won’t want to expose this piece of information out of some fear that the audience or reader won’t have nothing to look forward to, like it’s my biggest twist or what not, but it’s the most interesting thing it’ll be what sell the story.
I don’t Pia, seven pages is the most we’ve had, is it about time to wrap it up. I know we shot up there pretty quick, but I’m eager, having a better feeling of where people are coming from after being lost in translation a little, to see what people pick and think of the next ‘unproduced’ script.
Oh, and I didn't know format was so taboo, someone should write a horror about it. Ta,
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
It isn't the dreaded f word. It's just that these discussions came out of a thread called breaking the rules and therefore are not supposed to be about rules. They are supposed to be about story and what works in the script and what doesn't. There isn't a problem with you bringing up format issues as a personal dislike. But there is a problem with trying to make them a topic of discussion. So that is why people were coming down hard on you when you wanted to discuss format issues.
Hope that helps.
The thing is that format can cover an enormous amount of subjects. If we don’t talk about any format issues at all, then I don’t see that there’s anything left to discuss. In my mind, story structure is format. Plot holes are format. On the nose dialogue is a matter of format. Hell, in some cases, the story itself is a matter of format. Some movies are completely contrived in every way.
We all agree the premise is good. So without studying things that fall into the format arena, this discussion is essentially over. At least from my standpoint.
The thing that really kills me is that I don’t feel I was trying to drag format in any arbitrary sense into the discussion. I feel the opposite. I feel that I was trying to avoid arbitrary format issues and some people are bound and determined to drag me into a format argument from the past.
Quoted from Murphy
Breanne, I think you are referring to something I said and I apologize if I gave you the wrong impression.
GM, it’s okay. I understand what you were saying. It’s just that I came here for a discussion. And I feel more like we’re being divided up into teams for a square off. It’s taxing to me.
If people want to say story structure isn’t format, then fine. I don’t agree with that definition. In fact, I don’t even see how anyone could argue that story structure is anything but format. But if that’s the case, that’s fine by me.
Quoted from Murphy
For what it is worth I would much rather this had not been such a high action obvious big budget popcorn flick but more of a drama led, character driven drama/thriller. That was what I was expecting from the premise anyway.
I was hoping it would go that direction as well. That’s more in alignment with the source material. They may have felt it wouldn’t work that way and decided to punch it up into an action flick because they thought it was more salable that way.
Oh I got a tremendous amount of insight out of it. I’m glad you picked it. I’m glad I read it and I think this thread has been valuable to me. I just wish it could have been more of a discussion about the script and less feeling like I was being placed on one side of an argument.
I made a couple of comments about the author’s incessant underlining getting annoying and the way the voice of the script changed from sounding like an adult to that of an overexcited juvenile. They were offhand remarks. Someone said they didn’t want to talk about that stuff so I dropped it. Since then, I’ve been accused of trying to drag us all back to some format argument thread from the past that I had nothing to do with.
It just blows my mind. From my standpoint, I don’t care about that stuff and don’t think it’s that big of a deal. To me, other people are hypersensitive about it and blowing it way out of proportion. It seems to me that some are hell bent on making an issue of it. In any event, it’s taxing and I’m not doing it anymore. If people want to insist I’m arguing over something I’ve barely even mentioned, they can have their war with themselves.
Btw, for anyone who find it discouraging that this one got made when there are other better scripts out there by pre-pro/amateur/newbie writers, I can tell you that there are some really sucky scripts out there that somehow made it to film. Horror is my one of my favorite genres and I try to read a lot of them. I've read some that I can honestly say, I was totally amazed it made it to the screen.
I think this script is a very good script overall. I think it’s above average. I’m not discouraged that it’s getting made. I’m discouraged by the idea that some seem to have that it’s somehow of such high quality that it would bring some level of guaranteed success to an amateur, be it buzz or whatever.
I believe that this script, if written by an amateur and not based on a Richard Matheson short story or any other previously published work, might be successful or it might fall by the wayside like so many other unproduced scripts from unproduced writers. Without the Matheson name, or backing from Hollywood insiders, I think this script would ultimately stand no more chance than any other good script.
For some reason, I wasn't being notified by E-mail that all these posts were going up. Damn! I missed alot!
Well, I'm back now, and want to throw in my 4 cents as well.
I'm glad that the discussion has changed and there are several people that aren't just throwing out priase for this because it's a produced script from a pro writer.
My take on the situation is that someone decided to resurrect this old Matheson story, and went out and "hired" whoever this writer is (I think the actual writing credit was given to 3 writers?) to update the story. I bet ya that it was already greenlighted before it was even written. If that's indeed the case, we should all understand that it's not the quality, professionalism, or look of this script at all that got it produced...it was most likely already a done deal.
As for the "high concept" of the story or idea here, I have to disagree. First of all, it's not even an original story...it's a Matheson story from 30 something years ago. Since then,. we have seen this type of story play out many times. I think Bee hit it on the head that the story here is very similar to the "Lost in Space" premise, which was a mighty big flop, both commerically and critically, and that was a big budget with a strong cast. I also see alot of "Event Horizon" in here for some reason (another big flop).
I know this has many different aspects to it, but those different aspects are it's weakest aspects. I'm referring to the nonstop action, once they get on the planet. It's just not handled well at all, and for me at least, comes off as very juvenile. The cliff scene doesn't work well and is very predictable and dull. The constant fighting with the different creatures is really poorly done and downright boring. Of course there are some things that do work, but the way this script stands now, the overall opinion I have is that it is medocre at best, and probably a bit below that even. TYhere's just not enough cool scifi stuff here for it to succeed, and again, those pathetic creatures will be it's undoing and demise.
I guess I'm being overly critical and harsh here, and it's probably because it does anger me when I read (or see) something that just isn't very good, and it seems to be happening very often these days.
I saw "Righteous Kill" the other day. I don't want to say that I disliked it or thought it was pure crap, but I will say that I knew the "twist" within 10 minutes, didn't buy the relationship of DeNiro and Gugino at all, and left thinking to myself, "how in the world did all these high profile A and B list actors agree to sign on for this medicocre at best movie? I wish I had the answer, and if that answer lies within the way the spec script was written, then so be it. But I know that it couldn't be based on the actual concept/story/plot, because it just wasn't that good.
Who knows...maybe I'm just nuts. I don't know anymore.
Hey DreamScale, I do agree with you about the creatures. I hated them, but I hate all monsters. The only monsters that work for me are human monsters... except for Alien and Predator of course.
I think this script would have worked better if we never saw them. Just knowing something was out there picking them off would have worked, but that's just me.
While I do not disagree with what Dreamscale and others say about this script I do disagree that this is not a good script. Like I have already said I did not really like the "movie". For my own tastes is was too action led, too fast paced, not intelligent enough to be a good Sci-Fi, weak characters and stupid monsters.
But, and this is a big but, I still do not think this is anything other than a good script. There are plenty of people out there who go to the cinema to watch movies like this. This will make it's money as long as the marketing and casting do their jobs. The writers will end up with another successful movie on their C.V.'s. It is a well structured script with lots of conflict and never gets boring. I just cannot see it being anything but a good script.
If any of us were given as assignment from a big studio to write a mindless actions flick aimed at the 15-25 audience based on a Matheson short story then this would hopefully something we would come up with. If the writer has been successful in his brief then surely this cannot be anything else but a good script regardless of the quality of the finished product. Remember Hollywood are not looking to make quality movies, making money is always going to be the ultimate aim. We all have to be aware of our potential market whenever we write anything. In fact I would go so far as to say before we even write out first slug-line we should surely be asking ourselves who this movie is going to be aimed at, what market are we writing for. If this is a movie that the kids are going to want to see then the writer has done a great job.
Or am I missing something?
Dreamscale, your problem is much like mine, it is with the quality of Cinema nowadays, it is with the stupid MTV generation who seem to want fast pace, short scenes, no "boring" character development and so son. But I don't think you can use that as a reason why this script is bad. This script is not going to cause the collapse of narrative cinema as we know it, that seems to have already happened. This script is only trying to deliver what the public wants and in my opinion it seems to have succeeded in that.
One thing we should not be doing when reviewing scripts is letting the kind of movie it is dictate out thoughts, otherwise we might as well just read the Godfather every week.
There are plenty of people out there who go to the cinema to watch movies like this. This will make it's money as long as the marketing and casting do their jobs.
I think this is the bottom line. If this movie is promoted properly, it will make its money back. If not, well, it still might make it back, I don’t know.
As a movie, a lot of problems with this script would be irrelevant. Who cares if some of the action scenes are muddled if they’re not muddled on screen? If the director knows how to set up an action sequence, muddled action scenes in the script won’t matter at all.
But as a script, we have to look at how to get agents or producers to look at our scripts at all in the first place. And that gets back to what Z said about premise. Something has to make them open your script in the first place.
In some ways, this script is a bad idea to look at because, as Dreamscale pointed out, it was probably green lighted prior to even being written. It’s had four different writers work on it at different times and it clearly shows evidence of more than one voice at different times in the script.
But in other ways, it’s the perfect script for us to examine. Because ultimately the thing that got it green lighted in the first place is the thing any amateur writer needs to get their script taken seriously to begin with. The fact that this was taken and punched up into an action movie shows the importance of placing marketability above personal desire if you want to sell a script.
I said something before about picking a spec script rather than a studio one. I think people were assuming I was only referring to format. It was exactly for this reason I suggested it. The vast majority of movies are scripted after the studio has already been sold on the idea.
The Spec script is not a screenplay as such, it is our proposal. We are sales people selling an idea to a producer or studio and our spec is our only opportunity to do this. We have a much harder job than the guys who wrote countdown, we also have a very different job. They are writing a movie, we are selling our idea. Of course out spec needs to read like a movie and hopefully one day will become a movie but I think there is a huge difference between the two. And again this is why we are all here, we want to understand how we can sell our idea too.
It is also often said that a spec that does a good job of selling you as a writer may not ever get made but could well get you in the door and offers of work. So as well as selling our premise or idea we are also selling ourselves.
Next time we do a produced script I would really like to see a spec script and we should just focus on the one question "Why did this script get optioned?"
Dreamscale, your problem is much like mine, it is with the quality of Cinema nowadays, it is with the stupid MTV generation who seem to want fast pace, short scenes, no "boring" character development and so on.
The comment here about the fast pace of scenes helps me to not feel so alone in my dislike for the pace of many shows today. There are times when it works, but I'm just wondering when this "fad" is going to die out. It seems that we are bounced around so much and it's like everyone is suffering from ADD.
On that subject... The other day someone (in Hollywood no less) suggested I watch Rosemary's Baby. I have not seen that movie in a loooong time. Maybe even 20 years or so. Anyway, I curled up in bed and started watching. It did not take me long before it hit me why I don't really like "most" new movies nowadays. I realized I was watching art! That's the difference. At least IMHO. The movie felt "rich" if that makes sense. Besides the obvious story, directing and acting,... the camera movements, the lighting, editing... everything came together into a piece of art. I miss that. Sure there are movies out there that I enjoy, but I never get that feeling that I'm watching a piece of art. After I was through watching, I thought about my own script and I realized it was as flat as the piece of paper it was printed on...
This is an excellent point, Pia. When scenes flash so fast, we barely get the chance to see anything. It works for action scenes I guess in the sense that it forces people to really pay attention, but it's like anything else: You don't want a steady diet of one thing.
Hey GM and Sandra, I totally agree with you guys here about appreciating quality in cinema. It makes me feel kind of old and stale to say that the quality of movies (or music, or anything, actually) just isn't what it used to be, because I remember so vividly my Mom saying the same thing to me, so many years ago. In no way am I saying that everything that comes out nowadays is piss poor, but the vast majority really is, and I feel that I'm definitely enough of a movie buff to be able to make that comment.
Most flicks these days are high on flash and extremely low on thought and content, and for me, that just doesn't cut it.
Case in point (and yes, I'm prepared for the attack after I make this statement). I loved the first Bourne movie. I thought it was extremely well done, and I was shocked how "real" Matt Damon made Jason Bourne seem. I was even more impressed with Damon's onscreen fighting talents.
As for Bourne 2, I thought it was just OK...and the third in the franchise? I hated it! Why, you ask? Well, in a nutshell, based on the lightening fast editing in 2 and 3, I couldn't realy "see" much of what was upposedly going on. 3 was much worse than 2 in this regard, and was also much more "dumbed down". All 3 did well and were even reviewed pretty positively, which really shocked me. But bottom line is that 2 and 3 were not nearly the movie that the 1st was.
Another great example is "The Omen". The original still stands up today as a truly great work in just about all regards. The dumbed down remake , although not God awful, seriously paled in comparisona nd is a great example of what's wrong in Hollywoodland.
