One more thing Mike, I just read few comments by other members and noticed some were complaining about the Fade out/Fade in. I just wanna say that I had no problem with it at all. It was not distracting and it helped me realize that there was a transition to another frame. Not sure at all why you'd need to lose it.

Ayham,

Thanks for the read.  It's definitely been awhile since anyone (including me) has looked at this one, so I appreciate the bump.

This was basically written as a subsitute for another one of my scripts when a filmmaker I had been in discussions with was looking for something different.  Well, the original script turned into this, and this turned into something that was more of a combination of the two.

Long story short, nothing ever came of it on that end, but the original version is currently in post and this one has gotten some interest from a filmmaker who wants to go into prod in a couple of months.

Leo's role in the script is to provide a little misdirection.  I felt that Vance might have come off as a dead giveaway had I left him on his own, and I wanted to avoid that.

The empty bar?  Budget reasons.  Just wanted to keep the number of characters down, and the bar is supposed to be in a relatively deserted area as well.

Thanks again.

I liked this script quite a lot. I don't really have anything to say about it either way. I don't know, it was just one of those things where I didn't have any problems with it, but nothing really amazed me. It was well written without many mistakes (at least none that I picked up on anyway).

A nice enjoyable read. You've said you're considering a rewrite, but not for a long time at least. If it ever happens, gimme a shout because I would be interested to see how you extend or expand on the material. And possibly give you a review that is worth reading lol.


Cheers, Chism.

Mike, Good luck if this ever went into production. It's really a nice piece and could be easily made with a relatively low budget. Keep us updated.

Hey Shelton -

This is the first script of yours I've seen - and it was a fun read.  Enjoyed it: clean writing, interesting story.  

My one question: though I liked Vance's gambit - why was it necessary?  Couldn't he have just waited for Freddy to leave, and capped Nicky without the drama?  (Also had a small issue with the Fade-In, Fade-Out...but that's easy to ignore..)

That said, really enjoyed the twist with Sully.

Cheers,

--WV

Hey WV,

Thanks for reading.  The misdirection probably wasn't necessary from a realism standpoint, but I wanted to keep the reader guessing about what was going on.  I never wanted things to be too obvious, despite a few people knowing how things would go from the start.  Sully was a twist on the twist, which seemed to work well.

The Fade in/out was just an easy way for me to show passage of time.

Thanks again.

Hey man

I've spent most of my life running bars, and you had me right in the scene. Things were mostly authentic, with a little suspension of disbelief. For example we have to accept that the bar tender would keep serving a guy with $500 tab, having paid nothing in 2 months, and admitting to owing bookies 10k. But I could live with it for the sake of a film.

I would suggest handling Nicky's plan a little different. He would know that sooner or later he would run out of bookies that would take his bets. Just slight changes. It is true that they guys lose the 1:00 game, try to break even on the 4:00, then double up on the 8:00. But they do know there's a limit. They're usually very intelligent guys with a very bad habit, a trap in their own thinking they can never seem to avoid. So I would adjust Nicky just a little. Maybe he says something like, "I got one more bookie that will take by bets if I lose this one." Hope springs eternal with gamblers so then he might say; "But I got a good feeling, and odds are in my favor".

The scene I just don't understand is the Leo scene. I am missing what that accomplished. Did it make Nicky drop his guard? Was Nicky someone who could defend himself?

Assuming they would murder Nicky over 10k, which they wouldn't, but let's go with it. Vance comes in the bar, sits with them so Freddy gets a very good look, shoots him with the door unlocked so anyone could come in, then gets a drink. Remember Goodfellas. First thing they did was lock the door while Batts was killed.

So the Leo thing seems contrived for the audience, more to throw us off than Nicky. Is that being fair? I could certainly be missing something. Wouldn't be the first or last time.

Problem is, if you get rid of Leo, this is really just a scene of a hit. Maybe fine if part of a larger story.

OK, I enjoyed the writing style, and I was into the story. Like I said, you put us right in the bar with realistically drawn characters. My only problems were with some of the logic of things. And if you do decide to keep everything as is, I would consider to not have Leo clap his hands at the end in the car. Not very thug like.

Glad I read though, hope this was useful.
Kevin