I only do that with my feature length scripts. The shorts... well ya gotta take it as it comes. So if someone don't be liken the mispellin' then too freakin' bad.

Thanks for the offer. Might have another feature for proofing near the new year.

Hey Spencer

This didn't really capture me.

I dug the idea. The prose was fine but I think can be tightened more. The characters was so and so. Nevertheless, this felt as part of a longer piece. Maybe expand on the characters a bit to show how they ended up in the boat.

Sorry I couldn't provide much more assistance.

Gabe

What's happen in the gulf is a tremendous tragedy, but I'm no sure that the story addresses it in the best way.

Obviously, that is just my opinion, and I am not a big fan of preaching stories -even if they preach my way, such as this one.

I think there's a better way to get one's message across, and that is giving both sides of the argument. To this end, I really don't know wich Charles's defense could be -that's where research comes into action.

As a way to rekindle with the typewriter, I say it's good. Keep at it.
As a story, I think it needs more work.

t

Hey Spencer,

While there were some typos and grammatical errors that kind of took me out of the story, there were some nice visuals here.  For the most part, it was nicely written.

However, there were a couple of things about the story that rubbed me the wrong way.  At first, it seemed you had a nice, caring man doing his own little part to help with a catastrophe.  Which I kind of liked that part.  That's really what kept me reading.  But then, there's a total role reversal and, to me, at least, the man becomes the bad guy in my eyes when he begins torturing Charles.  It just seemed so out of character the way you set him up from the beginning of the story.  It never actually comes across and believable.  Or, maybe I'm just a fan of the school of thought saying that goes 'An eye for an eye only leaves us all blind.'

I guess the main problem, and where the story ultimately falls flat, is that there's no real clear cut protagonist, or antagonist.  In the end, I didn't really care about either of the characters.

Another problem is that the script won't translate well to film, because we, as viewers, have no idea who the man in the box is.  We only see his eyes.  The viewer has no clue that this guy's name is Charles King.  The viewer doesn't know he's a former CEO.  They have no clue he was a former CEO for Black Gold.  They have no idea Black Gold is mainly known as BG.  You tell us that information, but the viewer can't get all that information from 'two coal black eyes and a duct-taped mouth.'

That aside, why did you name a man who's only in half the story, but didn't name the main character?  The one the audience is supposed to feel for.  The viewer has no idea who anyone's name is.  And how did an old man get away with kidnapping him?  And why did he kidnap the former CEO and not the current CEO?  If Charles was fired for the spill, then why doesn't the old man feel that the firing wasn't enough punishment for Charles?

There's just a little bit too many things that don't add up, and that's really what made this story not work for me.  Like I said, the writing wasn't bad and I liked the visuals, but there has to be a little more explaining and expanding for this story to hold any ground...  I mean water, for me.  :-)

-  Mark