I guess they just don't make 'em like they used to.
Has anyone seen The Mist? You remember that big monster right at the end? How would you write it? 'Cause this is how Frank Darabont wrote it:
A HUGE CREATURE strides slowly by, blotting out the sun and half the sky. No, it's not even huge -- it's fucking humungous, its shape barely discernable, alien and otherwordly.
Now I see the error of my ways.
I’m sorry but this writing sucks. The only thing that stands out here is that he threw the word fucking into the description. That doesn’t liven it up for me at all. It’s just the very overused word fucking. If all I have to do is throw the word fucking into my description to make it in Hollywood, fine, I’ll throw the word fucking into my description.
So that’s the difference between a pro and an amateur, huh? I’m sorry. But this is a dreadful example of “pro quality” screenwriting. The above description is a pile of shit and while it may be worth gold in Hollywood, nothing changes the fact that it’s shitty writing.
Like I said, if Hollywood wants the word fucking thrown into descriptions, fine I can just throw the word fucking into my descriptions. Maybe I’ll add some spelling and grammar errors, some on the nose dialogue, and some plot holes, and then I’ll have me a salable script in Hollywood.
Ridiculous.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
You can be daring and post some pages over on the ArtfulWriter forum…
First let me make one thing perfectly clear. Don’t think for five seconds I’m afraid to put my writing up against a Hollywood pro. I’ll take a Hollywood pro on any day of the week.
I better pepper all my descriptions with the word fucking first before I post anything on any site for Hollywood pros or they’ll say my description is pedestrian.
Quoted from Dreamscale
In no way am I saying that everything that comes out nowadays is piss poor, but the vast majority really is, and I feel that I'm definitely enough of a movie buff to be able to make that comment.
Most flicks these days are high on flash and extremely low on thought and content, and for me, that just doesn't cut it.
They’ve got the formula down and now they make films like they’re coming off an assembly line. That’s what happens when art is turned into a business. To some degree it’s a necessary evil. I mean an artist has to make a living. And business people want to make money. To some degree it’s win-win.
The problem the way I see it is that there is a lot of good stuff that never gets a chance. It may not fit the Hollywood mold but it may be just as good and it may make a lot of money. But it gets ignored because it defies convention.
I don’t deny that there are a lot of bad scripts out there. The overwhelming majority. But there are some really good unconventional ones that get skipped over because they’re different and don’t immediately strike one as moneymakers. I’m not speaking as to the wrong or right of it, just the sadness.
AnotherWriter, your recent post is much more professional, thought out, and well worded than you previous one(s). I understand what you're saying and can stomach your opinions much easier than I could before. These are still merely your opinions and the fact that they aren't exactly what others have, is perfectly fine and normal.
I want to comment on your Darabant Myst example, if I could. I'm a HUGE Stephen King fan, and feel that he is the true master of the written horror story. Most of his works, however, don't translate to film very well, or maybe I should say, just haven't translated to film very well for whatever reason. I feel that his written word is so visual, powerful, and well put together, that the film adaptation is routinely a letdown for his fans. The other big problem is that his characterization is so vivid and well done, that it requires a much longer movie than Hollywood can (will) make.
As for The Myst, I saw it in the theater (and read it long ago), and left saying to myself that I liked it, and thought it was well done, but I definitely didn't love it, or thought it was great. Your quote from Darabant on the final creature's appearance is spot on for me, as the creature was exactly how he described it. It was absolutely huge, strange, impossible to really describe, and because of that, it worked well. Being that it was the basically the last scene of the movie and it only was on screen for what, 5...10 seconds, made this passage perfect for me.
But the opposite is true in Countdown. The creatures here are onscreen for much of the movie and other than the "real" theme behind the movie (inability to alter our future, even when we already know what it is), they represent the main conflict for basically all the characters. Much more effot was necessary to draw these things out. Much more creativity was needed to make the different creatures, actually different. The way it reads now, as I've said a few times, comes off as juvenile, and poorly done.
You come across as an inteligent person who knows what you're talking about, and because of that, your input is appreciated. It will be very interesting to see what this movie actually looks like when it's released. It will be even more interesting to see how it fares at the Box Office and to the critics. My bet is that it will be a commercial and critical flop, but I've been wrong before (a few times!). Kidding... We'll see.
Hey Bre, I agree with what you're saying as well. I am in no way opposed to swearing, even in a description pasaage, but I don't think it really adds much of anything most of the time. In Countdown, it added nothing and came across as out of place and immature.
You're definitely spot on in your other point also. Hollywood has become stuck in a rut for sure. Very few movies that are truly daring or different are made lately. And it's quite sad. There are many, many great ideas out there that will never be given a chance, because of Hollywood's closed door policy and ideology of what a script is supposed to be.
I'm sure I'll take some shit for this comment, but I think my script, "Fade to White" is a perfect example. I totally appreciate all the feedback I received, and respect the opinins of those who chimed in, but I feel that because it didn't follow standard horror plotlines and conventions, it was quickly determined that it wouldn't work, and wasn't "right". As I said over and over in the previous SC, I purposely chose to fly as far away from the typical Hollywood course as I could. I wanted just about everything to be different and feel different. I wasn't going for standard tension and cheap frights. I wanted there to be an extremely long and slow build with a ton of dialogue....2 aspects you don't often get with horror.
Based on feedback, I wasn't entirely successful, but I still believe whole heartedly that my script would make for a unique, and successful movie franchise. I don't portray myself as the next greatest writer out there in any way, but like you said, I also wouldn't ever shy away from being pitted against a pro. If I didn't shine, so be it. I'd sure give it my best though, and I think that's what it's all about.
I am in no way opposed to swearing, even in a description pasaage, but I don't think it really adds much of anything most of the time. In Countdown, it added nothing and came across as out of place and immature.
I’m not opposed to it either. I’ve read scripts where it was stupid and I’ve read others where it worked quite well. It depends on the tone of the story. And yes, with Countdown I think it definitely worked against the tone of the story.
The thing about the Darabont description that bugs me is that AnotherWriter gives this speech about how much more animated pro writers are than amateurs and then offers as an example a piece of description that is not one bit better or more concise than some amateur scripts I’ve read.
I’ve seen some good amateur scripts. Some had swearing in the description. Some didn’t. I still don’t see what is so special about Hollywood pro writers over some of the really good amateur ones I’ve seen.
AnotherWriter makes it sound like making it in Hollywood is easy. All you have to do is write like the pros. Well, maybe I can hire AnotherWriter to fix my scripts and make them impossible to fail. Maybe he can fix my stuff and guarantee me buzz and assignment work.
Quoted from Dreamscale
I'm sure I'll take some shit for this comment, but I think my script, "Fade to White" is a perfect example. I totally appreciate all the feedback I received, and respect the opinions of those who chimed in, but I feel that because it didn't follow standard horror plotlines and conventions, it was quickly determined that it wouldn't work, and wasn't "right".
I can believe that. I can’t fault anyone for defying convention given some of the stuff I’ve written. But I’ve also tried to write according to the Hollywood formula and produced some of the worst crap I ever wrote. In that regard, I don’t even fault the Hollywood pros. I understand that they’re often paid to take a good idea and squeeze it into a mold for pressing. In some ways it takes more creativity to write with a formula.
But when I consider what the writers of Countdown were probably paid versus the nothing I get paid, I expect to see writing scores above my own and I don’t see it. It’s going to take more than some fucks in the description to convince me they’re worth that much more than me.
This script IMO isn't very impressive at all, as I've said several times. No characterization, horrible creatures, little imagination, and for me, dull, unreal action sequences. There are also alot of situations that just don't ring "real" for me.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could just "write like a pro" and be able to have Hollywood take notice and sign us up? It obviously doesn't work that way, and never will. Guess we all might as well throw some fucks and shits into our descriptions, and we'll be on our way!
The thing that has me frustrated is that you act as though a “pro quality” script is certain to get noticed, certain to bring buzz for the writer, or lead to assignment work; that it will definitely lead to something. If there’s a guaranteed formula for success in Hollywood then certainly I’m interested. The problem is that I can’t tell what’s so damn special about the pro writers.
I’m not mad at you personally. I’m frustrated that you keep insinuating that a “pro quality” writer is going to get somewhere in Hollywood.
If you know how to turn my script into a “pro quality” script that will launch my career as a Hollywood writer, then I’d like to hire you to script doctor it. But then I assume you are already successful since you’re a writer and you know the formula for success.
Listen. If someone asked me, “Brea, are you bitter that you’re a failure as a writer?,” I would have to answer, “Why yes, yes, as a matter of fact I am bitter that I’m a failure as a writer.” I admit I’m jealous. I don’t deny that. That’s why I’ve been over and over this in my mind. And why I’ve attempted so many different genres, story structures, etc. All looking for that “pro quality” script that will break me in. But alas, I’ve done nothing but write a bunch of scripts and fail.
So when someone comes around talking about how much better the pros are than the amateurs and how easy it should be to make it if one would just mimic the pros, I feel somewhat compelled to find exactly how they know that. And unless you yourself are a professional Hollywood writer who isn’t related to Aaron Spelling or someone else in the business, then you’ve really offered me nothing to back up your assertions.
But I do apologize for coming off so bluntly.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
I wasn't challenging a writing throwdown with the pros. When I said "daring", I just meant that I wasn't sure about the forum rules since the topic of people posting up pages has popped up in the past and tossed out of the window. There is this underlying feeling that people post pages with hopes to get noticed or notes from pros. And, as a result, nobody has done so.
I don’t really understand what you’re saying here. Are you saying there was some problem with a writer posting pages at this site in the past? It sounds like you’re saying there’s a rule against what you suggested I do. I don’t want to get involved in some mess over there at some site I’m not familiar with.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
But if you feel like you can eat them breakfast, then you go girl.
It’s not a matter of eating them for breakfast or challenging them. I’m just saying I’m not afraid of them. They don’t intimidate me. Not one bit.
I want to applaud your attitude. You want to figure our the formula-- as if there is a formula-- and yes, there is and no there isn't, but you stand tall and I really admire that!!!! And more: !!!!!!
You know, I've spent ridiculous amounts of time on minuscule articles and stories just to get published. So big deal-- it's small time, but to me it means a lot because I'm doing it for some strange reason that's all about "sharing" and "entertaining" and "teaching."
Now when I analyze the "why" my article or story was selected, I don't have a good answer except that I worked long and hard on it. The trouble is though, I don't think the same rules hold so true in screenwriting. I do feel that if one is just a "decent" writer; not necessarily spectacular, but they've got connections, then they've got a far better chance than any of us without such favored links.
The route I'm taking with one of my babies is to write THE NOVEL first; and then the script (not necessarily in that order). Then, I'm hiring my husband, a computer network manager, but also an excellent salesman to sell the ice to the Eskimos and I know he can do it. My challenge first however, is to write as Pia says: "The KickAss Script".
It's a bloody long road just to develop something you feel is acceptable for presenting for a general critique let alone something you'd present at a pitch fest; so I admire everyone who works consistently in this regard.
Brea, I know how frustrated you feel and I join you in this frustration. If you look back at my crit before I'd read any of the other comments, you'll see my remark about "Fuck" as being a brilliant way to begin dialogue. I really was questioning it right off the bat. Well, it does take this film out of general entertainment and I think that if I was writing it, I'd want to make it for a general audience.
A friend I'm working with who's developed an adaptation of a book, gave me a script to review, and I right away noticed that it could be a Disney Film if it were revised. This is really important: To recognize your audience and I think that "Countdown" (And I agree with whoever said they didn't care for the title) didn't deliver to the audience it was really (or should have been) intended for.
I see this movie as being for a young audience. 10 year olds to teenagers. Take out the swearing and give a bit of "the creeps" and you've got happy campers. Seriously, we don't necessarily need to have the character development and a finely tuned structure if we're just trying to give some thrills to some young people. All we have to do is go back in time and think how much fun it was to watch "Godzilla".
I am going to go back to some advice I received from a writer in LA. He gave the age old wisdom of: You've got to know your story.
This is where I springboard: Not only do we have to know our story, but we've got to know our audience.
This movie could have done better in this regard by tailoring it to a general audience.
Thanks again Brea and everyone for your insight in this thread.
Just for the record (and to maybe lighten the mood a bit )…
Plot Holes and Strange Things:
Inconsistencies in their technology. They had sophisticated exercise equipment that allowed them to float in midair. They had sophisticated guns and pulsar equipment. Yet when they had to scale a cliff, all they had was….rope. I thought to myself huh? They don’t have a jet pack or something? A smaller flying craft? What the hell?
