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.
Automated by Ray - Short, Drama - A TV camera crew in crisis tours a new facility where everything runs easy as pie. Sort of. Well... not really. 19 pages - pdf, format
Alright, now AUTOMATED is an outcome of my December Format Exercise as a result of the generous feedback SSers provided for ON THE OTHER HOOF largely proclaiming for a story + characters.
I don't think I strayed too far from basic SLUG/ACTION/CHARACTER/DIALOG format. There's a couple of dialog pairings and a much shorter SERIES OF SHOTS meat processing sequence, not to mention, this shifted entirely from (failed) horror to pretty much just drama, albeit grisly, maybe.
Once again, I'm shooting mostly for format pointers. Story and "character development" are secondary. I'm really trying to cut down on "wooliness", Thank you, Rendevous.
Gracias!
PS, headzup: THE MANSOUR CIRCLE INCIDENT is en route in a couple of weeks for my January Format Exercise. Knocked it out in about eight hours over just three days! Be forewarned, it's LOADED with secondary format skills as it attemts to shift over three different genre formats. Wish me luck.
MC, I hope you like the dialog heavy scenes. Thinking of you when constructing them.
Hey RW, I read the first one but didn’t comment as I didn’t have anything ‘new’ to add and it wasn’t really my cup of tea – too 'reality' oriented for my taste. Seen it, read about it before.
Having said that it’s nice to see you practice what you preach i.e. reworking a piece. And very nice to see you went back and personalized your original screenplay through the injection of some very funny, well defined characters with good dialogue and interaction. End result a proper fictionalization of your original ‘story’. Well done. Now I’ll get down to being a bit pedantic about things.
Overall you’ve got some nice ‘Broadcast News’ banter happening (between your two main characters) especially in the first part of this s.p, and I wondered if you’d recently been inspired by the former, or the current showing: ‘Morning Glory’. Your set up and dialogue works nicely here. This is where the strength lies in this piece imo. It’s really good.
As a side note though, I think your Logline could do with some work i.e. make it more about the characters. This could help in making people interested in reading I reckon. It’s too ‘abstract’ as it is now. That is, you’re selling your story short. No pun intended.
Okay, now few other things. ‘Break your’s off…’ no apost. needed here. Prob. a typo? ‘Joe’s perturbness’ – okay yep, we all play around with words but this ends up being a ‘tell’ not show – see more examples below.
I'm really not sure of the necessity for constant FADE IN/OUTS – except to contrast with your final FADE TO RED end sequence. Could work, just ‘took me out’ of the story a bit.
Sam’s V.O. should be O.S. imo, on page 16, likewise for the exchange on page 17. Some may debate but V.O. is more often than not used for narration imo. If the character is off screen but we hear them, then that’s just what it is, pure and simple O.S. Look for example at, a V.O. for ‘Road to Perdition’ or similarly ‘Shawshank Redemption’ in which the character speaks over the vision to give us further insight, comment on other characters, be a voice inside someone’s head – lots of other uses i.e. to ‘top n tail’ etc. Sure you know this – some still get confused.
If you need it, there is I'm pretty sure, a thread on SS in screenwriting class on V.O. v O.S.
Further into the script: I don’t think you need the V.O.’s (or O.S.’s) on the recorded vision Joe is looking at either. He’s watching recorded vision in a Control Room I assume, so...
‘Bill has become quite enamoured’ – with ‘Yvette, who can’t keep her hands off him’.
Another example of what I meant earlier re ‘telling’ instead of ‘showing’. And, I’m sure you prob. know this already. Just think you’re being a bit lazy if you don’t write in some descriptions of them actually flirting with each other either with described body language or action/description of some kind.
‘Bill expresses facial contortions that Hollywood might not be as glamorous after all.’ Ditto, here.
And here: Joe’s camera work doesn’t seem to budge. Sometimes this stuff works for me, sometimes it doesn't.
Vomits in the floor – should be ‘on the floor’ I reckon. Told you, I’m being picky. Joe ‘barely stands beside Sam’ could be better described here too, though I get what you’re on about.
Now HANG ON, Bill’s a bit of an idiot isn’t he?! For a seasoned worker (no pun intended) at the meat plant… what? Oh, no… wait, I see he’s just here for ‘little glitches’ ‘cush job really.’
What? He’s so smitten with Yvette he's negligent in preventing her from being lead to the slaughter? I don’t buy it. You need something better, I think. Is it possible to ‘flip off the rail’ that easily?
AND, I had to read back to see how/when Joe actually filmed it all happening without he himself also knowing it was happening – I get that he’s in a pharmaceutical stupor but this stretched credibility once again, for me. Joe’s camera work ‘pan’s up’, so he’s definitely ‘there’.
To sum up. Put these characters in another scenario and I'd look forward to reading about them. But this subject matter: yuk! Still, I get that that’s the point. This is screenwriting after all. But, I’m a wimp. Fact is I don't even like going into butcher shops – and that’s the sanitized version.
Ever read Robin Cook’s Toxin? Enough to put you off your mince-meat & burgers for a lifetime. It didn’t though. Prefer the 'chook' but even then salmonella's enough to contend with.
