I read this through, and enjoyed the concept.  Depictions of the afterlife are always interesting to me, and you did have a somewhat unique take, though a trifle confusing in its execution (quite literally).  Like Alffy, I was left to wonder if somebody in the audience must die every time he performs this trick.  Seems like sales would soon plummet, and you wonder why Scrivins is on board with all this.

But maybe that is thinking too much.

The Drunk plays a large enough role in this story that I feel he deserves a formal name.

Your Limbo is well-realized, with its flashes of Death's head being perhaps the best detail.  Personally, I imagined this Limbo sequence as animated in some way. Something apart from reality.

I thought the humming was odd, though, and would have preferred a different technique to visualize the strings.  I cannot imagine what that might be, however.

I know where you stand on dogglebe's advice, but I will say that same patch of dialogue from the Doctor struck me as particularly awkward.  Say it aloud.  If he had not pointed it out, I would have.  Not that dialogue is a pervasive problem in this script, but that particular passage is just not working.

The other bit of dialogue I would focus on for a moment is this, when Tarquinio states, "It is not about the money for me, either."  What is it about, then?  I mean, for either of these guys?

I mention it here because I thought you were setting something up for a later payoff -- when it is revealed "why" he does this.

But that payoff never came, and it feels like a missed opportunity.

As such, I suggest you keep the line and give it a payoff, particularly as the end seems so abrupt.  Once Tarquinio is back in the saddle, a few more paragraphs and you are out.

Were this mine, I would incorporate some additional twist that explains (perhaps) why he must perform this escape from death's grasp. Perhaps something tied to his somewhat odd relationship with Scrivins.

I think such a reveal -- speaking to Tarquinio's true character in some way -- would help strengthen the story.

Right now the story is interesting, but (as you concede above) totally amoral.  It is not saying anything, and therefore lacks that bit of heart that always makes a script stronger.  You should look for it.

Quoted from bert I read this through, and enjoyed the concept.  Depictions of the afterlife are always interesting to me, and you did have a somewhat unique take, though a trifle confusing in its execution (quite literally).  Like Alffy, I was left to wonder if somebody in the audience must die every time he performs this trick.  Seems like sales would soon plummet, and you wonder why Scrivins is on board with all this.

People would pay a lot of money to see somebody shot on stage and come back to life. Why would the drunk's death be tied into what Tarquinio is doing? Nobody is seen to kill him.

Quoted from bert The Drunk plays a large enough role in this story that I feel he deserves a formal name.

Fair enough.

Quoted from bert Your Limbo is well-realized, with its flashes of Death's head being perhaps the best detail.  Personally, I imagined this Limbo sequence as animated in some way. Something apart from reality.

Yes me too. The Death's Head will certainly need to be animated.

Quoted from bert I thought the humming was odd, though, and would have preferred a different technique to visualize the strings.  I cannot imagine what that might be, however.

My reasoning for the humming is that string theory concerns vibrations. So two objects could occupy the same space if they vibrate at different frequencies.

Quoted from bert I know where you stand on dogglebe's advice, but I will say that same patch of dialogue from the Doctor struck me as particularly awkward.  Say it aloud.  If he had not pointed it out, I would have.  Not that dialogue is a pervasive problem in this script, but that particular passage is just not working.

I still like it.

Quoted from bert The other bit of dialogue I would focus on for a moment is this, when Tarquinio states, "It is not about the money for me, either."  What is it about, then?  I mean, for either of these guys?

He's an escape artist. They don't do it for money. First and foremost they do it because it gives them a thrill. What bigger thrill could there be than escaping death?

Quoted from bert Were this mine, I would incorporate some additional twist that explains (perhaps) why he must perform this escape from death's grasp. Perhaps something tied to his somewhat odd relationship with Scrivins.

There can only be one reason that you need to escape Death's grasp and that is that you are about to die. This guy is an escape artist. He does it because it is what he does.

Quoted from bert Right now the story is interesting, but (as you concede above) totally amoral.  It is not saying anything, and therefore lacks that bit of heart that always makes a script stronger.  You should look for it.

Yes this is the story's biggest problem... which is why I had to make the drunk deserving of it somewhat. What happens either side of the story though is for the viewer to ponder on. They may not like what they think afterwards... but they will be thinking. Which is better than dismissive.

Thanks for your thoughts, Bert. They will come in handy should I find time to delve back into writing shorts again.

Quoted from J.S. Limbo has an exterior and an interior? I mean, I'm probably the only person here, I ain't embarrassed to say it, that thinks this is outright absurd. Not every slug requires an ext. int. If it's the woods, isn't it obvious it's exterior? Can't that makes sense by you saying it's the woods? It seems nit-picky, but in reality, it's unnecessary, and that's kind of what I try to avoid. Does heaven have an ext. or int.? Does that justification sound mildly reasonable to you?