P61 - I was surprised no one asked about Finn’s body. His and Torrence’s were the only bodies that had not been found. Given that some bodies had been suspected of being murdered (Daya’s had been tortured), I would wonder about the people whose bodies had not been found. They would be murder suspects. Yet no one has questioned.
P80 - Daya explains what happened with Elster. Finn says, “There is no weapon to defeat inevitability.” Yet no one seems to have noticed that Elster failed to kill Daya. I mean he was supposedly going to shoot her exactly where her corpse was shot in the head. Someone should have pointed out Elster’s failure.
Elster’s body never ended up where it was originally found.
The red creatures with the gills made no sense from an evolutionary standpoint and they came out of nowhere. It would be better if the original creatures figured out how to float on the water or something.
While I’m on the subject of evolution, these creatures were vegetarians with super long tongues. So where were the flowers they stuck their tongues into?
P87 - Daya tells Riker his job is to not let anyone shoot her. Then Riker tells her to “give it a shot” in reference to her shutting down the core. That was a poor choice of words for Riker under the circumstances and came off as unrealistic.
P94-95 - Daya steals Mills’ gun and shoots herself. Mills is in shock and Ryker grabs her. Mills never takes her gun back. If the gun was left in Daya’s hand, then it should have been there when they first found Daya’s body and they should have known Daya killed herself.
P98 - Finn points out that his body hasn’t been found so maybe he survives. He points out that only the bodies of Ryker and Mills are found on the ship. So Finn decides to leave off into the jungle. With the creatures out there, there was zero chance of survival. Why did it not occur to him that the creatures would get him? Why didn’t it occur to him that if he got on the ship, that might alter the fates of all of them?
Near the end, Ryker asks Mills if she trusts him. Of course she does. She’s the perfect loving nurturer. But then we find out Ryker never really had a plan! I mean they were saved by Finn. But that wasn’t Ryker’s plan! That was merely a fluke. Ryker didn’t actually have a plan. So why did he act like he did? Finn saving them was pure luck. Ryker couldn’t have planned it because he had no way of knowing Finn would even wake up.
Finn tries to make Mills take the pill. He’s angry because she didn’t “stop the loop.” His merely getting on the ship would have stopped the loop.
P100 - the pill falling into Mills’ breast pocket was too convenient. Ridiculously so.
P105 - Ryker says about why he didn’t kill Finn that he didn’t want to tell his son that he killed a man. But he did kill a man. A thousand times over. Ryker literally murdered Finn a thousand times.
And finally, here’s the biggest problem of all for me:
If a shockwave from their ship is what causes the boom that sets them on the course of their alternate future……..What caused the original shockwave?!
The ending is what should have happened in the first place. There was nothing to cause the initial shockwave! The catalyst to the entire story didn’t really exist. The entire story would have never happened in the first place! How’s that for a giant gaping plot hole?
And hey if I’m missing something on any of these, please let me know.
The point I thought was being made with the Mist example, given by Another Writer, was that from script to screen is a long process, and collaborators have their say like art directors, set directors, stunt coordinators, actors. Casting can make or break a films box office success. I think just as good a question as about the comments made about the monster’s description is whether you liked the movie, I did, Dreamscale said he did. And no it’s not Oscar material, but an amateur doesn’t have to write Oscar material to sell or be at a pro level, which is sounds like what Breanne and Dreamscale want.
In the Aliens dvd they talk about going through drafts of what the Alien looked like. The look of the Alien help tremendously, the point is they worked on it. And they better have because it was title, Alien, in this flick it was the hook; in Countdown I would say plot is most important, which I only conclude because of the title and what I know from the premise. The ticking clock, what happens next.
Also, and I may sound naive on this, when you guys say Hollywood shoveling out crap films and such, is indie, or movies made for a certain amount of money in that equation. And I have to say this most of movie budget comes from overpaid actor who are paid before the fact. Also, people who green light films aren’t screenwriters, so it’s safe to say they don’t know what they are looking at most the time. More so than understand quality, they understand cause and effect, “I’ve seen this type of movie do well before.”
As far as the plot holes go and I’m not defending all of them, just saying that it’s a story about the future, which is like inherently jumps plot holes to 100%. It’s basically like unavoidable, what I’m saying is I’ve read scripts on here that didn’t have to deal with the future/past overlapping thing and no reason for plot holes, and all sorts of ill logical/unbelievable moments, but still did. Don’t get even get me started about The Departed, an Oscar winner in both respective picture and screenplay. Hmm, question would you rather win Oscar for best screenplay or have the movie you wrote the script for win best picture?
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
Man oh man, where to start? I absolutely hated this. We've been making the comparison between this and unsold nonproduced screenplays, but I think if we compare it to other sold, produced screenplays by paid professionals, this is one of the worst that I've ever read.
I think the overarching problem is it never figures out what it wants to be. I haven't seen the TZ episode, but I can imagine it focused more on the psychological aspects, finding your own body, fate, etc. This kind of touches on that, but is far more of an action picture, which never successfully melds the psychological aspect. And then you have the unfortunate problem that the action writing is so horrendous.
That scene where Ryker rescues Elster from the creatures? When he fires a rope with his crossbow, climbs out drops another rope which elster climbs, then they crawl back! Whew boy! I was on the edge of my seat! It sounds like something from a movie they would have watched on Mystery Science Theater.
And Breanna's list while not wxhaustive, has some great examples of why this is so bad. I put my pen down around p 36 or so.
And with all due respect to Anotherwriter, I think you're wrong on this. I think someone from this site had sent that draft in as a spec, there is no way it would have been bought.
It's funny I started reading your one post, was ruminating on it, and it struck that the problem with this is that it's so pedestrian. That was the word that popped into my mind. I scroll down a little and your talking about the problem of pedestrian scripts.
Three was absolutely nothing outstanding about this script, no bit of writning that makes me go "WOW". Hell, three days later and I don't know if I'd really remember any of it if we weren't talking about it. The only memorable part was the exercise scene, which should be cut completely because it adds nothhing.
But other than that, it was great!
And if i groped anyone during the group hug, I apologize.
I feel so much better now (maybe it was that double Jager shot from Pia). Seriously, thanks Seamus, because I agree with you so much here, and have been trying over and over to help the majority see the light.
Your example with the rescue scene is a good one. As I recall, just about evey action scene was extremely poorly written. All very bland and poorly thought out...just kind of thrown together. If you really stop and think about what is on the page, most of it really doesn't even make any sense, in terms of logical, believable action.
If this is truly "pro writing" that stands out above "pre pro writing", I must be seriously impaired, because I sure don't see it or get it. If this is all it takes to get noticed in Hollywood, I'm going to write a new script this afternoon, and it's going to be chock full of crappy, cliche-ridden, cardboard characters, generic, stupid creatures, and horrificly plotted and written action scenes. I'll toss it over to AnotherWriter for a read, and sit back and plan my vacation to Bora Bora, knowing that Im going to be the next big thing in Hollywood. Might as well start planning for a new house on Camelback mountain also...
I got a message from someone that Simply Scripts was doing Countdown. I am NOT any of the writers involved with Countdown but I was involved in several of the phases of its earlier development. It was not a green to go script. You can tell that by looking at the date on the cover. It’s been in development for over four years.
I think I read all the posts and I’ll do my best to address some of them.
It was interesting to read your comments on the piece. This exercise is to learn why this script sold. What about it separates it from the homegrown screenplays on this site? I keep seeing a lot of this is wrong and this is wrong. The writing is awful or it’s juvenile. What's with all the underlining, Why is there swearing in the prose. What's with all the asides.
This script reflects a lot of what is going on in the market. The techniques and style are all common. I’ve worked with lots of writers and the best ones are always open and try to keep their writing current. They try new things and do whatever it takes to make the story easy to understand. The less secure get defensive and hate everything. Lots of new writers often see themselves as being superior to what is being produced in Hollywood. They’re out to bring up the quality of all movies. My suggestion is to get over yourself if you want to be a screenwriter. William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald couldn’t save Hollywood from itself so it’s not you’ll be able to do it.
You talk about story. If a script has a great story Hollywood will come knocking. Maybe it will and we'll give you a check for it and replace you with people who can write a screenplay. A real screenplay is less about story and more about efficiency and structure (which is not the same thing as INT/EXT format).
Here is the first thirty.
P 1-4 A$$ in the seat section of the script with the credit roll. Location and characters are introduced P 5-7 What is this movie about? Our crew is trying to find a new earth but the probe is down. And on page 7 Finn sets the first clock in motion - the Earth only has ten years left P. 8-10 The Mills and Ryker relationship is established (and there’s another clock ticking with Ryker’s transfer orders), there's something wrong with Corvin, Ryker works out his problems with violence. P. 11-14 Finn and his feedback exercise - wonder why Finn is a little more on top of things in the other sections of the script? He's doing a feedback exercise in the middle of a continuous loop. Mills is pregnant and she gets the termination pill (another clock ticking). Daya gives the statue to Elster P. 15 mid-first act break with the Talon meeting the shockwave from the past P. 20 Finn kills Corvin P. 22-23 Ryker and his anger issues, Finn makes him equally culpable for Corvin's death P..24-28 Bring the ship down and explore the planet P. 29 start of the rolling first act that spans into the second act
There's no fat in these pages. No limp dialogue about the weather or what you had for breakfast. Every line matters. If you write about something it better connect to something else. Why would so much time be spent on the initial appearance of the Vishnu statue? Or the animated tattoo? Why waste the sentences if that's all there is to it?
Character development. This isn't a movie likely to get Oscar ads. The characters are established, you get their jobs which reflect their personalities and they stay the same in a movie that is effectively a continuous loop. You want a moon and June kind of sentimental scene with Ryker and Mills that will stop the screenplay cold? When we meet them she shuts him down and sets off to play the martyr and he gets frustrated and angry. It's ultimately Ryker's story and throughout the writers show that he deals with his anger through violence. He finally breaks the time loop by not killing Finn.
Is the solution to the loop some intellectual exercise? It’s not meant to be. I think that’s the problem that many of you have with the script. You’re not reading the script as written and instead trying to force it into being another movie entirely. You had problems with how quickly Corvin’s condition is revealed. It’s not meant to be a complicated plot point because if it were the writers would have buried it more. Lots of the crew realizes that something is wrong with Corvin which is the point. Any of them could have done something but they don’t act. It’s interesting that the one person who deals with the problem is not part of Ryker’s crew.
A lot of your mentioned “plot holes” come from not allowing the characters to react differently than how you are projecting they should react. Scripts from new writers always have these perfectly balanced characters that are just as smart as the writer that know everything and react like robots to force the story along its beats. The characters in Countdown are a mess. They do stupid things and react like real people in a life and death situation. Many of the people in this posting are leaning toward Finn as the one who fixes everything. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he is the brainy character in the piece. In this instance it is not being smart or educated that saves the day. It is Thou Shalt Not Kill which does it.
It’s fine that you think the movie is dopey or hate the monsters or action sequences. But if you want to see how it works you have to take it on its own terms. It accomplishes what the writers set out to do. You need to break it apart based on what the writers have done and not what you would do to “fix it”. This isn’t a script review exercise is it? It’s looking for the plot points that are in place and trying to understand them.
Someone listed Sunshine (and Aliens which is too out of date to use as a sample script) in one of the posts as being a similar movie. It is and it isn’t. Sunshine is a philosophical script about the existence of God. Countdown is a script about giant monsters and a crew in jeopardy. Is Countdown the best script I’ve ever read? No. Does it have the same level of artistry as Sunshine? No. But Countdown delivers what the people with the open checkbook wanted. Which is a summer monster movie that will sell well when dubbed to meet the overseas market.
If someone had a copy of Sunshine it would be a great exercise to read these two side by side because what is and isn’t in Countdown might be more apparent.
Thanks for the insight, Verdugo! Very interesting stuff here.
If this is indeed intended to be a Summer blockbuster movie about giant monsters and a crew in peril, I think it's missed it's mark pretty badly with the monsters that inhabit this script, as well as the lame action sequences involving them. Obviously, we have no idea what they'll actually come out looking like, but if they look like they're described, bad news for Countdown, cause its run at the box office will be a rather quick countdown.
It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out. My money's on this being a flop, sorry to say, but you never know.
Thanks for jumping in and giving us some background.
Since you were involved in this script’s development, I take it you work (or worked) in the industry.
So maybe you could shed some light on an aspect that we’ve been discussing quite a bit:
If this script was written on spec by an unknown writer, would it help him to break in?
(In order to limit the analysis to this script’s potential, let’s assume the writer isn’t a jerk, that he isn’t a one trick pony and has other projects ready to pitch, that he doesn’t fart during meetings, etc).