Ok, better stop. Being a bit 'woolly' myself. Yep, Rendevous's known for his 'short' and 'sharps'. Bit of a show-off him.
In summing up, there’s how well something’s written,(pretty darn well here imo) and then there’s how well will it translate to the screen. I can appreciate the writing, but I don’t wanna pay to see this. Perhaps animation to make a 'statement'?
Well done. And btw … I won’t steal it. Enough crazy stuff a mile a minute going on in my head as it is. Look forward to reading something else.
P.S. Just noticed your own comment: Story and "character development" are secondary.
I get you're saying this for the purpose of the exercise you set yourself, but imo it's all about that - anyone can learn 'formatting'. Original story, or original take on a story, is key. Just sayin'...
I like the diagloue between characters. I like your character descriptions especially of Yvette.
What you need is story. This is what people are looking for. I have a knack in confusing the hell out of my readers but they come back because of my story. lol. Try writing a story that interests you.
Formatting is the easiest part of screenwriting. I think that someone posted the Screenwriters Bible in the screenwriting class thread. You can have a look at that. Or, search on Google. But here are some errors I found:
INT. KGPN GREAT PLAINS NETWORK OFFICE -Day
should be
INT. KGPN NETWORK STATION - OFFICE - DAY
Three word limit.
Next one:
JOE, 35, scruff charm and khakis, seated, pops several capsules from a blister pack, washes them down with a Red Bull, tilts up his head, pinches the bridge of his nose.[/quote]
You try to pack too much information in this. Try to give breathing room.
How about:
JOE, 35, scruff charm and khakis, sits at his work desk.
He pops several capsules from a blister pack, washes them down with a Red Bull, tilts up his head, and pinches the bridge of his nose.
I would have deleted starting from "tilts to nose" but that's up to you, the writer, to decide if it's essential. Don't pack too much information into a 4 line paragraph. Give it room so that the reader can digest it better.
Another example: While Joe rummages through gear Yvette stops checking herself in the side mirror, looks over at him, not noticing BILL, 45, a magazine cover for blue collar working stock, who steps out from the building entrance behind her.
Joe rummages through gear.
Yvette checks herself in the side mirror.
In the b.g., BILL, 45, a magazine cover for blue collar working stock, steps out from the building entrance behind her.
But like I said, story is what attracts readers. That's one of the hardest parts in screenwriting.
Hope this helps, Gabe
Just Murdered by Sean Elwood (Zombie Sean) and Gabriel Moronta (Mr. Ripley) - (Dark Comedy, Horror) All is fair in love and war. A hopeless romantic gay man resorts to bloodshed to win the coveted position of Bridesmaid. 99 pages. https://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-comedy/m-1624410571/
I know my past reviews of your work have been pretty rough, mostly citing the reading flow and pace. Good news - this one didn't have that issue. I've seen a lot of your threads on here about this or that relating to screenwriting so I know you've been working hard and it's showing some results.
A few things to note real quick:
Some of the dialogue is very spot on/stiff. Example: "You two are going to have to talk over the cows!" Since they're on-air and he's talking into a piece, something like "You're gonna have to talk over the cows!"
There's an entire page here dedicated to the slicing up of cows. I think you can easily shorten it up to a few brief sentences emphasizing the hacking and gashing and save space.
How can he leave his lens cap on for all that time? That's hard to do these days, especially for a cameraman. I know he's on meds and all...but why would they even have him there if he's a handicap to the story? Other than for comic relief of course.
A greater conflict would be good too. I mean there's a lot of banter and whatnot taking place, but the story lacks a strong central conflict.
Ok, so I'm still listing a lot, but really, you should be very encouraged. Overall I liked what I read. Some funny banter (albeit I think it could be trimmed a bit in the beginning), some clever humor, and in general this wasn't bad at all. Nice work.
Pgs 15 - 16 V.O.s - Nope. I used them correct. Looking at caller and hearing the receiver requires a V.O. Off Camera and Off Screen are for when they are in the same room or nearby but just can't be seen. Steve is in the Control Room while Sam is... on another floor, in his office.
Okay, by no means am I an expert but I still beg to differ... re the way you have it formatted at the mo'.
Regarding page 15 of your script i.e. exchange between Steve and Sam. This is a phone call but action is on Steve in the Control Room. It's gotta be an O.S. or you could alternatively use Intercut - but you're unlikely to use the latter cause there's only one line from Sam down the phoneline.
O.S. or O.C. Off-screen or Off-camera. This is the abbreviation sometimes seen next to the CHARACTER'S name before certain bits of dialog. Basically, it means the writer specifically wants the voice to come from somewhere unseen.
Now as for pages 16-17 who knows maybe you could get away with V.O. but, I don't think it's the greatest way to do it. When dealing with cutting the scene from, say the CONTROL ROOM to the ON MONITOR footage, you'd flip from one to the other with your slugs.
Here's a bit from Broadcast News. I deleted some of the dialogue.
INT. NEWSROOM - NIGHT
As the regulars watch the Evening News, in particular the Date Rape piece which is now in progress. Tom anxiously eyeing Jane out of the corner of his eye as she watches the monitor. Her face impossible to read as she studies the screen.