I've never really thought about it before, having started back in September last year. So I just googled why we use EXT and INT at all.. and it appears, from what I can find, that we do it to alert the film crew as to whether they will be filming indoors or on location. So technically, i suppose, LIMBO would actually be an INT... as it would need a black screen and a minimal amount of CGI. However at the same time, placing LIMBO with an INT might get confusing to anyone reading the script... or perhaps, Producers will be able to look past that as they don't look at INT and EXT the way ordinary readers do.

I suppose it makes it easier for the film crew to see at a glance what is what. If we don't put them in then the production script writers will and I suppose it makes their job easier. However... what if we get it wrong? We are in fact making their job harder so perhaps with things like LIMBO it may be better to just let them decide and leave off with EXT and INT altogether.

However for things like THE WOODS, I think we should still put them in. THE WOODS could very easily be the name of an indoor house. They do that in my country sometimes, rather than a number, you get a name.

Quoted from J.S. Honestly, I didn't even read the logline. I just went into it because it was something by a writer I haven't read before, so that's why. I got into it. I understand it was meant to be that, it just sort of faded out in interest for me at that point, that's all. Not saying it's bad.

I didn't think you were saying that... well, not in the general sense. You obviously feel it is bad because you lost interest. I do that too if convenient magic is used to tell a story. Which is why I attempted to meld science theory into it... but I think I need to enhance that more in this story, add some crafty exposition.

Quoted from J.S. I forgot to make a quick mention of this: "It means that the block turns but we can't see how it happens." I am assuming you mean this in like a close up, whereas  I was imagining the entire scene more wide. That's why it confused me. I guess you should probably mention that if that's what you want to convey. EDIT: Oh, and the title was intriguing because the Great Escape is one of my favorite movies

It could be wide too, so long as the person moving the block isn't seen. I suppose the HOST could do it... but it doesn't matter.

Thanks for explaining more on the INT/EXT thing, and just going into more detail in general. It is appreciated.

I'm unsure about the whole is it on a stage or on location thing with ext. and int. Because that's not really for the writer to decide anyway. Some scenes that are outside can be shot on a stage. And interiors can be shot on a stage or location, as in someone's house, hospital, or whatever. There's no hard and fast rule for it, but I find it awkward when I see something like EXT. OUTER SPACE. Was there suppose to be an interior to outer space?

I did lose interest, true, and also true that's a test for whether its good or bad, but I guess I had something else in mind. I kind of imagined this being in the vain of The Prestige Good movie. Not excellent for me. But good. It got weird a bit later on, but I like stage magic movies like that, with all the costumes and everything. So that's probably what kept my interest here.

Quoted from J.S. Was there suppose to be an interior to outer space?

If we apply the same logic to that which we use on Earth, then yes there can be an interior to space. A space station is similar to a house.

I don't think the same logic applies. Ext. = outside, int. = inside. Inside outer space =/= space station. But because this is going on a tangent from what this thread is about, I'll leave it for you to ponder.

Dustin

I see others have commented on the wordiness and formatting so I’ll just focus on the story and its execution.

“Tarquinio makes a meal…”

- I loved this both for the visual and the bold use of such a colloquialism to convey a character action. I dunno if everyone reading this would be familiar with the phrase, we say it a lot where I’m from, made me chuckle.

“After approximately a minute the Doctor removes the mirror and once again
turns to face the crowd.”

- Are you really going to have us wait a whole minute while the doctor checks for Tarquinio’s breath? Not that it would even take that long for death to be determined.

I know I promised I wouldn’t go into the wordiness or formatting but the verbosity didn’t put me off that much mainly because I found it to be well written. Ya, sure some trimming can be done but I really dug the read nonetheless. I love the idea of Tarquinio hitching a ride back to life on the last person to touch him post death, that’s a pretty cool concept. Also, the dialogue, particularly the opening exchange between the master and assistant was nicely judged, perfectly encapsulating their relationship in so few words. The flamboyant theatrics of Tarquinio during his act amused me too.

The limbo scenes threw me initially but not in a bad way. For one, I did not see the script going in that direction but enjoyed the trip.

I take it then that Tarquinio and Scrivens rely on somebody to doubt the trick’s veracity by touching the recently expired illusionist on order for him to come back? If so, why did Scriven’s “rugby tackle” (another phrase I enjoyed) him, was this all part of the act since you do say that the drunk guy easily overpowers him?

Either way, I like what you tried here, good stuff.

Col.