I’m looking forward to know your thoughts on this. Thanks.
There is no magic forumla. I never said there was. Apart from writing a great script -- which in itself is already a challenge.
You said this script would definitely start an amateur writer’s career. You said it would definitely lead to talk in Hollywood, assignment work, etc. I said if this script was submitted by an amateur it would stand no more chance than any other script written by a good amateur. You are the one who continues to insist this script would get somewhere minus its obvious advantages.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
I'm just merely stating my personal observations based on my experiences -- what I consider to be good writing and bad writing -- based on the scripts that has previously piled up on my desk. You start to see the same old sh!t over time. But Countdown -- although it's no Citizen Kane or Casablanca -- or in any way a perfect script -- it does stand out above the sh!t and qualifies, IMO, above the 99.99%. If people don't agree with it, so be it.
I never said this script wasn’t above average. What I said - and stand by - is that there are scripts by amateur writers that are every bit as good as this one - or better. And that I have read scripts by amateur writers that I would personally rather see at the theater that this one.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
If people think that it's all about luck, contacts, timing, predicting the market, then that's up to them.
I never said it was all about luck. I said luck was a factor. What I said is that a writer has to have talent and perseverance and has to learn to be prepared for opportunities, and to take full advantage of any opportunities that arise. But ultimately, a writer can be a good writer, every bit as good - or even better - than a Hollywood pro and still fail.
And quite frankly, my view holds much more consistent with reality as we know it than yours. Your view is a bit fanciful. Besides, your view, that somehow a good writer is guaranteed to make it, isn’t testable. Mine, that a good writer can fail through no fault of his or her own, is testable.
As I said, I would be willing to put my own head on the chopping block. If you take me and a Hollywood pro and you give us both the same writing assignment; the same information to start with; the same source material; the same criteria for executive expectations; everything the same, except that we both go our separate ways and are given the same period of time to produce a script; I believe I will produce a script that is every bit the same quality as that Hollywood pro. And yes, I’ll even go against the writers of Countdown.
And I sincerely apologize if I come off as arrogant. I assure you it’s not that I think I’m such a wonderful writer or that I think I’m a genius or anything. It’s just that I don’t believe Hollywood pros are generally better writers than me. I feel I have a talent that’s being wasted and I don’t think the writers of Countdown earned their very large paychecks with this project. And I think it’s a disgrace they make so much money while I languish as a writer.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
It really does come down to the read. Writing a good script is all have to go on to get through those doors.
My point all along is that even a good script isn’t always enough. You seem to be agreeing with me here.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
As for the paradoxial plot hole in Countdown, I don't think I have ever seen a time travelling story that doesn't suffer from them. The Back To The Future series suffers from a lot of plot holes. But that didn't stop them from being good movies.
Yes, it’s true that time travel films are notorious for plot holes. But Countdown has obvious plot holes that negate the entire film. Even an amateur should have seen these plot holes. I realize these guys were just given an assignment and this job was probably just another fat paycheck for them. But they should give a shit about their work. They didn’t earn their paychecks.
The story is weak, the characters are weak and the movie contains plot holes. All of this is true, I doubt anybody is disagreeing with you on this at all. But it is still a well written script and better than most if not all unproduced scripts on this site.
The writers were not trying to write an Oscar winner, they wrote a commercial movie that will get bums on seats and make money. You sound like you have not been to the cinema for years. Have you seen the movies that are making money at the cinema recently. You think Indianna Jones made sense? You think Pineapple Express was a cleverly written screenplay? You problem is with the quality of the story, that is fine, it is my problem with it too. But it is a fact that the majority of the American movie going audience do not want clever movies that make sense, they do not want drama with well developed character. They want stupid monsters, they want mindless action and simple dialogue, they do not even care about plot holes whether they notice them or not.
Do you want to write a screenplay that wins an Oscar or do you want to write a screenplay that make loads of money? It is very very rare nowadays for the two to combine. This is clearly a script that has been written for the mass market in mind and the dollars that they bring.
Can you not see how this script has been built? I would say expertly, all the plot points in the right place, the pace is spot-on, inciting incidents, conflicts, hero's and villains etc.. You go and find my some scripts on this site that have been put together with the same level of skill. Much of this is invisible to the casual movie goer but we as wannabe screenwriters know to look out for these, and in the vast majority of cases on this site these elements are just not there or in the wrong place. This makes this a well written script and does lift it above much of the dross out there by unproduced writers. You really need to be able to spot the difference between a script that has been put together by a professional and one put together by someone who has not mastered their craft yet.
I really think you are allowing your feelings for the story get in the way of your feelings for the script itself. The story is a movie that will sell tickets and make money, if you cannot see that then I would suggest you go to IMDB and take a look at some of the most successful movies over the last 10 years (Money not Oscars!!). This is an action movie, it was written as an action movie, it is not smart but it never wanted to be. We are supposed to be pulling apart this script and understanding how it has been crafted, how it has been expertly built.
Don't get confused by thinking a great script must therefore mean a great movie. Hollywood on the whole are not interested in great movies, they want a product that sells. We have to understand the market for our scripts and write for that market. Countdown does that exactly. I am not going to see this movie, but then this movie was never written with me in mind. I will be in my local art-house watching something else, but while I am in there there will be another 3,000 people sitting in the multiplex watching Countdown. Which one would you want to be the writer of?
Someone listed Sunshine (and Aliens which is too out of date to use as a sample script) in one of the posts as being a similar movie. It is and it isn’t. Sunshine is a philosophical script about the existence of God. Countdown is a script about giant monsters and a crew in jeopardy. Is Countdown the best script I’ve ever read? No. Does it have the same level of artistry as Sunshine? No. But Countdown delivers what the people with the open checkbook wanted. Which is a summer monster movie that will sell well when dubbed to meet the overseas market.
If someone had a copy of Sunshine it would be a great exercise to read these two side by side because what is and isn’t in Countdown might be more apparent.
In case you come back, it was actually me who referenced Sunshine. But i was not comparing this script to Sunshine, I was only saying that this script was not really Sci-Fi in the sense it gave us a world we had not already seen before in Sunshine or Aliens. I am in agreement with most of your points, this is not Sunshine but never wanted to be Sunshine, so I would not compare it to it. I would compare this to any other action flicks aimed at an audience who know what they want from action flicks.
"The story is weak, the characters are weak and the movie contains plot holes....
But it is still a well written script "
Does not compute! Danger Will Robinson! (or am I confusing my poorly written science fiction movie robots?)
Sorry, but you can't have a well written script witha weak story, weak character and plot holes.
And your art vs. commerce argument is weak. I haven't read the Dark Knight returns, but it won't win an Oscar, made a ton of money, and it has to be better written then this.
YOu'er argument seems to be that he hits all his plot points. Any body with twelve bucks can buy aone of Syd Fileds books and find their plot points. It doesn't make it well written. Hell, I've hit all my plot points in my screenplay. It doesn't make it well written. Compentently crafted at best.
And as far as finding a script on here that's better, go check out The Thing by Sniper. He needs to proofread it and clean up the typos, but it is at least one if not two steps above this.
I have to say I don’t think I’ve ever read a post that more misrepresented what I’m trying to say. You appear to have completely missed my point.
An amateur writer can write as good - or better - than the writing in this script and still not succeed in Hollywood.
That’s my point. That’s all there is to it. Not every amateur. But some. Some amateurs write as good or better than Hollywood pros and still don’t break into Hollywood.
I don’t deny that this stuff sells. I never did. And I never said this wasn’t a good script overall. What I take exception to is that a good writer who fails is automatically a failure for the reason that he or she is not of the same quality as a Hollywood professional.
If you want to patronize me any further I am sure you could have tried. Go on give it a go, sure you can do it. I'm just naive, should be an easy target for you.
I am finished with this Script Club. Breanne, if you want to have a cry about how better writers for whatever reason do not get produced and yet crap like this does then go on. While you are crying about it I will carry on learning how to write a script that can be sold. We will wait and see which path gets us to our goals first shall we.
And Please Seamus, using The Dark Knight as an example is pretty pathetic. The Dark Knight will be nominated for Oscars, that is a given. Maybe not in the writing department but still will be nominated. By the way, The Dark Knight has plot holes of it's own you know. And was written and directed by one of the greatest filmmakers around at present. it really is in a class of it's own.
Did the writers get paid for writing Countdown, yes or no?
If you want to be a screenwriter then that is all you should be bothered about.
Let me know when the Script Club starts talking about scripts again and maybe I will come back.
If you want to patronize me any further I am sure you could have tried. Go on give it a go, sure you can do it. I'm just naive, should be an easy target for you.
I am finished with this Script Club. Breanne, if you want to have a cry about how better writers for whatever reason do not get produced and yet crap like this does then go on. While you are crying about it I will carry on learning how to write a script that can be sold. We will wait and see which path gets us to our goals first shall we.
Excuse me? Where did the patronization begin?
Quoted from Murphy
Breanne,
You sound like you have not been to the cinema for years….
Can you not see how this script has been built?
You really need to be able to spot the difference between a script that has been put together by a professional and one put together by someone who has not mastered their craft yet.
I really think you are allowing your feelings for the story get in the way of your feelings for the script itself.
The story is a movie that will sell tickets and make money, if you cannot see that then I would suggest you go to IMDB and take a look at some of the most successful movies over the last 10 years…
I found the tone of your post extremely patronizing. And to be patronized over something I never even said in the first place is insult to injury. You call me emotional. You’re the one who sounds emotional.
Where did you get the idea that I don’t understand why this movie is being made? You didn’t get it from anything I said. I understand that this movie will get its money out of its target male teens’ pockets before they realize they’ve been duped with a poor imitation of previous movies they liked. I understand it’s about money.
I also understand that this film’s target audience isn’t as stupid as Hollywood thinks they are and this film’s investors may lose their shirts.
Where did you get the idea that I’m not willing to do what it takes to succeed? You didn’t get it from anything I said.
I’ve reiterated time and again my willingness to make any number of concessions to succeed.
None of what you’re saying negates my point.
Quoted from Murphy
While you are crying about it I will carry on learning how to write a script that can be sold. We will wait and see which path gets us to our goals first shall we.
If you go back over all the posts, I think most will agree that no one here has been more adamant about trying to get at what makes a script sell than me. How you can be so backward in your understanding of that, I don’t know.
And actually, we may not see who gets there first. We may neither of us make it. That’s my point. No matter how good you are, you still might not make it. I hope you do make it. I really do. But if you do make it, I hope you’re not arrogant enough to think you did it all on your own.
I think we need a bottle of Jager and another group hug.
Bre, I hear your point, and I think you are 100% correct. Actually, there's now way you couldn't be correct. It's not just in screenwriting, it's everywhere, and in all industries. There are extremely talented musicians playing in dive bars, while no talent singers make millions. Starving artists are all around us waiting to be discovered. It's the way it is, and most likely, the way it will be. All we can do is keep trying and believing.
GM, I have to agree with Seamus completely, that your argument doesn't make any sense. We're not experts or pros in here, but I think many of us know what works, what doesn't work, and why. Of course, to each is always own though.
But to say that a well written script contains a weak story. weak characters, and plot holes just doesn't make any sense. I thought most of us had agreed awhile back that story is King, and the actual writing takes a back seat to a great, unique story? It does for me at least. Anyone can learn to write a screenplay that looks however someone wants it to look, but few can actually create something that's unique, well thought out, and entertaining. At least that's the way it should be.
I still don't buy everything that Verdugo had to say. I also don't agree with everything he had to say at all. I have trouble believing that a pro writer just decided out of the blue to resurect this old Matheson story, and based on his spec script, got a greenlight and a big paycheck. It doesn't make sense. Why would 3 other writers have to be brought in to work on the script? Why would the original writer even pursue something like this, knowing that Matheson holds the rights to the story? And why would this script look like it does (with no characterization, terrible action writing, pathetic creatures, and plot holes so big you could fly the Talon through) after all this? Couldn't 3 or 4 pro writers clean this thing up a bit?
We all are going to have our own opinions here and that's what makes each of us who we are. Thank God we all don't think alike! It makes the world go round, and hopefully, we keep turning!
And for the record, I do want to write a screenplay that sells in Hollywood, but I want that movie to be good, and make a profit. Think of all the huge budgeted flops over the years. Someone greenlighted them based on their writing, obviously, not their story, characters, and the like. I think we all need to see beyond the actual screenplay, and how it looks or reads...we need to invision it as a movie adn think about what works and what doesn't.
This thing doesn't work,a dn unless MAJOR changes have been made to the script, it's going to tank miserably.
"The story is weak, the characters are weak and the movie contains plot holes....