ON MONITOR
UNIFORMED COP What can you do? If a woman invites a man in and he says they uh, had sex and she says he raped her and then you find out they've been out together two, three times...how can you prove a crime?
NEW SHOT ON MONITOR
Tom and a woman of about thirty -- dignified but fragile -- she looks like someone who might be cast for a church production of "Glass Menagerie."
YOUNG WOMAN It will be a year next month since it happened...I never thought I'd talk about it outside of counseling...
ON NEWSROOM
As Aaron enters the scene.
AARON Hi.
He is shushed by every woman in the room, accepts this and takes up a position near Tom and Jane to watch them.
ON MONITOR
YOUNG WOMAN We'd gone out twice and I hadn't enjoyed myself that much but it gets to a point -- How do you say 'no', to that? So first it was this wrestling match which was awful enough because it got to be really a fight...because I'm a modest person... then he ripped my clothes and he forced me to...make love. He stayed in my apartment and forced me more times -- he didn't leave until... (she has started to cry) I promised myself I wouldn't cry... It's just hard not to -- (ruefully) You sure have a sympathetic face. (she cries a bit more) ...I was so sure I wouldn't do this -- but the whole thing messed me up -- maybe more than it should...
ON MONITOR
As the news piece cut to: Tom's face -- he turns clearing a tear from his eyes.
ON NEWSROOM
These watching struck -- perhaps embarrassed but riveted. Aaron is aghast. Aaron approaches the set.
AARON Can I turn on the news for a second? ...Oh, wait a minute. Sex -- Tears -- This must be the news.
Tom stares daggers at him as a public official appears on the monitor.
ON MONITOR
PUBLIC OFFICIAL I don't think you can overestimate it -- on any given Saturday night tens of thousands of women are being attacked and there isn't much they or we can do about it...
TOM (on monitor) The victims often remain too terrified to talk -- the police powerless ... This is Tom Grunick in Annandale, Virginia.
As his piece concludes.
NEWSROOM
Tom continues to glare at Aaron.
AARON I'm in a pissy mood. I'm sorry.
TOM What's wrong with it?
AARON Nothing. I think you really blew the lid off nookie.
Blair moans with displeasure. Aaron exits scene. Others start to congratulate Tom on the piece -- in the b.g. on the:
MONITOR
We SEE frozen wilderness -- men digging in the ground -- clumps of people watching them work.
ON JANE
Probing her own ambivalence -- or, to be more accurate, working towards a positive stance.
JANE (to Tom) Nice work... (checks watch) I've got to get a crew off the clock.
She starts off -- Tom stopping her.
ON TOM AND JANE
Now off a bit by themselves.
TOM So what did you think?
JANE It moved me. I did relate to it -- I really did. It was unusual for you to cut to yourself when you tear up -- ... Okay?
TOM (enormously pleased) Yeah.
He walks back towards the area of the monitor.
So getting back to AUTOMATED. Sam and Steve are in the Control Room. Sam makes a phone call. And moments later Joe enters the scene. I'd suggest the following:
INT. NEWSROOM - DAY SAM ...see if Joe's still asleep in his truck... No. Now! ...
MOMENTS LATER
With JOE now in the room, OR:
ON NEWSROOM
As Joe enters the scene. (or enters the room) or:
ON NEWSROOM
Joe, still in his white jump suit... stands on wobbly legs next to Sam.
and then switch to:
ON MONITOR or NEW SHOT ON MONITOR
Yvette Just for this shot can I take off the hair bonnet?
Up to you. I've seen this O.S. V.O. thing debated before. Let other SS's chime in.
I'm not a 'right fighter' btw. Like you, I just wanna get it right. And I think my suggestions based on a pro-script, is the better way to do it.
If you wanna take a further look at BNews screenplay.
P.P.S Proper Voice Over Use The first thing that you must make sure of when writing Voice Over in your screenplay is that you are not using the Voice Over for actual spoken dialogue. Many people think that someone talking off screen when it is still audible is a Voice Over, but it is not.
I looked through your notes, as I suspected this script was exercise driven. I had an easier time reading this than most of your earlier work. The long side by side dialogue chains kinda threw me. Your descriptions are not economical yet, but you're moving in the right direction. I applaud your terrier like resolve in honing your skills. The V.O. in the editing bay lost me, possibly because I saw the ending coming. I look at format as hurdles on a track. Try to keep them low enough so they don't detract from the "journey"/story. Don't make them so low that they diminish a sense of accomplishment at the end. Track and field analogies fro screenwriting, can you tell I just woke up? =p I'm not a format freak, so I don't have much more to offer you right now. I didn't care for the characters much. Cardboardy adversaries. Eh. Your logline didn't grab me, I read the story because of the author, not the hook. I think your format is moving in the right direction.
Good luck and keep writing and rewriting!
Regards, E.D.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
In regards to formatting, I thought things were okay. You can be a bit wordy at times in description and in dialog.
The dual-dialog worked fine. The montage, IMHO, is too detailed. Much like with your other script everything does not have to be told/shown.
