Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  Thriller Scripts  /  Night of the Red Phantom
Posted by: Don, March 11th, 2007, 8:57am
Night Of The Red Phantom by Eric C. Dickson - Thriller - San Francisco homicide Inspector Roy Carson awakens from a sixty day coma and can't remember the face of the man who shot him.  He gets a friendly reminder from a serial killer now terrorizing the city.   129 pages - pdf format

Writer interested in feedback on this work

Posted by: TAnthony, March 26th, 2007, 7:35pm; Reply: 1
This was a great detective story and fun read, but sometimes I felt that the story didn’t bring anything new to the table and might be a little cliché.

SPOILERS--------------------------------

Here are some notes as I read:

You seem to know a lot about crime scenes and forensics stuff. None of those scenes felt fake or forced. Good job.

I’d give more detail about the motion Kershaugh is making.

It’s good that Bedrosian isn’t a cliché officer. He has a good sense of humor.

You have a lot of telling not showing in here. Just as one example on page eight, “Bedrosian is completely blown away by the raw talent and knowledge of the rookie detective.” How is he blown away?

I didn’t like the transition where Kiershaugh and Bedrosian rushed out of the car and into the apartment. This scene also reminded me a lot of Se7en. When Kevin Spacey jumps off the balcony and is limping. Also another connection to Se7en and many other movies is an older cop and a rookie police officer working together. You didn’t put a new spin on that.

Sometimes Bedrosian comes off sounding too young. “Super pissed…” on page 24. Doesn’t sound like something he’d say.

I like the scene where Bedrosian dances around the subject when he talks to Fraker’s brother.

Kiersaugh’s hole sub-plot with Internal Affairs was cool. Good job on that.

Very impressive how you connected the killer’s clue with the crime scene.

The reporter’s dialogue passage on page 56 is too long. You need to cut out a lot of it and start as late as possible. The information from Kiersaugh and Bedrosian was really snappy like and then a lot of momentum was lost with the reporter.

Sometimes your dialogue is too blocky. Pages 64-65 is an example. You should have at least one line of description on each page, just so we know what actions the characters are making while they speak.

Was it necessary to show Kiersaugh go to the grocery store. You probably should have just cut from Kiersaugh getting out of the car then the two having the food.

The scene where Kiersaugh is in pursuit of the Red Phantom, the Phantom is firing shot after shot and no reload. Just a nit-pick, but it was just enough to bother me.

You had some nice internal conflicts going on with the officer’s failies in the first act, but the family problems pretty much disappear afterwards. I have mixed feelings on that.

Lt. McCaskey’s dialogue passages are too long. Way too much information is being dumped on a reader at that time.

You never describe what Cindy’s dead body looked like. Was she hog-tied and everything?

The scene where Ronald Paris shows up at the end really reminded me of Red Dragon. On page 118 you say “literally” twice in the action paragraphs. The sentence’s meaning wouldn’t change if you took them out. They add nothing. And I didn’t like that scene that much at all. Bedrosian having the shotgun and Jen coming back with a piece, I just didn’t like it too much. Everyone was ganging up on the baddie and instead of Ron having the upper hand they had it.

Overall – great story, but sometimes it felt like a blend of a lot of different cop movies. Young rookie cop teamed up with older cop, Uncovering conspiracy like thing, Baddie showing up at end. Just things like that, but it was good.

Good Job.
Posted by: ericdickson, March 26th, 2007, 8:04pm; Reply: 2
I would have to agree with pretty much everything you've mentioned here.  The thing is...I know when I'm copying other movies like Seven.  My problem is, I can't get away from this.  I'm so attached to my favorite movies that I can't help but "borrow" certain aspects of these films, because they were so successful and still are.  

In this day and age, with all the remakes coming out, people are running out of ideas.  I kind of like stories that have some "cliche" elements and familiarity to them, so people can relate to what they're watching.  I thought you'd pick up on the whole "Seven" vibe.  When I started thinking about the project three years ago, I thought it would be a good sequal for Mills and Sommerset.  The old cop/young cop thing is outdated, but I thought it would be a cool throwback, because we haven't actually seen a good "cop thriller" like this in years.  This is an old school, buddy cop film that will hit a chord with certain people and bore others who don't care to see this type of thing anymore.  You made a lot of good points, especially Kiersaugh and Bedrosian's family background and how this story kind of disappeared.  You simply reiterated to me what I already expected were the problem areas with this story.  I can tell you actually read this whole thing, from beginning to end, pointing out the specifics.  I appreciate it and I'll try to work on some of this.