But it is still a well written script "
Does not compute! Danger Will Robinson! (or am I confusing my poorly written science fiction movie robots?)
Sorry, but you can't have a well written script witha weak story, weak character and plot holes.
And your art vs. commerce argument is weak. I haven't read the Dark Knight returns, but it won't win an Oscar, made a ton of money, and it has to be better written then this.
YOu'er argument seems to be that he hits all his plot points. Any body with twelve bucks can buy aone of Syd Fileds books and find their plot points. It doesn't make it well written. Hell, I've hit all my plot points in my screenplay. It doesn't make it well written. Compentently crafted at best.
And as far as finding a script on here that's better, go check out The Thing by Sniper. He needs to proofread it and clean up the typos, but it is at least one if not two steps above this.
Of course it is better written than this, it is the second most successful movie of all time!! Nobody is saying that Countdown has any aspirations to match that. But just because there is a better written script than this does not make this script bad. That is the strangest logic I have ever heard in my life.
There are countless movies that are as bad as this that have made plenty of money, I don't often watch them but they are out there and sell many many more tickets than the movies I love and think are superior.
Do you really believe that writers who write scripts for crappy action flims are bad screenwriters then? The guys that wrote this script have made far more money from screenwriting than anybody on this site, would you not consider that success? What gives anybody the cheek to say they are a better writer than someone who has worked hard, made it and now makes a good living from it?
But to say that a well written script contains a weak story. weak characters, and plot holes just doesn't make any sense. I thought most of us had agreed awhile back that story is King, and the actual writing takes a back seat to a great, unique story?
Of course it does, we all strive to come up with a great, unique story. But the fact of the matter is that most of the movies made today are not great and unique stories. BUT they still make lots of money and the writers still get paid. This script was never meant to be a great and unique story. It is not as though the writers sat down to write a Sci-Fi classic and this was the best they could come up because Sci-Fi classics do not as a rule sell movie tickets. The writers no doubt sat down with the sole intention of making an action movie for the masses and that is exactly what they have achieved, end of story.
My point is that we have deviated far off course from the intention of the Script Club by talking about how good a movie this is.
The facts of the matter is that this script is for a produced movie whether we like it or not. This is a produced script. We are supposed to be figuring out why, but because some people have the believe that this does not deserve to be a produced script then we are stuck in a rut. If you do not think this script deserves to be produced then fine, we all are entitled to our own opinions. But don't you still want to try and work out why it is being produced? Because believe it or not there is something right about this script, there has to be. Otherwise you are expecting me to believe that somebody greenlit it has a joke, maybe someone was in a good mood that day, or maybe they read another script called Countdown and got confused?
GM, based on your last post, I think you're basically admitting that what Bre has been saying all along is correct then. If this script doesn't contain a great story, great characters, well written action, why is it being produced with a huge budget? It's because of who they are and connections they obvioulsy have.
I mean c'mon, it's begining to sound like more people in here don't think very much of this idea, concept, and the actual writing (finally). Are you saying that no one in here could write a better script than this, based on the Matheson story? I have a feeling that many of us could come up with much better ideas, action, characters, and conflict, and I think we could easily make it "look" better also.
If this was entered in a competition, against 100 other similar scripts, you think this would rise above the rest? Why? What are we missing here? And why do you continue to support this thing when you've said over and over that it's not a movie you would see, it's a weak story with weak characters, and plot holes? Do you think the action scenes are well written or put together? Do you like the creatures?
What makes this thing so great? I just don't understand. Maybe it's cause I'm an inexperienced newbie who doesn't know a great script when it shoots a barb out of it's mouth at me.
My point is that we have deviated far off course from the intention of the Script Club by talking about how good a movie this is.
How can we discuss why this script got produced without discussing the quality of the writing?
Quoted from Murphy
…don't you still want to try and work out why it is being produced?
Yes. And actually I was one of the first to start discussing why it got produced. That’s why I was so surprised that you started condescending to me over things I never said.
Quoted from Dreamscale
GM, based on your last post, I think you're basically admitting that what Bre has been saying all along is correct then.
This is what I don't get about GM. He’s parroting what I said a long time ago. But when he posted his rant to me, it was like he just made up a bunch of stuff and attributed it all to me.
Listen very carefully GM. I’m going to try and say this as clearly as I can so that there’s no misunderstanding. Please try and pay very close attention to what I’m about to say.
Listen…
Here it comes….
Are you paying attention?….
Okay, now I'm thinking you shouldn't be a mod, Brea.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Okay, now I'm thinking you shouldn't be a mod, Brea.
I’m sorry I let you down.
But this is what set me off:
Quoted from Murphy
Breanne,
You sound like you have not been to the cinema for years….
Can you not see how this script has been built?
You really need to be able to spot the difference between a script that has been put together by a professional and one put together by someone who has not mastered their craft yet.
I really think you are allowing your feelings for the story get in the way of your feelings for the script itself.
The story is a movie that will sell tickets and make money, if you cannot see that then I would suggest you go to IMDB and take a look at some of the most successful movies over the last 10 years…
Keep in mind, I never said anything about this script not deserving to be produced. Nothing. Not one thing. This rant came out of nowhere.
Breanne
[Edit -- I took some comments GM said personally and responded in kind in an earlier post. Those remarks have now been removed from that post.]
Ok, guys. All out of your systems? Since Me doesn't seem to be around I will ask can we keep this on topic please? We are discussing the script, not Hollywood. We have determined that we don't fully understand why it was produced and are not likely to gain any more information on this matter unless we talk to the producer. I think we have also discussed the difference between this and unproduced scripts enough to establish that it causes arguments and we should avoid that topic.
I for one think there are plenty of plot holes in this, Brea mentioned a number of them in one of her posts. Do you think that the movie makers will correct any or do you think they will leave them in? How do you think they can correct them?
GM, based on your last post, I think you're basically admitting that what Bre has been saying all along is correct then. If this script doesn't contain a great story, great characters, well written action, why is it being produced with a huge budget? It's because of who they are and connections they obvioulsy have.
I mean c'mon, it's begining to sound like more people in here don't think very much of this idea, concept, and the actual writing (finally). Are you saying that no one in here could write a better script than this, based on the Matheson story? I have a feeling that many of us could come up with much better ideas, action, characters, and conflict, and I think we could easily make it "look" better also.
If this was entered in a competition, against 100 other similar scripts, you think this would rise above the rest? Why? What are we missing here? And why do you continue to support this thing when you've said over and over that it's not a movie you would see, it's a weak story with weak characters, and plot holes? Do you think the action scenes are well written or put together? Do you like the creatures?
What makes this thing so great? I just don't understand. Maybe it's cause I'm an inexperienced newbie who doesn't know a great script when it shoots a barb out of it's mouth at me.
Dreamscale, we are not reviewing this movie. That I am sure was never the point of the Script Club. If I were to review it I would say it was crap, if I watched the movie I would say it was crap. But, I also think National Treasure was crap and how much money have those movies made?
We need to separate our feelings of the movie from our breakdown of the writing, I am very comfortable in putting my dislike of the story aside in order to discuss the script. As I have said countless times while the premise appealed to me greatly once reading the script and realizing what direction it has taken I am no longer interested in seeing it.
Yes there are certainly many ways this script could be changed that would make it more appealing to me, but that does not mean to say it would make it better for you. Art of course is subjective, you cannot trash a script just because you do not like it.
When reviewing a script we have to put it into context otherwise we are just comparing 2 Fast 2 Furious to The Godather II, not a good idea as any of us here are far more likely to break our teeth on the former rather than the latter.
It frustrates me to see all these people that I know for a fact to be otherwise sane and rational types taking barbs at one another.
I glanced over this script. It is alright. If posted here, my review would probably boil down to, "So, this is pretty good -- but what is with all the underlining?"
While this conversation has not proceeded down the path that most (apparently) had hoped, it is interesting for sure, and not without value.
To paraphrase just about everyone on this thread, I think the general consensus is, "Hey, I can do that! Maybe even better!"
I contend that has value in and of itself. And it is quite fair to state that this is probably true. For some.
But those who have not read a fair sampling of our works look a bit ass-like when they jump in and call us hopelessly naïve for saying so.
Anyways, the flaws in this story have been beaten to death.
I think an interesting topic to pursue -- should people be floundering about for one -- would be:
"If this story sucks so hard, how would you -- specifically -- make it better?"
First of all, I think the characters need to be fleshed out quite a bit more. I think they need something that makes them come off as real, as people we can root for. For me, that means more dialogue between them. We don't see anything that makes us believe they even know each other.
I said earlier that I believe the first act needs to be longer, and we need to have a chance to see who these characters are. I'm not saying alot longer, but maybe some scenes talking about their loved ones, their fears, their interests...something!
That way, we would probably feel more for them when things start to break down, which happens pretty quickly.
I feel I have a talent that’s being wasted and I don’t think the writers of Countdown earned their very large paychecks with this project. And I think it’s a disgrace they make so much money while I languish as a writer. Breanne
That to me is an attitude that will get you nowhere in life.
I said earlier that I believe the first act needs to be longer, and we need to have a chance to see who these characters are. I'm not saying alot longer, but maybe some scenes talking about their loved ones, their fears, their interests...something!
And I will start the ball rolling by disagreeing. In a friendly sort of way, of course.
While I skimmed most of the script, I did read the first act.
And for an action flick -- which this is -- I had all the character development I needed, really.
I thought the first act was too long. I was ready for some creatures.
------------------
Edit: Gary, I modded your last angry post at Brea. I see you've made another. We are moving on. Please cut it out -- as I am sure Brea will if I ask her politely. [Brea, this is me asking politely...]
I predict you and Brea will like each other a great deal eventually if you both start afresh.
Think back to "Alien", a movie that worked on all angles. How long was the opening act there? Or better yet, how long beore we got to see the actual alien? There were numerous scenes involving the various characters...eating, walking, talking...just being real people. Even after all Hell broke loose, there was still lots of characterization going on, and that's why it really mattered when each character was put in a horrifiic situation.
That's not the case here at all. I don't have a clue who any of these people are, now did I care based on the lack of effort to develop any of them.
Just didn't want to end up in the middle of an argument.
I liked this script, but several people said it must have been written for ten year old boys or teenage boys. I'm not a teenage boy, I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once though...
Think back to "Alien", a movie that worked on all angles. How long was the opening act there? Or better yet, how long beore we got to see the actual alien? There were numerous scenes involving the various characters...eating, walking, talking...just being real people. Even after all Hell broke loose, there was still lots of characterization going on, and that's why it really mattered when each character was put in a horrifiic situation.
That's not the case here at all. I don't have a clue who any of these people are, now did I care based on the lack of effort to develop any of them.
Hmm...I was thinking of Alien, too, oddly enough. How funny you should bring it up.
Yes, they were eating and talking, but what did we really learn about any of them? Anything?
Or were we just sitting around going, "Man, I can't wait until the Alien shows up..."
Frankly, I was. But then, I forget who I am talking to here. The King of the Long Buildup haha. I kid, I kid.
Here, in Countdown, I seem to recall a conversation involving children and godchildren, and pregnancy even. Also, somebody pointed out that -- visually -- that exercise scene revealed quite a bit about the individual characters. Particularly that guy who was exercising with just his mind.
I would say -- and don't sue me for this -- the first 20 minutes of Countdown tells us MORE about these characters than the first 20 minutes of Alien.
Well, these are just some ideas so feel free to slap them down. These are just some general thoughts too.
First off Ryker - he’s the main character and he’s boring as shit. Mills is as stale a moldy bread.
Daya is terrific - later. Not initially but as she develops, I really like her sense of commitment to duty. She develops inevitably into a great character. Far more interesting than Mills.
Finn is a better character than Ryker. In fact, Finn will be more interesting to the target audience. So I say….
Finn and Daya should be the leads. Ryker should become the villain. Ryker is the murderer who killed Finn a thousand times over. He should turn out to be the real villain and Finn should be played up as a sort of antihero.
When Finn’s body isn’t found, they should all suspect him of murder. Finn should be a philosophical outcast. The teen male audience loves philosophical outcasts.
I’m not sure about the monsters being vegetarians either. I’m afraid the target audience might get pissed to find out the monsters are vegetarians. It’s kind of the monster version of emasculation -- haha.
The shockwave needs to be something that would happen whether they take off in the ship or not but something they can stop. I like that they decide to sacrifice themselves. And that needs to stay in some capacity. But something has to happen prior to their landing that is at least partly responsible for the original crash.
Edit -- I also think this needs to come down to the final two characters, not three.
Pia is right, it was written for 10 year old boys. How would adding more character development and turning it into Alien make this a better movie for 10 year old boys? It would make it a better movie for us maybe, but I think most of us are in agreement that this movie was not made for us.