Regarding the lens cap? It would never happen. Joe's eyepiece sees through the same lens that the camera records from. If the lens cap is on, he wouldn't see anything.
The ending, btw, was extremely predictable.
Is there a reason you're using the meet industry in your scripts? Did you suddenly turn vegetarian on us?
I suppose you decided to give your idea another spin and put it into something with characters. I liked the short.
Although I did think up until the end that it's a rom-com and Yvette and Joe will have to understand that they are in love with each other and all of the sudden Yvette and Bill are over the cows...
I think I'd appreciate a little more build up to that, something about the cows/slaughtering at the beginning. Also I think it's too much of dialog at the beginning. You could keep all the things they say but use less words, I think. If you were given the page limit you would - that's how I know you can do it. I don't know if you'd want to do it though --for me it was a bit excess of dialog.
I enjoyed the banter and the ending though.
Have you watched Knight And Day? I watched it the other day, it reminded me of the dialog in your feature. I think you're good at that kind of humor.
Libby - Thank you for the read and your depth of review! I don't wanna keep bumping up this thread since there's so many other new ones, so I'll just reply here for now.
Yeah... the subject's the subject. Whatchagonnado? Typos galore. Yep. Logline - Yeah. I see what you mean and agree. I guess I was still fixated on the processing part that I neglected the relationship aspects. Noted. TY! FADE OUTS are deliberate actions to "sell" the drug induced haze Joe is functioning under. Not only does he mix OTC with prescription (these two particulars are no-nos, BTW) but he switched from RedBull to Monster to Amp caffeinated drinks. Dude's a polypharmia fruitcake. A chemical junkie. He's hallucinating and doesn't really register "what" he isn't really paying attention to. This kind of sh!t really does happen. Sorry. "Perturbness", "enamored" and such were used when I figured actors and directors are just gonna wing it on the set. No real need to "Macarana-fy" them. Pgs 15 - 16 V.O.s - Nope. I used them correct. Looking at caller and hearing the receiver requires a V.O. Off Camera and Off Screen are for when they are in the same room or nearby but just can't be seen. Steve is in the Control Room while Sam is... on another floor, in his office. Bill's more of a mechanical/techie. Probaly not the best OSHA advocate in the great plains region. So... yeah. I've watched enough Funniest Home Videos to see how easy it is to slip off a railing, even when seated. Read "The Hot Zone". thought it pretty good at the time. Thank you for the kind words about the story and characters. Bonus! And thanks for not stealing it What goes around Karma comes around Karma, and all that. "Yup." I'm still learning formatting. I'm day-one-past-nube. Do I get a cupcake with a candle?
Gabe - Three word limit [on slugs]. Good to know. Thank you.
Don't pack too much information into a 4 line paragraph. Give it room so that the reader can digest it better. Can do. I kinda looked sideways at your second citation, myself. I see that it failed the sniff test.
Hope this helps. Yes. It does. Every little bit does.
Greg - I know my past reviews of your work have been pretty rough,... Well, maybe if I'd quit throwing monkey poo on the walls that wouldn't happen. I'm a work in progress and appreciate all the effort you and SSers contribute. All you guys are what our audience, both DA readers and God willing - theater, will be seeing. I can't very well come back complaining about what anyone sees, can I?
There's an entire page here dedicated to the slicing up of cows. You guys are a demanding lot. I cut seven pages down to one - AND STILL! Slave drivers! All! Okay. I'll keep that in mind. Gracias.
How can he leave his lens cap on for all that time? A - He's (ignorantly) mixed OTC 12hr pseudophedrine for his sinus congestion with his prescription MAOI antidepressant, plus whatever sinus infection antibiotic he's taking and Lord knows what else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudophedrine#Precautions_and_contraindications B - After a two hour drive to the slaughterhouse his chemical slurry has cooked pretty good. He's coherent on some levels (the lighting, the math, the ability to shoot her with his eye's closed) but not on others (she drove, he can't hardly stand or open the doors). C - He's asleep behind the mirrored sunglasses. D - After an hour walk-through tour he's cranked. E - Joe's been given the direction by Sam to just shoot Yvette and to not interfere, to which he agreed. His hallucinations are getting all pretty mixed up three hours later. He's not making much sense. Going through the motions. What he's seeing he's dismissing because he's been there and done that - but he can shoot - on automated instinct.
A greater conflict would be good too. Understanding this was primarily a format exercise, any thoughts come to mind for what would be a greater story conflict? How that could be drummed up in this scenario?
... you should be very encouraged... some clever humor, and in general this wasn't bad at all. Nice work. I am. Thank you. In general I'll keep trying to do better and Thank you.
Libby, part deux - This is a phone call but action is on Steve in the Control Room. It's gotta be an O.S. or you could alternatively use Intercut - but you're unlikely to use the latter cause there's only one line from Sam down the phoneline. Yes. Nope. Coulda, but like you said, it was only for one line and hardly worth the effort (or lines!) intercut uses. http://www.scribd.com/doc/12721428/Professional-Screenplay-Formatting-Guide Page 40, Re telephone conversations. And this PDF thingie is supposedly from the Screenwriter's Bible. Maybe my online resource is corrupt.