Some suggestions should you revisit this. Think of the common death defying trick known as the water tank. The audience watches the clock for what feels like eternity. When the magician fails to reappear, the crew panics. There is tension in the audience. A man shows up with an ax to break the tank...and then the magician appears wet and safe.

In this story, the magician is shot, and people just start leaving when nothing happens. That's not how it would play, and not how the magician would want it to play. It's supposed to be high drama. Panic. A man's been shot! Quick, someone do something!

They've done this trick before, so they would know how to push an audience to fever pitch.

Where is the blood? I could be missing something, but since there is a real hole and he seems to really die, there should be some blood.

And this might also work better. It should seem like a trick where something has gone horribly wrong. By design, of course. Maybe the magician is supposed to catch the bullet, a common 19th century magic trick. Maybe Scriv shoots a couple that the magician catches. And then he misses one...quick, is there a doctor in the house?!

Finally, I am ok if no explanation is given as to how this trick is performed. The limbo visuals are enough. However, why does the magician take this great risk? Is he exploring the unknown? Is he an adrenaline junkie? If so, shouldn't he keep pushing the boundary like Houdini did? You might say he does it just for money, but two things to keep in mind on that. One, it hardly seems necessary. A worthy magician would not need to keep killing himself.

But more importantly, if money is the sole motivation, that is not very interesting. Maybe if you can show some dire need for money, I suppose that would help. But I would rather this death defying behavior be tied to some more interesting characteristic of the magician.

These are not knocks on the story at all, merely possible ideas to improve should you come back to it. It feels like a good concept waiting to be fleshed into something more compelling or thought provoking.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Dustin I see others have commented on the wordiness and formatting so I’ll just focus on the story and its execution. “Tarquinio makes a meal…” - I loved this both for the visual and the bold use of such a colloquialism to convey a character action. I dunno if everyone reading this would be familiar with the phrase, we say it a lot where I’m from, made me chuckle.

Thanks. I didn't even think about it when I wrote that. I suppose I can use US spellings and even some phrases, but my Britishness is always going to shine through.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 “After approximately a minute the Doctor removes the mirror and once again turns to face the crowd.” - Are you really going to have us wait a whole minute while the doctor checks for Tarquinio’s breath? Not that it would even take that long for death to be determined.

No, I believe it should now be 5 minutes... but we wouldn't have to wait that long. My reasoning for extending the time is that I'd like to set this story in the Victorian era... back then people could be buried while they were alive. They used to put bells outside the coffin in case the person woke up. People can slow their heart rates down and hold their breath for up to 5 minutes. Certainly 4 minutes. Holy f*** I just googled it and the the world record for holding breath is 22.22 minutes. The previous record was 20 minutes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....r-22-22-minutes.html

So anyway that's my reasoning for having a wait period. The audience must know that he is really dead and that it isn't a trick.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I know I promised I wouldn’t go into the wordiness or formatting but the verbosity didn’t put me off that much mainly because I found it to be well written. Ya, sure some trimming can be done but I really dug the read nonetheless. I love the idea of Tarquinio hitching a ride back to life on the last person to touch him post death, that’s a pretty cool concept. Also, the dialogue, particularly the opening exchange between the master and assistant was nicely judged, perfectly encapsulating their relationship in so few words. The flamboyant theatrics of Tarquinio during his act amused me too. The limbo scenes threw me initially but not in a bad way. For one, I did not see the script going in that direction but enjoyed the trip.

Thanks.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 I take it then that Tarquinio and Scrivens rely on somebody to doubt the trick’s veracity by touching the recently expired illusionist on order for him to come back? If so, why did Scriven’s “rugby tackle” (another phrase I enjoyed) him, was this all part of the act since you do say that the drunk guy easily overpowers him? Either way, I like what you tried here, good stuff. Col.

No, no touching is necessary. Tarquinio has his choice of strings. Which is why I had to make the drunk deserving in some way. Death can't really be cheated, so if Tarquinio must escape from it, it means somebody has to take his place.

I actually stole the initial idea from Serling. His second twilight zone episode is about a guy that convinces death to give him one more try. But the guy must pick another victim to take his place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_for_the_Angels

Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry I had to edit this in but I'm still recovering from Friday night.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Some suggestions should you revisit this. Think of the common death defying trick known as the water tank. The audience watches the clock for what feels like eternity. When the magician fails to reappear, the crew panics. There is tension in the audience. A man shows up with an ax to break the tank...and then the magician appears wet and safe. In this story, the magician is shot, and people just start leaving when nothing happens. That's not how it would play, and not how the magician would want it to play. It's supposed to be high drama. Panic. A man's been shot! Quick, someone do something!