So we are talking about changing the movie to appeal to us more as film goers rather than discussing the merits of this movie as it stands, as aimed for the action crowd.
It makes no sense. This is not supposed to be a film review thread, why can we not just discuss the produced script we have read instead of trying to find a way to make it better (in our minds - this whole question is subjective remember).
Think back to "Alien", a movie that worked on all angles. How long was the opening act there? Or better yet, how long beore we got to see the actual alien? There were numerous scenes involving the various characters...eating, walking, talking...just being real people. Even after all Hell broke loose, there was still lots of characterization going on, and that's why it really mattered when each character was put in a horrifiic situation.
I totally agree with you about Alien, but you can't compare two movies that are separated by - what will soon be - three decades. Back in the '70s Hollywood allowed movies to build slowly and to create an actual atmosphere - yeah, even their blockbusters. This - unfortunately - rarely happens nowadays and unless you're gunning for an Best Picture win at the Oscar's (which neither Alien or Countdown was/is) this is the preferred style.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
Dreamscale got us started on "Characters and Character Development" -- which is a vital topic in any script, no?
I am not sure, It is a vital element in the movies I pay to go and see but I cannot say hand on heart that it really matters anymore in action scripts for the masses. The few movies I do see that would appeal to these audiences I generally find undeveloped characters lacking in real motivation other than a simple desire for something they want. I honesty believe that for the movie this script is trying to be that the characters are developed enough. If this movie really does want to be Alien then of course the answer is no, if this movie wants to be Alien then it has fallen well short of the mark and is a complete failure. But it has no such pretensions, it is not trying to be anything better than a low brow, entertaining shoot 'em up with a Sci-Fi twist. So I am not sure it actually does need any further character development.
It makes no sense. This is not supposed to be a film review thread, why can we not just discuss the produced script we have read instead of trying to find a way to make it better (in our minds - this whole question is subjective remember).
Because that is what we do in the script club. We discuss and try to improve. The fact that this script is produced does not change the goal of the club.
Well, first of all, I don't think this movie is aimed at 10 year old boys. It will be a PG13 rating, as far as I can tell. They could really mess things up and make it R rated, as some of the violence could definitely lend it an R. The storyline however, is way above 10-13 year olds, IMO.
Back to Alien...I wasn't trying to compare the 2...only in terms of characterization. I learned a ton about those characters in Alien, and the main thing I learned was that they came off as real people...people that I could actually relate to...people that I cared for, even though all of them weren't necessarily "nice" people.
Bert, you're right, I definitely appreciate buildup and characterization, but it doesn't have to be long in terms of minutes and pages. It just needs to be something in which we can differentiate the characters. They need to have some personality, like Bre keeps saying. Their relationships need to come across as somewhat real and believable.
The interaction between Ryker and Mills doesn't play real at all, for instance. The exercise scene for me was the best scene in the first 20 pages, because it actually showed us something that we haven't seen before. It showed some imaghination, and also showed the characters being human beings, not cardboard cutouts of characters we've seen 100's of times before.
Sniper, I hear ya, but that doesn't mean that what worked in the past so splendidly, couldn't, or wourldn't work now. This is exactly the problem with most movies nowadays. For some reason, Hollywood thinks they have to be a certain way, and that's just not true.
Because that is what we do in the script club. We discuss and try to improve. The fact that this script is produced does not change the goal of the club.
Okay, then I have got it wrong. I honestly thought we were trying to understand what makes this a produced script, what makes it good. It seems to me we are not trying to improve ourselves but trying to improve this script and that is something I am not qualified to do.
I will let you lot improve this script, I will go and read something else.
Oh dear.... now I'm being misquoted. I didn't say I thought this was made for teenage boys. Others said so and I just pointed out that I'm not a teenage boy, but I still liked it.
I agree with the character developements, but how much do we really need to know about them when some get snuffed pretty quick? I do agree that Ryker was not effective as the lead. I thought Finn (I mentioned this long time ago) was the one that changed the most during this film. In other words, I felt he would be a better protagonist.
Relax Gary! Sounds like you're having a rough day over there. We can all play nice, can't we? Differing viewpoints are what this is all about, and I honestly believe that we learn an awful lot from other's opinions, whether or not we agree with them.
Cornetto and Bert both suggested that we throw out some ideas that would improve this script. I started at the very beginning...a very good place to start...
Pia commented awhile back about the fact that the last 80 pages or so are constant action, and I said something to that effect as well. In this type of movie, if you don't develop your characters in the beginning, you're not going to be able to do it at all. And if you don't have developed characters, why should the audience give 2 shits about them when they die or are about to die?
And if you don't have developed characters, why should the audience give 2 shits about them when they die or are about to die?
Which audience are you talking about? Because I honestly believe that the audience this movie was written for do not really care.
If we are talking about improving this script, re-writing it even then a decision needs to be made for what audience are we re-writing it for? it it for ourselves? If it is for me then yes of course I would want more character development otherwise I would probably walk out the cinema before the end.
So who are we re-writing it for? Because the minute this movie starts appealing to me then it stops appealing to it's original audience and it becomes a different movie altogether and we need to look at cutting the budget down.
You want to know what would make this movie more appealing to me?
Lesbians.
But I think we would limit the commercial potential of the movie there despite the fact i would probably enjoy it more.
I am being serious though, you need to decide who your audience is before you decide what would work better otherwise you are just writing a generic script that is not really aimed at anybody in particular and therefore has limited real commercial appeal.
OK, then some of them should have been fleshed out more early on. I'm pretty sure that there were at least 4 of them alive until the last 20 pages or so, weren't there?
How soon do they start getting bumped off? Other than Corvin, I think it was pretty far along before anyone actually bit it...or am I wrong? I tiink it was at least 30 or more pages in, wasn't it?
How can we get another look at this script? Where'd it go? I'd like to review it again, so I can make some comments that are accurate.
Well Gary, if this is indeed intended for 13 year olds and under, I'd say right up front that a big budget like this is most likely going to need, is a BIG mistake in the first place. There just isn't anything here that I think is going to appeal to a very young audience.
There's no humor at all, that I can recall. There's very little of the "cool factor". The story line about the inevitability of future isn't going to be grasped at all. There's no hint at any sexuality or skin, which young teens do apreciatte for sure. And finally, and most importantly, there aren't any cool creatures that kids are going to go for.
There's just nothing here that is going to make this movie stand out. Now, they could sign on some "hot" young talent, in hopes of drawing in a young audience, but other than that, I don't see it. An if that's inded the case, it has nothing to do with the script at all, and if they're banking on this, I say "good luck!".
There certainly is a lot of chatter. I'm almost afraid to post anything else but there were a few questions asked.
Mr. Z. asked - "If this script was written on spec by an unknown writer, would it help him to break in?"
Yes. But it wouldn't be produced. It's too expensive for a first timers spec. It could get you an agent and it could get you work. It's solid and clean and it meets all the requirements for a high concept film.
Dreamscale refuses to let go of the fact that this script was an automatic greenlight because it was a Matheson story. Big deal it's based on a Matheson story. Studios and production companies own the rights to millions of dollars worth of literary merchandise. A greenlit script would not be dated 2005. Greenlight = money is moved into a production account which has to be used within a month.
This script has been in various stages of development for four or so years. In 2005 Brandt and Haas wrote a script which has been sitting around for three years. After Wanted and 3:10, Brandt and Haas are seen as golden. They make money and because they make money the project is going to attract a better cast. The script is now in play again with Brandt directing.
I can understand a lot of your frustration about selling a script. But the thing is you have to be both a good writer and good at making the deal. That's what makes a screenwriter. It's understanding the market and what people want in a script. It's just seems wrongheaded that you keep trying to rewrite this one. This sold. It's what people want. They don't want it changed so why are you trying to change it?
Okay, I do not think this movie is really aimed at 13 year olds. Somebody else said It and I just went along with it and never expected my words to be taken so literally. I have said in an earlier post that I see this movie as being written for the 15-25 year old market, the same group I would Imagine were queuing up to watch the recent Mummy sequel.
I can understand a lot of your frustration about selling a script. But the thing is you have to be both a good writer and good at making the deal. That's what makes a screenwriter. It's understanding the market and what people want in a script. It's just seems wrongheaded that you keep trying to rewrite this one. This sold. It's what people want. They don't want it changed so why are you trying to change it?
Well, there you go. Can’t get any plainer than that. So how about shifting the discussion to the points here?
1) Understanding the market 2) Writing the script 3) Making the deal
Thank you Verdugo. Your input is actually awesome. It's what we need here.
I'll drop my earlier beliefs about this being auto greenlit.
Now I'll say that I bet the script we're looking at is a very old, 1st or 2nd draft that has been radically altered. I just can't believe that what we're looking at is anywhere near what we're going to see on screen...at least I hope it's not.
So Verdugo, can you give us some insight into the budget here? What about the demo it's going after? And finally, are you aware of who is being attached to it in terms of star power.
Thanks again. I don't mean to come off as an A-Hole or anything of the sort. I just honestly don't see much in the script we read and are discussing.
But the bottom line for me at least, is that the vesion of the script that we read here, is nothing at all special, and in many ways is shockingly weak in many, many aspects.
I don't mean to put anyone down or downplay the talents of any writer, but in a discussion type atmosphere, I'm always going to shoot from the hip and never pull any punches.
This sold. It's what people want. They don't want it changed so why are you trying to change it?
Well, shut our mouths haha.
I am not sure how we attracted your attention, Verdugo, but you are a welcome participant here.
I hope the chatter doesn't scare you off. There are people listening.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
Sorry if I'm a dragging over a dead donkey.
Yeah, kind of. Dragging out the discussion of how delusional some of us may or may not be regarding our own talents is a bit counterproductive to the topic at hand.
There were a few comments directed towards you -- and your responses were made accordingly -- but I hope that is the final word on that particular avenue of discussion.
I am not sure how we attracted your attention, Verdugo, but you are a welcome participant here.
I hope the chatter doesn't scrare you off. There are people listening.
I just want to second Bert's comments.
I would like to hear anything you can say about this and most interested in hearing more about the 2nd script you mentioned. Are you saying the writer is a member here? I would like to take a look at the script if possible.
Well, there you go. Can’t get any plainer than that. So how about shifting the discussion to the points here?
1) Understanding the market 2) Writing the script 3) Making the deal
Thanks Verdugo.
Or do we need a separate thread for this?
Breanne
Well to be perfectly honest I thought the first two points is exactly what I have been trying to shift the discussion to for the last few pages but failing miserably it seems.
We'll see if it's truly what the people want when it's released.
It will be interesting for sure. If I'm wrong in what I've said, I'll be the first to admit it...maybe I'll even send the writers a bottle of cheap wine!
It's just seems wrongheaded that you keep trying to rewrite this one. This sold. It's what people want. They don't want it changed so why are you trying to change it?
Hey Verdugo...welcome.
We aren't going to rewrite the script - but as an exercise we are analyzing it, criticizing it, and at the same time possibly making suggestions for how to improve it. That is what the script club does with scripts.
We thought this one would be interesting because it will be produced but is not yet viewable - therefore the final film could not influence peoples perceptions of the script. We expect that changes will happen to this script as it goes through the process of being filmed. It will be interesting to see what changes are made to the final film and then look back at this thread and see how well we did with our predictions.
We aren't going to rewrite the script - but as an exercise we are analyzing it, criticizing it, and at the same time possibly making suggestions for how to improve it. That is what the script club does with scripts.
I will just add that that is what the script club does with unproduced scripts. I am sure you were not talking for everybody when you say "we".
I am under not allusion whatsoever that I am qualified enough to even think I can improve a script written by professional screenwriters with a heap of successful movies under their belt already. We should have been looking at this script and analyzing it to try and get a better understanding of why this is being produced. What is the commercial drivers as to why a studio thinks this script will be successful? How could we use this information to improve our own skills as writers? But no, let's not bother with that, there is obviously some mistake here, because it does not match up to our own expectations of what a produced screenplay should look like then surely someone has got it wrong!
I have got no interest in criticizing or improving this script at all, I can critique movies in the movie review section and I can offer improvement to scripts in the unproduced section, But this script has succeeded in doing exactly what we all want for ourselves and all people want to do it rip it to shreds to prove how we are better writers anyway. I thought that everyone here wanted to learn more about what makes a successful script so successful and thought this was was the thread to do it. But all we ended up with was a pissing contest about how this script is not very good and how we could all do better and life isn't fair. An opportunity missed and a huge disappointment for me personally.
So the 'we' certainly does not speak for me on this Michael and this really is my last post of the script club.