O.S. or O.C. Off-screen or Off-camera. This is the abbreviation sometimes seen next to the CHARACTER'S name before certain bits of dialog. Basically, it means the writer specifically wants the voice to come from somewhere unseen. Correct, though abbreviated.
(My own illustration) In this illustration obviously A & B are "On Camera" as outlined in the green lines of the camera's field of vision. Any dialog by character C would be "Off Camera". Any character in Hong Kong talking on the phone to character D in New York would hear a "Voice Over" of D's voice. Not "Off Camera".
I like how Brooks did that for Broadcast News. I may try that next time.
I'm not a 'right fighter' btw. Like you, I just wanna get it right. And I think my suggestions based on a pro-script, is the better way to do it. Me neither. Hi-5! Same here, and I think we're getting real close to dancing all over a director's shoes who may very well cast a sideways glance at us two quibbling wienies in the sound stage shadows and shoot the scene a completely different way. And Lord knows what the editor will do. And of course the studio/producer may have a say. Whatchagonnado?
If you wanna take a further look at BNews screenplay. Oh, thank you very much! I will. And thank you for the BrightHub link! Cooool.
Brett - I had an easier time reading this than most of your earlier work. Hooorayy!!!
The long side by side dialogue chains kinda threw me. Yeah, those might be easier to listen to than to read.
Your descriptions are not economical yet, but you're moving in the right direction. Waaahhh. Hooorayy!!!
I applaud your terrier like resolve in honing your skills. I have mental health issues. Nah. Not really. ("Who said that?!") Beat it. Pound it. Make the bastard submit.
Track and field analogies fro screenwriting, can you tell I just woke up? =p Seemed lucid fru me. See above reference to mental health issues.
I didn't care for the characters much. Cardboardy adversaries. Eh. Secondary issue.
Your logline didn't grab me, I read the story because of the author, not the hook. Yeah, understood. Libby brought that to my attention and I agree. A second nail in that coffin. My bad. But thank you especially for reading it because of the author. (It make's me feel all... Stephen King-ish! Ha!)
Good luck and keep writing and rewriting! Thank you and Yessir and Yessir.
Phil - You can be a bit wordy at times in description and in dialog. Dammit, Phil! I'm a novelist, not a Spartan, you pointy-eared... ! Okay. (Still) working on it.
The montage, IMHO, is too detailed. Slave driver. (Seven pages down to one and they're still complaining. Sheesh.) Okay.
SERIES OF SHOTS - Cows go in. - Sparkly lights blink. - Nice, emotionally sanitized hamburger patties come out. RETURN TO SCENE
More better-er?
Joe's eyepiece sees through the same lens that the camera records from. If the lens cap is on, he wouldn't see anything. And if his eyes were shut he'd be doubly not seeing anything, atoll!
It's been awhile since you guys hid your napping from the school teacher, hasn't it? Joe's sleeping and hallucinating behind his mirrored glasses.
The ending, btw, was extremely predictable. BTW, you have a big melon. Sir.
Is there a reason you're using the meet industry in your scripts? Did you suddenly turn vegetarian on us? I haven't really turned on the meaties or anyone. I actually just enjoy shoving humanity's unpleasant side into the faces of viewers. I'd show the Pope pooping in the toilet and shaking off a little dingleberry if I thought I could get a laugh out of it. I dislike the double standards people embrace with a blanket of self imbued ignorance. My current fave is people griping about someone else's Congressman's pork barrel project - but then turn around and vote out their own incumbents for not bringing Fed dollars to their state or district. Pfft. Idiots. Vegetarians are idiots free to do whatever they want. Humans are omnivores. That's why God gave us digestive enzymes to digest fat and muscle. Deal.
Honestly, this is a rewrite of ON THE OTHER HOOF because the mob cheered for A: Story and B: Characters. OTOH was a result of investigating the root causes of the recent Food Safety Bill. That was part of my self-imposed December Format Exercise. Khamanna thinks this has fabulous potential, and she wants me to re-write the re-write so gird your loins for another!
Khamanna - I suppose you decided to give your idea another spin and put it into something with characters. I liked the short. LMAO! You know... You just can't please 'em all. LOL!
Although I did think up until the end that it's a rom-com and Yvette and Joe will have to understand that they are in love with each otherand all of the sudden Yvette and Bill are over the cows... Yeah, well... I guess you and Phil are at odds on that one.
I think I'd appreciate a little more build up to that, something about the cows/slaughtering at the beginning. So... you want me to re-write the re-write that included characters and story by popular demand? Okay. Make it a rom-com-horror? Okay. And make it shorter? Okay.
I don't know if you'd want to do it though. For you? Okay.
I enjoyed the banter and the ending though. Thank you. Slap Phil and tell him to quit being non-compliant.
Have you watched Knight And Day? I watched it the other day, it reminded me of the dialog in your feature. I think you're good at that kind of humor. I haven't, but I will. Just looked it up on the local library system, says it "coming soon". Thank you, again.
As always, you guys are grrrreat!!