Take care,
Eric        
Posted by: JD_OK, March 29th, 2007, 3:06am; Reply: 3
Things like this have no place in description. This is a tell. Audience can not see this."THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME.  A true classic of the silent film genre, based on the short story by Richard Connell."

I'm guessing you are capitalizing words to indicate where the camera should be looking at? Well this method is not used in spec today. I know it was in a book that is out dated, along with capping sounds. I did some checking with professionals and this is not used anymore. Just food for thought.

As you already know. you descriptions are too overly written, go into too much detail, and need to be tightened. On things that push ur story forward, not calling for a shot. i.e ( The sun sets to the east) then jumpin to a new scene.

"One of them is SAUL (50s) the movie house owner." this is another tell. How does the audience know HE is the owner? Show how he is the owner, picture or something along those lines or in dialogue.

And another "A tell tale sign of his gross inexperience." I'll stop pointing these out. Should be able to findwhere these are and remove'em if you choose to ( I recommend)

Continued on bottom of pages are not needed... goes without saying.

"Sgt" Do you mean just Serg here for sergeant? I think you Sgt incorrectly here.

Clearly this long hair guy with blood sticks out of his name so the whole dialog bet about usual freaks isn't needed. Should just start with him tellin him about this particular costumer. Since he clearly was struck odd about his"scumness"

No need to keep on saying rookie this and veteran that. Once you established who is who.. do not be redundant.

Day and Night only on slugs.

I dont buy  the captain of police station tellin his detective "shut the fuck up" .

I really question also the whole relevance of this scene. What is the real point of him tellin the cap about the girl, beside exposition and then about his partner. If was me I would just start with the partner thing and thin lead into a snidbit of info he has gathered. All in all scene needs shortening.

Becuz 1st 15 pages is nothing but expostion... explaining this.. nothing is really happening yet.

pg 23, now you are saying this guy tried to kill couple cops for nothing. That doesnt make sense. Why would e try and run this just for slappin around his sister. You need give better reason here for his wanting to flee... the measures he takes doesnt add up to shootin a cop for.

pg 24I really dont see why even tho u give a explanation for him still being angry. The guy who shoot him is dead. He said he happy he is dead and he is alive...juust feels to me its forced so u can o this scene

page 32- This whole scene with the fight with wife seems so forced. A man who just cheated death comes home angry and fights with his wife.He would be extra loving to her, I would think.  To me doesnt make sense. I understand why you created this scene, for more exposition back story.. but it doesnt work. It falls cliche

On this note, your structure is way off. Act one should have ended by p25, definately by p30. Where the turns of events take place.

I think act one need major clean up to get the ball rolling better. Its draggin for me, only real excitin for the apt shoot out. Dont get my wrong you have good dialog, but 2 much in alot of places...almost sounding alike with chracters. Less is more. And definately your descriptions need overhaul. They read like im reading a book and not a spec screenplay.

More to come...
Posted by: ericdickson, March 29th, 2007, 6:04pm; Reply: 4
I've checked on a few things you've mentioned by asking another professional in the field.  True, he agreed with you that CONTINUED isn't really used anymore, except for old school writers who follow the older standard.  He also said a phone conversation should read KIERSAUGH'S VOICE other than KIERSAUGH (V.O.) because it isn't a voice over.  It's his actual voice.  

Anyway, sorry to sound like such a jerk before.

Eric      
Posted by: James McClung, March 29th, 2007, 9:12pm; Reply: 5

Quoted from ericdickson
CONTINUED on the top and bottom of ongoing scenes is "still" proper format, no matter what the local yahoo says, not a thing of the past.  As well as capping all sounds.  r  

The proof is in the work of other "produced" professionals in the business.  If it's good enough for them, it's good for me too.  Everyone has a different take on what proper format is.  I just follow the standard set in most produced scripts and published instrucional books on scriptwriting.      

Also, I would have to disagree with you on my over use of descriptions.  Heavy description is what sells in this business.  Eye catching scripts that stand out from the rest of the stack.  A hum drum script will leave the reader snoring and uninterested.   Just pick up a copy of Chinatown, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, etc.  Very heavy and rich in description.  