They know he's going to be shot because that is what they turn up for. Which is why the Queen suddenly appears almost like an afterthought, because that is what she was. If a man had been shot and come back to life before then Royalty would want to be there to see it. Also people in those times were far less sensitive to blood and people being killed in general. Although i really do get your point on making the audience more reactionary to the event. Definitely one I should improve.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Where is the blood? I could be missing something, but since there is a real hole and he seems to really die, there should be some blood.

Yes there would be some blood. Easily rectified. Thanks for that.

Quoted from KevinLenihan And this might also work better. It should seem like a trick where something has gone horribly wrong. By design, of course. Maybe the magician is supposed to catch the bullet, a common 19th century magic trick. Maybe Scriv shoots a couple that the magician catches. And then he misses one...quick, is there a doctor in the house?!

He is an escape artist making the greatest escape of all. Everybody must be complicit in what is happening.

Quoted from KevinLenihan Finally, I am ok if no explanation is given as to how this trick is performed. The limbo visuals are enough.

I did consider that but thought it a bit of a cop out.

Quoted from KevinLenihan However, why does the magician take this great risk? Is he exploring the unknown? Is he an adrenaline junkie? If so, shouldn't he keep pushing the boundary like Houdini did? You might say he does it just for money, but two things to keep in mind on that. One, it hardly seems necessary. A worthy magician would not need to keep killing himself. But more importantly, if money is the sole motivation, that is not very interesting. Maybe if you can show some dire need for money, I suppose that would help. But I would rather this death defying behavior be tied to some more interesting characteristic of the magician.

He does it for the thrill of doing it. I believe all escape artists are the same. the buzz they get from the escape is enough for them to want to do it again and again. Perhaps the adoration from people is a factor too. It is said in the script that it isn't for money, despite them being rich from doing it. I suppose there is a lot more story here if I wanted to investigate it... perhaps 30-60 minutes worth, even as much as a feature.

Quoted from KevinLenihan These are not knocks on the story at all, merely possible ideas to improve should you come back to it. It feels like a good concept waiting to be fleshed into something more compelling or thought provoking.

I don't take negatives as knocks. I take them for how they are intended. It takes time to read somebody's work and comment on it and I appreciate that. I also understand that we do it because we genuinely, for the most part anyway, really want to help make the story better.

Thanks, Kevin.

Quoted from DustinBowcot No, no touching is necessary. Tarquinio has his choice of strings. Which is why I had to make the drunk deserving in some way. Death can't really be cheated, so if Tarquinio must escape from it, it means somebody has to take his place.

- Oh, ok, I thought he chose the drunk since he was the closest to him in the conscious world i.e. when he touched him. How come when all the other spirits pull their strings they come up short? Is it pure luck depending on the length of time the string's owner has been dead?

Coincidentally, I was listening to the Guardian weekly news podcast and they were talking about an English physician/doctor (Sarnia, was his sir name I think, English taught, now practicing in America) who has wrote a book championing a number of revolutionary resuscitation techniques he’s developed, claiming he can bring people back from the dead (quite literally) after many minutes and that deaths from, for example: heart attacks can be counteracted much more effectively than current methods. Fascinating stuff.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 - Oh, ok, I thought he chose the drunk since he was the closest to him in the conscious world i.e. when he touched him. How come when all the other spirits pull their strings they come up short? Is it pure luck depending on the length of time the string's owner has been dead?

They come up short because their strings have broken through natural causes, just as Tarquinio's own string would be short. He snaps the string of somebody living, so it hasn't worn away naturally was my reasoning for it.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 Coincidentally, I was listening to the Guardian weekly news podcast and they were talking about an English physician/doctor (Sarnia, was his sir name I think, English taught, now practicing in America) who has wrote a book championing a number of revolutionary resuscitation techniques he’s developed, claiming he can bring people back from the dead (quite literally) after many minutes and that deaths from, for example: heart attacks can be counteracted much more effectively than current methods. Fascinating stuff.

Yes it is.

Hi Dustin,

I found this story strange but I guess it has potential.

I do have a problem with the fact that you have to give a defense / justification for everything. It shows that it's probably poor writing to begin with. A well-constructed screenplay should be relatable and strong without the need for explanation for everything. The producer is not always going to have access to the writer and won't be able to ask questions about your rationale.

Write with the strength that can convey your intended meaning.

My 2c.

Quoted from levijyron I do have a problem with the fact that you have to give a defense / justification for everything. It shows that it's probably poor writing to begin with.

Admitting mistakes is neither defending nor justifying them. In places where I have explained further, I have also admitted that I need to explain that more in the story to make it better understood.

Thanks for your thoughts... appreciated.

I liked your 'string theory '. And I'm not talking quantum physics. your story lets me think of the comic book "Thorgal; Beyond the Shadows" from Rosinski-Van Damme.
(original title: "De schaduwen voorbij" ).