Be on the lookout for THE MANSOUR CIRCLE INCIDENT *. I can already tell you straight-pin guys are gonna give me (justifiable) grief on the logline. Otherwise, it's all the secondary format skills beyond primary SLUG/ACTION/CHARACTER/DIALOG basics I'm looking for pas/fail on. Gracias!
*The story has nothing to do with the meat industry, other than the military. (Was that PC?)
Hey Ray. I decided to look at one of yours. Here I am.
Overall, I really liked this piece. Dark humor, maybe a tad morbid but I was kind of wondering, given the ending, who cleans up the mess, (and) since cow heads are scanned, wouldn't a system know the difference between a cow (or sheep or pig) and a person? The series of shots where we see the process of cow dicing is graphic enough. When Steve throws up his burger I thought for a minute that it was in response to the cow slicing.
But consider this line:
Quoted Text
By approximate height and weight the computer determines if the feed stock is cattle, hog or sheep. They are processed accordingly.
Still, Nicely done.
I found,with the exception of p5 and 6, the dialog to be comical, fast and snappy. What happens on 5 is a bit of dual dialog at the top. I understand you want the effect of people talking over each other. But it doesn't have the effect with me as it did earlier when characters said 'river' in unison. Sam's dialog -which continues to page 6 and more with another dual dialog. Is there anything you can do to break it up?
p2 YVETTE walks in; her name isn't capped upon intro. I also didn't mind the description so much, but with all that I'm surprised you didn't show me how tall of an amazon she is. Isn't there a shorter way of doing this appearance- although on the other hand it is a slightly entertaining description. That said, considering what goes on by the last page, shouldn't we see some silicon, not that I'm a sicko or anything. The Piranha remake showed us monster fish tearing through augmentation, why can't you?
Second thought, I do sound a little ill when I report it, no?
THe boldness You know where. I know some folks like to do that sort of thing, highlight headers in bold or blue.(I know some folks who will go nameless in the blue movement) I admit, it isn't that distracting. I know it is to some. My rule of thumb isn't that it's there; it is only a matter of consistenc.
Considering your time constraints and of all the shorts available here, I appreciate you reading and replying on AUTOMATED.
I was kind of wondering, given the ending, who cleans up the mess,... Obviously I'm presenting some sci-fi near-tech in this story. There's no such thing as an automated slaughterhouse. Science just ain't quite there, yet. So, running with the idea, though... all "the mess" would be washed away in the automated process.
Presumably, bloody areas are hosed down much like a car wash: process the meat, steaming water wash the area, repeat.
Solid wastes are collected on a grate, scraped off into an incineration chamber (expense) or likely ground into meal to re-feed the hormones and antibiotics in the tissues to another livestock batch (revenue). That's an actual process, although cows are not allowed to be fed back to cows, nor pigs to pigs and sheep to sheep. Meal-feed is required to be cross fed to other livestock to lower the risk of viral transfer.
The truly scary part is that there's going to be very little evidence of any wrong-doing, especially after another few hundred cattle are processed and latent evidence is obliterated within hours.
(and) since cow heads are scanned, wouldn't a system know the difference between a cow (or sheep or pig) and a person? As you noted, the system uses approximate height and weight to determine the processing for cattle, swine or sheep. By height and weight, the program "thinks" that Yvette and Bill are sheep.
It's a whole new system. First of its kind. It has a few kinks to work out.
The laser scan is purely for targeting of the closed bolt device. It's likely not integrated into the processing program.
When Steve throws up his burger I thought for a minute that it was in response to the cow slicing. No. He threw up when he saw that Yvette and Bill made it through the entire processing facility and onto a truck. That's where... Sam reaches down and turns the playback off.
On screen, a cardboard box with bar code label is freeze framed on rollers to the back of a Fleischer Farms freezer truck.
That's Yvette or Bill in that cardboard box. Say "Hi, Yvette! Hi, Bill!" Ya'll have a nice trip! See you at Burger King!
Obviously the cow in Steve's burger was likely processed days earlier and he's not actually eating Yvette and or Bill (no. I don't want to do the mathematical odds), but Steve recognizes the disgusting principle that for all he knows he COULD be. Or maybe this isn't the first time this has happened. Maybe he IS eating Bill's predecessor at the Harrison facility.
Speaking of Fleisher Farms and The Harrison facility, you guys should know I'm something of a funny MFer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_green Directed by Richard Fleischer. Based upon the 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison. Gotta keep an eye on some of these devils around here.
FWIW, Yvette's original name was Sissy, as in narci-sissy, playing to her vanity. Changed it Yvette because it rhymes with Smurfette, the one little blue chick available to be banged "dated" by all the other Smurfs. I wanted to lay down the groundwork that she's a high energy, high demand sort of person. Pretty full of herself.
I found,with the exception of p5 and 6, the dialog to be comical, fast and snappy. What happens on 5 is a bit of dual dialog at the top. I understand you want the effect of people talking over each other. But it doesn't have the effect with me as it did earlier when characters said 'river' in unison. Sam's dialog -which continues to page 6 and more with another dual dialog. Is there anything you can do to break it up? I think this is one of those things that reads terrible but would film fine. Yvette stands (confrontationally) at the front of Sams desk b!tching out loud while Joe does the peanut gallery bit.