This script seems to have sparked a rather lively conversation, albeit not entirely related to the script itself. Might I suggest you keep plugging along in the produced section (since I don't know what SS script to suggest) and you guys do The Wrestler for the next script club?
I'd be really interested in seeing what you guys have to say about it, since I think the script has Oscar nod written all over it, and it would offer, in my opinion, a complete 180 to what's go on in regards to this script.
I apologize to the script club members for harping so much on the salability issues of scripts. Obviously it’s important to us all but this is not the place for such discussions.
I don’t have the time right now but maybe later I’ll start a separate discussion thread for the purpose of examining those other issues.
I respect the purposes of the script club. I just didn’t fully understand them. I do believe a lot of productive things have come from this script club and I’m interested in continuing the discussion in the capacity it’s meant to be. But I also want to discuss those other issues so I’ll probably start another thread sometime.
Thanks and sorry for all the conflict. Honestly I think a little conflict is inevitable in a long thread like this. So I have no hard feelings toward anyone. And I hope no one has any toward me. Or at least can get over them eventually.
Quoted from AnotherWriter
I'm gonna bite on this on, 'cause I'm not sure whether you're joking or not. It's big talk you're making there -- no, it's smackdown talk -- it's the howls of the Ultimate Warrior. And I feel kinda embarassed on your behalf.
AnotherWriter, from now on we need to take this up outside of this forum. I sent you a pm.
I love words and the fact that when the page is blank...there's nothing there until words are formulated in my brain. Those thoughts...rushing through my viens and out my finger tips, find "life" on the page.
When people and places come to life...that to me is exciting.
MBCgirl =) My finger nails should look nice while I type - Red works!
The Dark Knight being better than this is not a revelation. The Dark Knight is rubbing elbows with the Godfather, so… TDK should get nominated for best screenplay, if these guys who not only nominated but gave Oscars to ‘The Departed’ and “Return of The King’, no anything at all.
Plot Point is a tad vague. It may tell you where something should go, but it doesn’t tell you how to convey it in a clever, unique and insightful way. You’re better of reading about comedy and comparative philosophy than Syd Field.
Twelve pages, I think it’s time to move on since we can’t have the writers chim in, boy would that be interesting. I think we should do a Drama, Western, or drama/thriller, unproduced, of course. I want to see the response more character, less plot (not that there’s a difference).
What do you say, Pia? Or anybody, any suggestions?
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
I agree, the Dark Knight probably isn't the best example. If it wins any OScars, it won't be for best picture or best screenplay, but it certainly was going to make a tone of money one way or another. But the fact that it made almost enough money to bail out our fiasco of an economy is proof that you can have good writing and commercial success. (Rumor has it that W's original economic plan was to throw up the bat signal and see what happens.)
I conceded a point to you. By your own words, this is not a well written script, but it may in fact be a well constructed script. You say that it hits all its plot points. I would love to see you develop that point. Give us some specific examples. Show Don't tell! It could lead to a constrcutive conversation and one that you seem to want to have.
I'm making the claim tht this is the worst screenplay that I have ever read that has sold and is being produced. You seem to think there are worse out there. Please provide an example.
The staement that it sould and that's all we should care about is scynical and silly. As aspiring screenwriters. what we should care about is writing the best possible srceenplay.
Bert - I am in fact suing you. Tell your lawyers to get ready.
Anotherwrtier - Your points will have a beeter chance of resonating if you refrain from personal attacks and quouting the Ultimate Warrior.
Pia - You rock. No reason in particular, just a general statemnet of fact.
Last but not least, I think this discussion is awesome. We're talking about writing, What works and what doesn't, and I think that's great. But remember don't take it personally. We're all here for the same reason. We may not always agree, but we're all in the same boat.
I think MBCgirl might be reading this one at the moment even if a little late.
Personally I think this one is done.
I'm happy that so many people participated. That was great. Maybe the next one can be "hosted" by Shelton or Bert. Someone that can actually do something if things turn personal.
Regarding what script to do next I have mixed feelings. A lot of people took part in this one. Was it only because it was a produced script? I think our original idea about this script club was to discuss members scripts so they could receive the best ideas, suggestions, analysis of their script possible... for free too.
Seamus has issued a challenge to GM (or maybe AnotherWriter or Vedunga would want to chime in). I say we wait a bit and see if anything else interesting comes up today.
I agree with Pia though in that this forum should be used for unproduced SS member's scripts.
Maybe the next one can be "hosted" by Shelton or Bert. Someone that can actually do something if things turn personal.
Just for the record, GM and I totally worked all that out. I took some of his comments personally and responded with personal remarks. I’ve now removed those remarks from the offending post and I publicly apologize to GM over it. There’s always a better way to handle a situation.
Yes. But it wouldn't be produced. It's too expensive for a first timers spec. It could get you an agent and it could get you work. It's solid and clean and it meets all the requirements for a high concept film.
Z asked if Countdown would break an amateur in and Verdugo responded with the above. I just want to clarify something here because someone said this is basically what AnotherWriter said.
I draw a distinction between what Verdugo said and what AnotherWriter said. I did not take what Verdugo said as any sort of guarantee of success. If however Verdugo is claiming this script would guarantee an amateur success, then all I can say is that I don’t agree that anyone can know such a thing and leave it at that.
All of that aside:
I think this thread has been terrific. I think there have been a lot of things here that will help me improve as a writer. I think the whole thing was worth it.
I think all the turmoil is winding up. I found my way here because someone named Mike Shelton told someone named Tierney who used to post here that you were doing Countdown. Tierney and I have friends in common and she remembered that I had talked about the resurrection of this script. Here I am. By way of an introduction, I am retired but I have worked in development and in management for over thirty years.
Breanne asked about the guarantee of success with the Countdown script. No guarantees ever when there is a human involved but it is the correctly shaped key for the lock.
A couple of people asked me about demo and budget and casting.
The movie is at Summit Entertainment and they do mid-level budget films which means $30 to $35 million dollars.
As far as demographic this is an action movie with monsters. 15-34 year old males in the US and then there’s the rest of the world. This will make its money overseas. It’s like the last Mummy movie which made 65% of its total gross internationally. Look at the script again and take into account the dialogue. There’s not a lot of nuance going on here. Also look at how little dialogue there is in chunks of the movie. It will play the same in Topeka as it will in India.
As far as the cast I have no idea. There is still no guarantee that this will make it to the screen. I don't think it's been moved into production. I think another rewrite is underway. Does it have a better chance now that Brandt and Haas are the soup of the day? Sure.
I think you should try another purchased script before you give up this exercise. Reading each others work will only get you so far. You’re writing and critiquing to meet your own narrative needs which have nothing to do with what the market wants. I have character and story wants that Countdown doesn’t meet but I can look at it and see what is there without letting my own taste interfere. There are giant tongue monsters running around. Would I see this? No, but I’m not a teenager raised on video games. Can I see the trailer in my head and see it making back the budget domestically. Yes.
This thread got stuck in a fight about quality. There was a reference to The Wrestler which is nice script and straightforward. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is on everyone’s Oscar screenplay shortlist and you’d be in good hands with Eric Roth. Those are both sort of "important" scripts. I’m sure that there are plenty of leaked scripts (like Alex Garland’s Halo) on the internet that are more high concept if that's what you are looking for.
If you do pick another script don’t pick one that has been written by the person directing the film. Those scripts have everything to do with directing and little to do with writing.
Regarding the question of how one might make it better:
I believe that this is the foundation of all developments in all areas. How to improve on a pen, on a package, on a vehicle... Just because this is a produced script, it doesn't mean we should stop asking how it might be better. I think it's a worthy exercise, but it's also a difficult one because as people have mentioned, once you start changing things-- (well they didn't say exactly this) but things change...
You might wind up changing what audience it's geared for and the entire tone of the film.
If I were writing it, I would probably add comedy into it and then it wouldn't matter if we had new creatures coming out of the blue. The audience would forgive us if they could feel that they were in with us on the joke and perhaps have the characters addressing the stupidity of some things.
But then, this would obviously be a different film wouldn't it?
I would gear it to make it more acceptable for a younger audience by losing the swears.
I think that the premise and the fact that it's about time travel are the two Aces up this one's sleeve. The very notion of encountering one's own dead body and being stuck in a time loop-- it's a winning premise.
And now, the end is near; And so I face the final curtain. My friend, Ill say it clear, Ill state my case, of which I'm certain.
Ive lived a life that's full. Ive traveled each and every highway; And more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Regrets, Ive had a few; But then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do And saw it through without exemption.
I planned each charted course; Each careful step along the byway, But more, much more than this, I did it my way.
Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew When I bit off more than I could chew. But through it all, when there was doubt, I ate it up and spit it out. I faced it all and I stood tall; And did it my way.
Ive loved, Ive laughed and cried. Ive had my fill; my share of losing. And now, as tears subside, I find it all so amusing.
To think I did all that; And may I say - not in a shy way, No, oh no not me, I did it my way.
For what is a man, what has he got? If not himself, then he has naught. To say the things he truly feels; And not the words of one who kneels. The record shows I took the blows - And did it my way!
Hey Verdugo, thanks so much for this info. This all makes sense now (at least more sense) to me.
I thought this was already in production and was being released next Summer as a big "Summer Blockbuster". Because of that, I thought the budget was going to be $50-$75 million (if not more). And based on that, I predicted a commercial flop. It should be able to pull in $30 Million or so here at the NABO if it's done up right for sure.
Interesting point about Mummy 3. I saw it and actually told my girlfriend that based on it's $175 Million budget, it was going to be a flop here, but would most likely do very well in Asia, based on Jet Li and Michelle Yio. I see that it definitely did, and made a little more $200 Million over it's budget. It was not a good movie by any means though (and I really liked Mummy 1 and Mummy 2).
Your comments about the dialogue make sense also, if it's indeed hoping for a big box office over seas, might as well keep things simple.
And finally, I'm very happy to hear that they are going through another rewrite. If you've read these posts, you know that I sure think it needs it. I was under the assumption that the script we read was a final, or near final version, and that they had already begun filming. Oops, my bad.
Anyway, thanks again for filling us in on the details. Take care.
Just for the record, GM and I totally worked all that out. I took some of his comments personally and responded with personal remarks. I’ve now removed those remarks from the offending post and I publicly apologize to GM over it. There’s always a better way to handle a situation.
Breanne, you did not have to do that. You have gone and made me break my promise about not writing on this thread anymore. But thanks, It has always been my biggest flaw in life, I take things to personally and react far too quickly. It takes a lot of effort daily in the "real world" to not let it get in the way of my professional life and I do manage to keep a lid on it most of the time, I would not have a job otherwise! But here on the forum sometimes it is just far too easy to be distracted by other things and hammer out a quick message without thinking about the consequences of what i am writing.
I do apologize to you and to everybody else here for dragging the thread downward somewhat.
Pia, you are doing a great job of organizing this, don't let a couple of hot heads make you think you aren't.
Ah! So Mr Shelton was the leak...We'll have to take care of that!
All kidding aside. Thanks for the input and sorry that you had to meet the script club in such tumultuous times. Please do stick around and comment on some of the future scripts the club reads.
Me,
I agree. This is done. I vote for unproduced scripts only in the future.
Breanne's and bert's pro script discussion disappeared and I can never find the original SC thread, so....
What do you people want to do next?
Personally I would prefer an unproduced script by an active member... Even if we don't get as many readers, it's still more "helpful" I think for all our members.
Maybe we can do 3 member's scripts then one pro script and then back to 3 member scripts...
Breanne's and bert's pro script discussion disappeared…
Pia, I deleted it because….
1) I felt I might be stepping on your toes here. I was afraid it would be too much for people to try and participate in that and the Script Club both and that it might hurt the Script Club.
2) There is a script review section already here and I was thinking that might be the better place to discuss things. I don’t know.
3) I was afraid it would become more extensive than I could handle hosting. I see how stressed you are here -- haha.
I was concerned about diminishing the discussions about our unproduced scripts. After all, once we've managed to write a feature, what could be better than having it discussed in detail?
So, in order not to dilute this script discussion deal... How about one unproduced script then one hot spec script in production?
I think having two separate threads is an excellent idea!!!!
All serious people will try and devote time to both I would hope.
I really do see the benefits of discussing both produced and amateur scripts. It would be interesting too, to see the difference and similarities in the threads.
I do not think SS is big enough to sustain two threads at the same time.
I feel that the unproduced SS writer's scripts will suffer, but that's just my opinion.
I would have suggested one produced then one unproduced and so on, but if these produced ones are what you want to do. Go ahead. Personally I can't participate right now because I'm reading three scripts by unproduced writers.
