Good Morning by Shawn D. Kelley (shawnkjr) - Short, Horror - A seemingly routine Morning goes terribly wrong. 6 pages - pdf, format

That funky font on the title page is doing you no favors, but apart from that, I would say good job.

You have written exactly the type of script that probably 25% of the film students browsing this site are looking for.  And I mean that without prejudice or irony.

You have a small cast, one locale, cheap, bloody, with a twist.

There is nothing groundbreaking here, but somebody is bound to like this one.

No comments for you -- you do not need to change anything, really.  Just leave it up and wait for the emails to arrive haha.

Nicely written, well formatted, good use of the one location. For production purposes, Bert it correct. This will (and should) get produced by film students or no budget filmakers. Nothing wrong with that, so well done.  

I have to be honest, though. As soon as the lad woke up and started acting normal I knew where this was going. Especially (SPOILERS) when the line..."she was committed before" was spoken early in the telephone conversation. Got a roll-eye response from me, I'm afraid.

Nice for what it is, though.

Hey Shawn,

Saw Bert's review, thought I'd give this a look see.
Decent material with pretty solid execution.
I wasn't confused by the layout of the scene.
Story wise, I was pretty much on auto pilot through this one.

While easy to film, my brain was on auto pilot. story wise.
Good luck getting the rights cheap to the Gene Killy song.
I'd be shocked if they could be acquired on the cheap.

I didn't get why the song seemed to set them both off.
Felt like some weird brainwashing experiment or something.

Good luck with this, there's a good chance someone will want to produce it.

Regards,
E.D.

Bert: Thanks for taking a look st this and for you comments...or lack thereof. haha. Appreciate the input.

Basket Case: Would you suggest I take that line out? I think it should be fine. Thanks a lot for the input. Hopefully I can get this produced...even if I do it myself.

Electric Dreamer: Sorry you couldn't get into this one. The song is NOT what sets them off. The girl was never attacked...she did it to herself. It was in her head. Thanks for your comments


-Shawn

hey Shawn,

a few nit-picky things. i would change the font on the title page. The following sentence read a little awkwardly:

"The floor croaks in the space in front of her."

Also, (and I'm sure this is debatable), should you describe Alex as michelle's boyfriend? simply because you're not showing, you're telling. lastly, i would add their ages.

other than that it read really smoothly and was pretty well written.

as for the story, its enjoyable. nothing ground breaking. i knew where it was going and i was hoping it wouldnt go there (simply because it's a bit too...normal these days). in fact, i was hoping that alex was really the crazy one and the whole "she's done this to herself before" was a way of making the reader doubt his/her suspicions. but the ending works for the story.

i hope this one gets picked up. good luck with it.

I have not read this, but in response to one of Will's questions, I have this to say...

"Also, (and I'm sure this is debatable), should you describe Alex as michelle's boyfriend? simply because you're not showing, you're telling."

Not a problem, IMO...at all.  It actually helps.  I feel describing a main character like this (also, father, Mother, friend, etc) is totally cool.  In a filmed version, you'd (hopefully) be able to tell this right away, just based on how they act together.  But, it does depend on just how it's written and used.

For instance, if you write, "Michelle sits next to her boyfriend, John." - that's fine.

If you write, "John, Michelle's boyfriend, smokes out of a giant bong." - I'd say that's incorrect.

And, if you're talking about a description of a guy dressed like everyone else, saying "John, a vice cop with a mean streak, smokes out of a giant bong", you're definitely violating the old unfilmable "rule", and it's totally incorrect.

thanks DS! I appreciate you clearing that up. Shawn, please ignore what I said. thanks!

Hey Shawn, weird script. I thought the font is cool. I have a thing for funky fonts. I liked the style of writing. Clean discriptions actable dialogue. Some of your discriptions were written in the present progressive form (using "ing" at the end of verbs). I was told you are not suppose to write like that.

example: He is eating pizza. She is running after the bus.

It should read: He eats the pizza. She runs after the bus.

Adding "continuous" or "later" in the slug lines should be implied by the action below.

We already know it's continuous through the sequence of events.

Besides that very clean script.

The story:

Something about the sunlight turns these people to turn into psychopath killers?

Why?

I personally have a problem suspending my belief when the action appears random. of course that is just me, and I am sure other people dig this kind of stuff.

A director would look for character development, cause in action and plot. Unfortunately IMO I think all of these elements are missing.