I do, however, need to break up my action to, at most, four lines.


I figured I'd mention this now so I can focus my review on your plot and characters.

Heavy description is NOT what sells in the business. The scripts you've mentioned all had big names attached to them not to mention are rich in story elements. That's why they sold. The producers don't care about descriptions, formatting, etc. if they're paying professional screenwriters to write scripts, especially if they've got big names attached to them that increase the chances of the final product being a smash hit. They're going to read them anyway.

This is not the case when it comes to ameatur screenwriters. Overwritten descriptions makes reading long, tedious, and worst of all, can take the reader out of the story and it's the story that's going to make the script sell in the end. That's why descriptions need to be kept, for the most part, cut and dry. Write only what needs to be seen and forget the rest, pretty much.

With that said, it's a really bad idea to go by what the professionals write. They can get away with whatever they want. Stick to the spec script guidelines, focus on your plot and characters, and forget about what the professionals are doing.
Posted by: JD_OK, March 30th, 2007, 1:14am; Reply: 6

Quoted from ericdickson
CONTINUED on the top and bottom of ongoing scenes is "still" proper format, no matter what the local yahoo says, not a thing of the past.  As well as capping all sounds.  r  

The proof is in the work of other "produced" professionals in the business.  If it's good enough for them, it's good for me too.  Everyone has a different take on what proper format is.  I just follow the standard set in most produced scripts and published instrucional books on scriptwriting.      

Also, I would have to disagree with you on my over use of descriptions.  Heavy description is what sells in this business.  Eye catching scripts that stand out from the rest of the stack.  A hum drum script will leave the reader snoring and uninterested.   Just pick up a copy of Chinatown, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, etc.  Very heavy and rich in description.  



To answer your comment regarding produced scripts u have read. THOSE are not SPEC scripts, also those movies you mentioned are written by KNOWN writers and or directoring the movie also. They can write what they want and get away with it.

If you are trying to sell a SPEC a-list production company, you have to obey the rules closely. Also about the yahoo comment. I'm not picking any kind of fight.. its just a harmless debate and my opinion. I assume you have never paid $400-600 to have your script critiqued by real professional or you would already know what I've been saying. If not I recommend doing so, it is a great help.

Books are written, but things constantly change in screenwriting. So over time things in books arent done.

All that said, I like what Im reading so far..but it needs work.

pg 33. And you think it is okay to call for a shot in a SPEC script? "WE FOLLOW one of them passing a desk. "

"We�ve all seen this before...but where?  This is A big rookie mistake. Why are you asking a question in description? Audience can NOt see this.


"KIERSAUGH�S VOICE " what this? you never heard of (V.O.)? should be like this
KIERSAUGH (V.O.)
(over phone)

43/44 why not just flash back of his phone call to show us and or just play the voice mail.. no need to have the wife tell us.
When where and how did they leave in Keir's car and arrive here in the shot up taxi WHICH IS EVIDENCE... this is really odd for them to drive a shot up murdered car back to scene of the crime.

Nice setup with the taxi. but i dont buy them leavin his house and suddenly arriving at the crime scene in the evidence taxi. Its like we missed something in between here.

page 54. I'm liking this but alot of this I dont like how , again THEY JUST RECIEVED these numbers and next scene Keir  HAS ALL this already sorted out and information on people with the dates...too quick and convient. the setup is good, but poorly executed.

pg 56 Since one does one guy cmmit 2 murders on the same day he gets a name? Usually have to be a serial killer to be named... just some food for thought. Yea he names himself.. but why read what he has stated to the PUBLIC? there was no demand for it to be read or people die or something.....

They is alll way tooooo much attention with press conferences and letters to the times... he has on killed two people with a gun... no physco crazy way or anything to spark hysteria....


pg 63.. can we loose the cops and donuts... it is soooo played out


bottom page 81 he gets the call far from where he is. next page he is there. Unbelievable timeframe on this.

This who chase and get away scene is cliche... just like seven. young cop chases, almost killed but not. Never see thebad girl at this point. Hit in the head just like brad pitt for the drop on him. To the police cornering their own to get down.

Up to this point its decent, but could be so much better if ur descriptions were tighter. Once you fix this, story would fly much faster... you could easily shave off fifthteen, twenty pages by cleaning over dialogue and description.