I do not think SS is big enough to sustain two threads at the same time.
I feel that the unproduced SS writer's scripts will suffer, but that's just my opinion.
I would have suggested one produced then one unproduced and so on, but if these produced ones are what you want to do. Go ahead. Personally I can't participate right now because I'm reading three scripts by unproduced writers.
Pia, I’m sorry. That was a concern for me. The only reason I ever considered it was because we weren’t allowed to discuss the salability issue here in this thread. There were things I wanted to discuss that the Script Club didn’t allow.
Doing a produced script here is fine for looking at ways to improve but if anyone wants to discuss salability and marketability, there wasn’t anywhere to do that.
Sorry. I’m not sure what to do now. Bert???? Help!!!!
Okay I don’t know what’s going on here. I was told I needed a separate thread to discuss those things. I don’t want to start an argument here. This is all stuff that’s been ongoing in this thread.
For most of this time I’ve wanted to discuss the salability issue. I thought Verdugo had a valid point about studying the characteristics of a sold script rather than looking at how to improve it. Plus Verdugo isn’t interested in discussing how to improve a sold script. I felt we would lose valuable input if we cut him out of the discussion.
I felt there was value in both avenues of discussion so I asked if I needed a new thread to discuss salability and was told I did.
I’m confused. And I don’t want to cause more problems.
I think that if people are afraid that the scripts here will suffer from reads due to a separate thread, then it is at the discretion of those in charge to determine and then we should all follow along with whatever that may be.
If we are feeling in desperate need of dissecting and discussing produced scripts, there are other ways to do it without upsetting the balance here.
I know this is a difficult thing because we enter into "time management" issues-- and these are both personal as well as public concerns here.
There has been so much debate here, and personally i think this script club was very informative in many aspects. I learned from it. Can't wait for the next script club, and is weird because I was thinking to send a PM to Pia, suggesting The Wrestler but Shelton got it on time. Yes, Pia you were a great hostess
So, to get back to the script, Countdown has many plot holes and the strange thing is that if I was the writer I would have probably passed it till I’d had the solution for those plot holes; the last one Bre mentioned is huge. Guess I have to change my way of choosing ideas...
Now, what makes this script better than the other scripts here? Personally nothing, but I see something Countdown has that many of the scripts here do not and the fact is that Countdown is commercial. The script has commercial values that scripts here do not have.
But I stay faithful to my earlier post saying that I believe that here are some writers that could pull off script like this. For the high concept that Z pointed out, I give credit for it to Matheson not the writers. I think some writers (and this is my opinion) on the board write scripts for franchises that have been already produced. There are scripts about Friday 13, Halloween (if I’m not wrong) and many other well known films. So what's the point in writing something nobody will get his hands off? To me, it would be better to find an article or a short story and try to get permission and develop something out of it. It's more rewarding.
Breanne, what you have said is true. I have one suggestion for you. I know you are a good writer and i know you can pull off many things, but it's kind of hard that someone will come and knock at your door so easily. So, why not try and shoot a short script you've already written? You will get noticed more this way and probably you will discover more about film and your own abilities. I suggest this because I consider myself a director first, but I love writing.
AnotherWriter, your comments have been insightful, I’m curious to know if i can read a script of yours somewhere. And could you tell us the name of that script that was placed highly on Nicholls contest?
The way i came to know about Countdown, is from a podcast of Michael Brandt where he talks about the script and the guys who wrote it, and he says that he will direct it. So i was more interested to know about his directing duty, and I admit that i will watch the movie when it comes out. But now I’m curious to read more from the other writers Scott Burn & Stephen Gregg, perhaps Verdugo or AnotherWriter can tell us if there is something else from these guys. And i like Z's question to Verdugo hehe.
I have some suggestions for the other Script Club, the scripts are:
The Wrestler (as Shelton suggested before) Changeling Blindness W Imaginarium Of dr.Parnassus Valkyrie Shutter Island
Many scripts here I know, but I think these are pretty interesting and they're not so commercial. I can provide the chosen script. Let's keep Script Club up and I personally want to thank everyone who contributed and posted here. THANKS Cheers Nik
Okay, I did write a comment on Breannes thread but realise now I should have come here first. I will leave my comment there as I still believe in what i said, but perhaps you guys are right and seem to have sorted in out anyway.
My only issue was with the idea of spending time trying to improve a script that has generated allot of interest in Hollywood anyway instead of learning from it. I am dying to try an analogy but it might be seen as really poor, but what the hell. Too me it is like reading Toy Story and suggesting it would be a much better script with a gunfight and a sex scene. There is no doubt it may make it a better movie for us to watch but it certainly would not help sell it to the market it was intended for. So instead of spending time discussing how to make it better for us would it not be better spending time trying to work out why it got so much interest as a kids movie in the first place?
I wrote this on Breannes thread..
Quoted Text
One thing that very rarely gets discussed here at Simply Scripts is the commercial appeal of the script. i.e. actually writing a script with a clear idea in mind of who the audience is, how much money can we get from them and from there what is the maximum our script can cost to produce. It was only this week that I realized how crazy that was that we never discuss it because this is without doubt the most important thing in the mind of anybody who is in the position to say yes or no to our script.
Hollywood is a business where people invest a heap of money into movie projects with the main objective of making a return on their investment. If all we are doing is just writing a spec script and hoping that somebody likes it then we are relying on a huge slice of luck. But I have to think that we can begin to think like salespeople when writing our scripts i.e. find out what the market wants first and then write to meet that demand. Reading scripts that have managed to do that and together trying to understand how surely must be a good thing?
Maybe I am full of crap, please do not be afraid to tell me if I am. After all I don't have time to waste, like everybody else here I have a real life too. But I am prepared to put my time into anything that would increase my chances of writing a script that can sell.
My only issue was with the idea of spending time trying to improve a script that has generated allot of interest in Hollywood anyway instead of learning from it. I am dying to try an analogy but it might be seen as really poor, but what the hell. Too me it is like reading Toy Story and suggesting it would be a much better script with a gunfight and a sex scene. There is no doubt it may make it a better movie for us to watch but it certainly would not help sell it to the market it was intended for. So instead of spending time discussing how to make it better for us would it not be better spending time trying to work out why it got so much interest as a kids movie in the first place?
Any script can be improved. Just because someone got paid for it does not mean it is perfect. In all likelihood Countdown will change before it is released. A great deal can be learned as an exercise from finding the weak points in professional scripts and looking at how you can fix them. People get paid to do that too.
The problem I have with discussing the marketing is that it is pure speculation and because of that the ability to learn from it is diminished. We were lucky because Verdugo came to visit and he did tell us what market Countdown was aimed for. Otherwise we wouldn't have known. We could have decided it was for an entirely different market than it was actually for (actually we did because we thought it was being marketed for the states).
And if we're wrong about the market how do we learn from that? Do we learn the wrong thing from that? I confused about how you think we learn anything from speculation.
Any script can be improved. Just because someone got paid for it does not mean it is perfect. In all likelihood Countdown will change before it is released. A great deal can be learned as an exercise from finding the weak points in professional scripts and looking at how you can fix them. People get paid to do that too.
The problem I have with discussing the marketing is that it is pure speculation and because of that the ability to learn from it is diminished. We were lucky because Verdugo came to visit and he did tell us what market Countdown was aimed for. Otherwise we wouldn't have known. We could have decided it was for an entirely different market than it was actually for (actually we did because we thought it was being marketed for the states).
And if we're wrong about the market how do we learn from that? Do we learn the wrong thing from that? I confused about how you think we learn anything from speculation.
Michael, As soon as I got to the 2nd act I was under no illusions at all what market this movie was aimed for. If you read all of my comments on this script I have always clearly said that this was a popcorn movie, an action movie for 15-25 year olds that will get bums on seats. I even specifically made reference to the crowd that went to watch the Mummy sequel before Verdugo said the same thing. So it is somewhat strange to hear you say that Verdugo enlightened "us" all so much when really Verdugo has echoed what I had always been saying. Honestly, this business aint that different to any other business and thinking it is is probably not gonna help you go forward. You think it is speculation? fair enough, I personally do not. As someone who has a very keen interest in movies, who watches movies of all kinds I think I am qualified enough to have an opinion that is more than just speculation. But I would have thought that the same would go for everybody else on these boards, you really think that the business of making movies is just too complicated for any of us to really understand? And you are a screenwriter?
Yes, any script can be improved, you are right. Maybe we could whip out The Godfather and discuss how leaving the gun taped in the toilet was a really weak idea. A major plot moment hanging on the fact that the cleaner was not working that day, terrible writing. So we could fix up The Godfather and that makes us better writers, co's at least then we know we can write a script better than The Godfather.
But hey, I know when the horse has been flogged to death and I am certainly getting close, I tried anyway.
Maybe I am wrong, sounds like I am. But it ain't gonna change my mind. I would like to be part of a discussion that wanted to learn from scripts that have been SUCCESSFUL already but I am not going to waste my time if the aim is to try and turn them into something else If you really think there is anything to learn there then good, go for it and good luck to you. Really, I mean it.
Nothing wrong with bringing up marketability, if someone wants to bring it up or if no one does. Produced or unproduced.
I understand where mcronetto is coming from, the market and Hollywood will be speculative, but so is writing with different theories. I mean we don’t, maybe we should, critique an unproduced script, have the writer take that advice and rewrite the script, so we can re-read it, or at the very least read a later script from the same writer, to see if he/she has learned from what we perceived as mistakes. Do we? Will we?
I think we should learn, with all topics, when to move on to the next topic. Maybe marketability after we hear from the writer on our previous conversation/topics, then inject who we think the audience is, who’s buying similar stories all based on what previous movies have done. I hear a reason why some scripts don’t get picked up is because companies already have something similar in the works. It’ll take a little homework, but
Say we read a script with a similar story and/or premise to Righteous Kill…
I think Market Club would overshadow Script Club, as you can see 6 pages jumped to 14. I’d rather keep them under one umbrella.
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
I like Bert's idea too. 'Pro' Script Club, 'Unpro' Script Club. The ideas I brought up could be just for 'Pro' Script Club since we won't have the advantage of talking to the writer, which I think is unique to 'Unpro'. And indepth market talk unique to 'Pro'.
I think between 'Pro' and 'Unpro' that the writer go back and either re-write a scene or sequence to see if picked up anything, or at least write a summary of the things he/she thinks about changing/improving, whether hook, premise, character, scene...
Commodus: But the Emperor Claudius knew that they were up to something. He knew they were busy little bees. And one night he sat down with one of them and he looked at her and he said, "Tell me what you have been doing, busy little bee..."
If we’re going to do one at a time, and I agree that trying to do both at the same time would be too exhaustive, then I think we have to go back to Pia’s idea.
I think examining unproduced scripts is a great idea. It helps everyone personally. Not just the writer but the readers. And on a personal level. Because we might be in the middle of a project and learn something that will benefit it.
My problem with treating the pro script the same way as the unproduced script is that I would like to discuss what makes a pro script a pro level script. I would like to be able to do that without discussing how to improve it. In other words, I would like to discuss it as it is. I want to examine how it’s constructed; how to emulate it, not change it. I want to treat it as a model for success.
I want to examine why it sold - as it is. I want to examine how the writer gauged the market, how he arrived at a salable premise, and also how he drummed up interest.
I’m afraid the things I wish to discuss regarding a pro script might hurt an unproduced script discussion. That’s the only reason I even thought about a separate thread in the first place.
When it comes to pro scripts, although I can understand the value of trying to improve them, I’m really not interested in that part of it. I’m not saying it isn’t valuable, but discussing how to improve a sold script is the very last priority of issues I personally wish to discuss.
I’m interested in taking Verdugo’s advice. Because I think it was good advice. And I think it will help me become a more salable writer. And becoming a more salable writer is my primary goal.
But I realize different people can have different priorities even while having the same goal. And I don’t want to push my priorities on the whole group.
I think Bert has the most sensible solution. But I don’t want to step on Pia’s toes here. And I’m sorry if I did. So I honestly don’t know what to do right now.
Having considered this since yesterday, I think the sensible thing to do is to have two separate threads in order to distinguish easily between the two. However, to place less strain on the board-- of promoting one thread at the sacrifice of others, I think Bert's recommendation to carry them out one at a time is a good one.
This is discussion of where to go next. Produced or Unproduced, it will be a discussion of what "Script Club V" ought to be.
Decide on a script -- decide on some specific goals for the discussion -- decide upon a host to guide the discussion -- preferably someone other than I --
-- and we will proceed from there with a "Script Club V" thread when everyone is in agreement that we are ready to go.
Pages: 
Author
Script Club IV: Countdown
Logged