If you want to say sunlight turns people to killers. Explain why. Then it makes sense. Like a full moon causes warewolves to transform because of a mystical curse.

Otherwise you got chops. I look forward to read more of your scripts.


  

Quoted from Dreamscale I have not read this, but in response to one of Will's questions, I have this to say... "Also, (and I'm sure this is debatable), should you describe Alex as michelle's boyfriend? simply because you're not showing, you're telling." Not a problem, IMO...at all.  It actually helps.  I feel describing a main character like this (also, father, Mother, friend, etc) is totally cool.  In a filmed version, you'd (hopefully) be able to tell this right away, just based on how they act together.  But, it does depend on just how it's written and used. For instance, if you write, "Michelle sits next to her boyfriend, John." - that's fine. If you write, "John, Michelle's boyfriend, smokes out of a giant bong." - I'd say that's incorrect. And, if you're talking about a description of a guy dressed like everyone else, saying "John, a vice cop with a mean streak, smokes out of a giant bong", you're definitely violating the old unfilmable "rule", and it's totally incorrect.

DS I don't understand why you would have a problem with the latter. They are both adverbs about the subject. "unfilmables" help the actor. Usually are for the actor not the director. IMO, state the relationships, titles, of your characters because they are part of the character like the name or age of a character. BUT I agree with the third example. It contradicts the "show don't tell" guideline.

All I know is I read "unfilmables" in scripts every where, even from the best writers out there. How often do writers really follow these supposed "rules"?

i don't want to start a whole debate about it. This is my opinion. I say each to their own.

Inquiring, we're talking about Spec scripts here.  Spec scripts have nothing to do with the actors acting out their roles.

Unfilmables and asides (which are unfilmables) waste space and are "cheats" to strong writing.  They also take one out of the read.

Not sure exactly which example you are disagreeing with, or if you're disagreeing about unfilmables in general.

Pros write and use unfilmables and asides all the time...because they can, because it doesn't matter for the success of their script.  It doesn't make it right, however.

An unfilmable does not translate to film, meaning that it's a waste of the space it takes up, is a cheat, is weak writing, and a pet peeve of mine through and through.  They are probably a good reason why so many shit scripts get turned into films, because they "read" better to dumbfuck producers and the like, but when it comes down to putting the script to film, there's nothing fucking there.

Shawn. I enjoyed the tale, I rather like twists. However, until your remark to ED i hadn't realised it was wholly in her mind. I rather saw this as a two part combination.

If someone was to slash themselves, would they do this to their forehead, in bed and drag themselves across the floor?? Maybe this is very calculated but also this maybe too much to buy. Food for thought.

All the best. RD

Quoted from Dreamscale Inquiring, we're talking about Spec scripts here.  Spec scripts have nothing to do with the actors acting out their roles. Unfilmables and asides (which are unfilmables) waste space and are "cheats" to strong writing.  They also take one out of the read. Not sure exactly which example you are disagreeing with, or if you're disagreeing about unfilmables in general. Pros write and use unfilmables and asides all the time...because they can, because it doesn't matter for the success of their script.  It doesn't make it right, however. An unfilmable does not translate to film, meaning that it's a waste of the space it takes up, is a cheat, is weak writing, and a pet peeve of mine through and through.  They are probably a good reason why so many shit scripts get turned into films, because they "read" better to dumbfuck producers and the like, but when it comes down to putting the script to film, there's nothing fucking there.

I would argue bad writing is a result of poor artistry and craftsmanship not for following "rules".

Most unfilmables are emotion descriptions, and you can translate that in movies. Anyways let's just agree to disagree. I know we can debate this issue tell the cows come home, but the mods would not be happy with us if we did. Cool?

Quoted from Inquiringmind I would argue bad writing is a result of poor artistry and craftsmanship not for following "rules".

Huh?  No clue what this is supposed to mean.

How did we get into discussing "bad writing"?

"Poor artistry and craftsmanship"?  WTF?

Seriously, this response makes zero sense to me.  Sorry, but I need to say this.

This was nicely done, I sensed a twist coming when Alex snaps awake at 8:00AM and appears shocked at what he sees though at first I thought he was the crazy, schizo one...until the phone conversation of course.

After that it sort of played out as expected but still a decent script nonethless and most importantly for a short, as Bert mentioned, very budget friendly.

Col.