Page 6 dual dialog should play just fine. Again, I understand that it reads terrible on page. Joe's a f#ck up, but he's on board with a lot of stuff going on around him. Yvette's more professional, but more narrow and doesn't play well with others. I think these are real problem managers, like Sam, have to deal with IRL.
p2 YVETTE walks in; her name isn't capped upon intro. Good catch. Valid.
I also didn't mind the description so much, but with all that I'm surprised you didn't show me how tall of an amazon she is. Isn't there a shorter way of doing this appearance... Her height would be much more difficult to cast than falsies in a jacket and tan make-up. For all I know the little spit-fire is 5'4". But she's all about the numbers: The tiny suit size, the big tits, the tan. Fake from head to toe. All style, no substance. The kind of woman I despise.
That said, considering what goes on by the last page, shouldn't we see some silicon... ? The implants would have been stripped off when the clothes and skin came off, making them subglandular implants (left illustration) rather than submuscular (right). - Roller-peelers strip the skin downward from the ankles to the neck stump
And I stopped the visual of Yvette and Bill being processed before it got that far. It should be reasonably assumed that if they made it to the... Pg 18 They still wiggle and kick, but they're silent. Thick red blood spews to their fading heartbeats ... part, exactly as the cattle on page... Pg 13 - Computer guided hooks string the cow upside-down into the air. They still wiggle and kick, but they're silent - Thick red blood spews to their fading heartbeats .... that their carcasses were also automatically processed - as sheep.
Darn, stupid computers.
THe boldness You know where... I admit, it isn't that distracting. I know it is to some. My rule of thumb isn't that it's there; it is only a matter of consistenc. I scan up and down a screenplay a lot. My non-linear editing capabilities appear to be better than average. The bold headers assist me in that. However, I do understand that they distract others.
I've also tried it with the character headings just before any dialog, but didn't find that quite so usefull. THAT was distracting to me. Different strokes...
I'm just sticking with the bold slugs. Blue seems a bit redundant. Juno?
Thank you for the read and reply Darren. I see that you've been getting chewed a little for not providing more in depth reviews. I understand your time and priority constraints. What goes around comes around and all that. You want me to hit Step On A Crack or something else you want a good scrubbing on?
Speaking of Fleisher Farms and The Harrison facility, you guys should know I'm something of a funny MFer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_green Directed by Richard Fleischer. Based upon the 1966 science fiction novel Make Room! Make Room!, by Harry Harrison. Gotta keep an eye on some of these devils around here.
My Aunt Donna was an extra in that film! I know it well!
Quoted Text
I see that you've been getting chewed a little for not providing more in depth reviews. I understand your time and priority constraints. What goes around comes around and all that. You want me to hit Step On A Crack or something else you want a good scrubbing on?
Not in depth reviews. In depth responses, kind of like yours. I also haven'y done many reviews in the past few weeks (not counting yours) and folks noticed. Anything you want to look at that's fine, except for those you have recently read and reviewed, like 19 Percent--and The Clean Up Crew (I have revised it and will most likely revise it again as shooting draweth near [March]. )
Ech. You have some thing going on about people being cut up in slaughterhouses.
I like the dialogue. A lot.
The descriptions...not so much. They are stilted. Why do you write that way? Just curious.
JOE, 35, scruff charm and khakis, seated, pops several capsules from a blister pack, washes them down with a Red Bull, tilts up his head AND pinches the bridge of his nose.
SAM, 55, comfortable in his business suit, pen over reports,WHAT IS THIS? looks up from his laptop when Joe begins to groan.
Joe keeps his head up AND frisbee-tosses the blister pack
Sam looks at his watch. Furrows brow.
Door bursts open. Yvette, 45, 110 pounds, size 0 suit, pair of 600cc silicone implants and SPF 10 tan, storms in already on...
THIS STEVEN SPIELBERG AND POLTERGEIST? DOOR BURSTING OPEN?
Yvette bursts into the room, all 110 pounds of her in a size 0 suit, pair of 600cc silicone implants and SPF 10 tan, storms in already on...
Sam sighs, puts down his pen, Joe quietly laughs, Yvette continues to boil. Hands on non-existent hips.
He halfway gets up from his seat towards the door.????????????????????
Yvette spins and points at...THE RAQUEL WELCH 1,000,000 BC POSTER ON THE WALL.
Joe heads out the door. Yvette stands and fumes at Sam. THIS ONE IS GOOD.
A moment later Joe sticks his head in the door. THIS ONE IS GOOD.
THE GOOD ACTION SENTENCES READ WELL BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPLETE SENTENCES. INCOMPLETE SENTENCES DO WORK IN SCRIPTS, WE KNOW THAT, BUT NOT HERE. HERE THEY HINDER THE READ AND STOP THE FLOW OF THE FUNNY DIALOGUE BETWEEN JOE AND YVETTE.
Ray, what up? You ask for advice, suggestions, and feedback, I’m here for ya, brother.
I’m going to give you detailed feedback in hopes that it will help you get on the right track. Don’t take that comment the wrong way…this is definitely an improvement over everything I’ve seen from you, but you’re still making it hard on yourself and I’m not sure quite why.
