Yes, of course, I ran a day late  this time since I didn't know back then that my workplace was actually giving us MLK day off. It's a good surprise.

This time, we're hitting up the produced script "The Strangers" by Bryan Bertino.  This script was quarterfinalist in the Nicholls Fellowship. That's the most prestigeous screenwriting competition there is after winning an Oscar. About 7000 or so enter every year and The Strangers were in the top 300. Which I think means he landed on a list that gets sent out to agents. We just want to know what he did right so we can follow that kind of example.
Link: http://www.oscars.org/awards/nicholl/index.html

Read the script here.

As before, we're not rushing it. We'll give it a week before discussions start so everyone who intends to participate will have time to read it. I'd also like to treat this script like any other we do. Although, Mr. Bertino is clealy not in need of feedback, tearing it apart is the best way to learn from it, so let's follow the same basic process, but with an emphasis on what went right.

We're starting with the first impressions, so consider that while reading it through. First impressions are important so I would like to know what your first impression was after reading. Something simple like, Good, Great, Boring, Slow, Exciting, Scary or whatever. That may also help us later to narrow down why we felt this or that and where the problem areas might be (since nobody's perfect).

I would still like to discuss this script in this order, though if we wear out one topic, we can totally move on:

First impression
Story/structure/plot
Characterization/arc/journey
Dialogue
Writing
Commercial appeal
And since this is produced, script-to-screen comparison for those wh have seen it.

This thread will be locked until next Monday when we'll see what we can learn.

All right, the table is open (kinda late; it's been a busy day and I forgot). We're going to try and keep the discussion solely on the script until we're done with that and then we'll move onto script-movie comparison for those who have seen it. But try, try, try to stay on the script alone until then.

My first impression of this script was that it wasn't scary (I just didn't relate to the secluded aspect of the script), it had very little dialogue, and was a slow read.  Sometimes when you read a script, you get visual imagery of the script in your head - the movie kind of plays out for you.  This script didn't do that for me, even though I have seen the movie.  

First Impression.

For me personally, Crap. Badly written with weak, unlikeable and stupid characters.

But I can see why a studio picked this up. Easy and cheap to film, no CGI or expensive make-up, single location and appeals to a large enough demographic to make some money. A $75m return on a $9m budget more than justified the studio's faith in the project and has no doubt turned a first time writer/director into a hot property. So as a film I would want to watch? No, as a film I would have liked to have written? Hell yes.

Still a pile of crap but a successful pile of crap. I will no doubt explain my reasons as we progress.

First impression: okay, but slow read  

OK, cool, we've begun.  Let's get to it.

First impression is that this was not well written.  It does not look or feel like an experienced writer wrote this.  It's very, very dull, slow, and unimaginative.   Tons of mistakes that actually shocked me (I have to assume that this is a very first draft, and definitely not the one that helped Bertino place in the Nicholls).  Also, shockingly repetitive.  Dialogue wasn't good, and our 2 protags were neither likeable, nor believable...and yes, they were completely stupid and sure didn't seem to want to survive.

Like Cornetto said, I agree that it was not at all visually written, and for me, that's a big problem.

Giles mentioned that it was a smart script in that it was cheap to put together and returned a huge profit...well, I'd disagree because it was a $10 million budgeted movie, and although it did do fantastic at the Box Office (and on DVD), there's never any guarrantees, and $10 million is far from a low budget production.

I'll stop there and wait for others to jump in.

I liked the beginning. I wanted desperately to know what exactly had happened.

Then it got worse from then on...

Hey Pia, have you seen the movie?

My first impression was that my strings were being carefully pulled.

The beginning was crafted with a strong hook and I could feel it. This is a good thing in many respects, but I also felt that many things were a little too purposeful-- even to the point of being downright silly at times.

The cryptic dialogue wore on me after awhile. The drastic changes in both their characters to suit the story felt wrong to me. Again, I'm referring to feeling that my strings were being pulled.

Did I think it was boring? No. The writer's purposeful withholding of information is what generated the desire to read on and it's this that I think led to its success.

Who were these "strangers"? Why the masks? The relationship between Kristen and James is also something that has us wondering from the beginning.

Sandra

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey Pia, have you seen the movie?

Yes, got it on my iTunes. That's why I thought the beginning was good regardless of clunky writing. It hooked me and I wanted to know what the hell was going on.

The script soon deteriorated though, but I thought the beginning was good and during the beginning it was good enough for me to forget about other short comings.

Quoted from mcornetto My first impression of this script was that it wasn't scary (I just didn't relate to the secluded aspect of the script), it had very little dialogue, and was a slow read.  Sometimes when you read a script, you get visual imagery of the script in your head - the movie kind of plays out for you.  This script didn't do that for me, even though I have seen the movie.

This is strange that you should say that. Maybe it's because you've seen the movie first? I haven't seen the movie yet; so that's probably a good thing in analyzing it as a script.

I thought there was a lot of good images at times. Particularly the rose petals and the painted toe nails, the slapping at the gun like a child, the Pin Up Girl, Strawberry... I actually could go on and on without referring back to the script; so maybe you've brought up a good point although I don't agree. I think there was great imagery. Oh yes! And her dress with the zipper at the back. It was as the stranger said about Kristen: Pretty. And we saw her decline from the prettiness.

One thing I will say though, (and this might be what wore you down) was the sentence structure. It was all This happened and that happened without any variety.

Nevertheless, it was clear that the writer was trying to focus on the action and not so much the words themselves. I works in that regard.

Sandra

I'm just reading the comments now and I have a collection of negative comments, but those aside for the time being, I didn't see it as a failure of a script.

I actually did enjoy the read even if I did feel it was a little dishonest in its means to get the read and keep it.

It used devices that work. Plain and simple. The writing itself however as people have stated isn't great from a stylistic perspective. What gives the script its appeal (if one believes it has appeal) is its devices.

Sandra

Hey Sandra, glad you're participating in this!

I think the imagery you're referring to was very simple little descriptive things. Because literally nothing was going on in terms of action and dialogue for the first 13 pages (13 minutes!!).  You focused in on anything that you could that were even remotely interesting, or entertaining.

You alos knew it was a horror script that you were reading, so you knew that you should be feeling apprehension...knowing that at any time, SOMETHING was going to happen.

I've just got to throw this out...I took notes as I read and found so many pitiful "things", and at some point, I'm going to throw them all out (don't worry...I won't do it now).  But I'l leave this post with these words, and I can't wait to read what others say about them...



"rented shoes"


ARRGGHHH!!!!

Just a quick word on the Nicholl's. While yes it is a very prestigious competition and to be a finalist is seen as a great achievement and will no doubt open many doors I have discovered that there are hundreds of quarter finalists, as many as several hundred it seems, depending on the year. So maybe having a screenplay in the quarter final stage may not be as amazing as first thought.

"rented shoes" ?

Not as smart as one would first think and it does smack of a writer trying to be too clever.

I can understand the reference (though I counted 3 times it was used!), we know this guy has been to a wedding, he is dressed in a dinner suit, shiny shoes. Maybe the writer feels it important that he is not the kind of guy who wears suits that often and the idea of a rented suit and shoes was important to the character. I could understand that in some some scripts, but of course how on earth do you show that? Unless you stick a big yellow label on the side that says "rented" then what is the point? If we don't see him pick the shoes up, or take them back to the rental shop then why bother writing it in the script?

And besides the Character of James was not that complicated, I saw no reason why we should know he is someone who rents his shoes. He could be a billionaire investment banker or work nights in Quickie-Mart, as far as this script goes it was never apparent, never mattered and I never really cared so what a strange thing to say really.

"Rented shoes" I think was a deliberate metaphor for the lives we are all living and walking in as being not permanent and we must give them (it) back after awhile.

Maybe I'm just being brilliant LOL and reading something into it, but that's what I think.

Sandra