Script length – 18 pages is a tad long for a short, IMO, unless there is damn good reason for the length, and I don’t see that here. IMO, this would work much better as a 10-12 page script.
Dialogue - pretty good. Funny in places where you’re gunning for that, realistic enough, and for the most part, not bad at all. It has a cinematic vibe to it, which, I guess is good. I go for more of a real speak, but many don’t like that, either, so I think you’ve found a good mid ground. BUT, there’s just too much of it. Too many long winded monologues that no one needs or wants to hear…or read. Too many mundane things being discussed at length. And I’d stay away from using words in dialogue that few know (Medical, etc. – you have a tendency to do that for some reason). Just cut out what’s not important.
Let’s talk about the dual dialogue stuff as well, as you’ve decided to make it prominent, which, IMO, is an issue and something you just don’t need to go into. First of all, IMO, if you’re using dual dialogue in which 2 characters say the exact same thing, and it’s just a word or two, just use a dialogue box of “JOE & SAM” or whatever. Cleaner, easier, and just all around the better way to go, IMO. Keep it simple when you can is always my advice. Now, let’s tackle those longer actual dual dialogue issues. I understand completely what you’re going for here and why you’re including them, but think about this for a second…when 2 people are talking to you in real life, what do you do? You tell them both to shut the fuck up and talk one by one, because you can’t really hear what either are saying, and definitely not what both are saying. Same deal in a script…or movie. It makes for a difficult read on paper, it muddies the waters, it causes the reader to pause and go back and read each person’s dialogue on its own. As for a filmed version? What will anyone get out of it? Nothing…you cannot decipher 2 people speaking at the same time, so if it’s longer than a line, it’s going to be completely lost. Bottom line…lose it. It doesn’t help your script in any way, it actually detracts from it, IMO.
Description/action – Ray, although this is much better and you’re definitely on the right track, you continue to use too much in terms of your action/description lines, as well as your character descriptions. You know I personally detest asides as well, and you’ve got an awful lot of them in here. IMO, they simply waste space, pad the script, and don’t provide anything for an actual filmed version.
Many will say “smart” “witty” lines of description make the read more enjoyable. I for one, disagree completely. They make for a more interesting read, but if they’re padding your script and not adding to anything in terms of the actual filmed version, they’re actually detracting from your script and making it appear to be more than it is. I’d be careful of this, at least until you have your feet firmly underneath you.
You have many long (up to 4 line) sentences of description, usually dealing with several things at once that should actually be their own sentence, or even passage. Here are some examples to look at…
Page 1 – opening passage. 1 sentence, 3 lines, numerous actions and descriptions. Just too much. Very awkward. Too much completely unnecessary description. Bad way to begin.
Page 7 – “A Fleischer Foods…” – 1 sentence, 3 lines. Too much unnecessary description and just too many unnecessary words being used.
Page 7 – “Whatever doesn’t run…” – 2 sentences, 3 lines. Both sentences have issues. They’re awkward, they contain too much unnecessary info. Comma missing in first sentence. 2nd sentence reads oddly with all the different things taking place, connected with commas, and then by omitting “the” between “tosses” and “pill”, it just doesn’t read well.
Page 7 – “While Joe rummages…” – 1 sentence, 4 lines. Poorly written, hard to follow, missing a comma in the opening line, contains an intro that is buried within the long, hard to read sentence, and also contains an awkward description.
OK, those are just a few, but hopefully you follow what I’m saying.
Transitions – “FADE TO…”, “CUT”, etc. all go on the right side, not the left. Think about all the discussions about “FADE IN” going in the left…it’s because that’s how we start, and we read from left to right. When you’re ending something, it’ll be on the right side, then you’ll start again with a “FADE IN” back on the left.
SERIES OF SHOTS – IMO, this is way overdone. I’m not saying it’s incorrect, but there are numerous ways to do this. I’m just saying it’s a bit much, IMO.
Page 17 V.O.’s are incorrect. You probably should have set up the fact that the shot is “onscreen”. Therefore, you don’t need any V.O. or the like. You chose to write this rather difficulty, and that’s part of the problem. IMO, the scene would require several Slugs, as you go from actual scene to screen. If you don’t follow, PM me and I’ll walk you through what I’m saying.
Are there mistakes in dialogue boxes on Page 17? Looks like you’ve got SAM in there, when it should be JOE.
Someone incorrectly told you that you can’t go over 3 words in a Slug. TOTALLY FALSE! You don’t want to go over 1 line with your Slugs, but there may come a time when you can’t help it (a long company name, for instance that you will abbreviate in future Slugs, but at first, you may be stuck). Avoid it if at all possible, but that’s all you need to worry about.
Story – Not much here again, sorry to say. You have characters now, but there really isn’t any conflict or resolution. No antags or protags either, really. For an exercise, it’s OK, but for an actual script, there’s not much here, and at 18 pages long, that’s an issue in itself.
Hope this helps, brother. Keep up the good work. You’re getting close!
Pages: 1, 
Author
Automated
Logged
Enough crazy stuff a mile a minute going on in my head as it is. Look forward to reading something else.
Locked Board