Just alot of things conviently fall into place too well, i cant fully explain but alot of stuff just happens. Once a reader questions ur world... You loose the reader. Major example is with the sudden jump from inside driving keir car to taxi cab mirror piece scene.

I will have this completed tomorrow evening. As u can see I tend to offer alot of feedback when I see things wrong from my point of view so its takes me awhile to finish a script, but I hope u are able t take alot of what I say to mind ( if not maybe just afew).

20 pages to go and interested on how u play it out. There is a real story here, just needs reworking so far.

more to come
Posted by: Mr.Z, March 30th, 2007, 9:45am; Reply: 7

Quoted from ericdickson
Also, I would have to disagree with you on my over use of descriptions.  Heavy description is what sells in this business.  Eye catching scripts that stand out from the rest of the stack.  A hum drum script will leave the reader snoring and uninterested.   Just pick up a copy of Chinatown, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Godfather, etc.  Very heavy and rich in description.  


http://www.screenwritersutopia.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=2710
Posted by: ericdickson, March 30th, 2007, 11:02am; Reply: 8
I'm doing some serious re-writes as I speak, making formatting changes, taking what you've said into consideration.  I just don't know what to think anymore.  

I used to intern at a known Beverly Hills literary agency and watched as several "mediocre" scripts got picked up and represented.  The movie "TWISTED" was one of these scripts.  The story and dialogue were as cliche' as you can possibly get, down right BAD...but it was specifically rich in action and description, unlike the other scripts in the office at that time.  It simply STOOD OUT from the others, because the boss lady saw talent and potential with this writer.  The writer was unrepped and seemed to break all kinds of formatting rules, but the interns and the boss thought it was gold, so she picked it up.  I think this has always had an affect on me and my writing.  

You're right about P.O.V. having no place in a spec, so I've fixed this.  I've also changed other places in the script that read like camera direction, such as
TAXI CAB - ON WINDSHIELD AND HOOD, stuff like that.

I'd like to bring the letter to the LA TIMES a bit earlier into the story, maybe five pages or so.  This marks the end of Act 1 and this scene is on page 35 or 37, I believe.  I'd like to get it down to page 30.  I'm working on this.

As far as Kiersaugh and his girl having a fight...I wanted a scene where you saw Kiersaugh's insecurity about him being a lab rat for forensics and having a "tough cop" girlfriend on the streets.  He didn't tell his girl he got shot, because he was embarrassed.  He was too eager to nail Fraker's brother, and almost got himself killed because he's a rookie and doesn't know what he's doing.  This is why he's angry and isn't talking to Jen.  He resents her being tougher than him.  He's weasled his way into homicide by testifying against a bad cop, because he wants to prove his manhood and be real L.A.P.D. like his girl and his girl's entire family.  This is Kiersaugh's weakness in the story.  He's insecure about himself and how he comes off.  

What I'd like to do is work on Jen coming back into the story later on, continuing this idea of him "proving himself" to her.  This should be the driving motivation of this character.  This might not be so clear in this one scene.  (I also think the ending should be changed to reinforce this idea of Kiersaugh proving his manhood versus doing what's right.)  

I apologize if I came off a certain way.  My opinions about proper "spec" format has been heavily affected by my experience in production offices.   What I've read in books as proper spec format and what I've actually seen writers get away with in the industry aren't always the same.  What you're saying is all true, but isn't always how it actually is.

I'm doing my best to take what you've said into consideration and making the proper changes.

Take care,
Eric    
      
Posted by: bert, March 30th, 2007, 6:58pm; Reply: 9

Quoted from ericdickson
Anyway, sorry to sound like such a jerk before.


I didn't think you sounded like a jerk.  I found your viewpoint somewhat refreshing.

In fact, reading this little anecdote filled me with hope and joy...


Quoted from Your little anecdote
I used to intern at a known Beverly Hills literary agency and watched as several "mediocre" scripts got picked up and represented.

The story and dialogue were as cliche' as you can possibly get..but it was specifically rich in action and description, unlike the other scripts in the office at that time.  It simply STOOD OUT from the others, because the boss lady saw talent and potential with this writer.  The writer was unrepped and seemed to break all kinds of formatting rules, but the interns and the boss thought it was gold, so she picked it up.


...not because I write bad scripts, mind you, but just knowing there are actually people out there who still appreciate something with a little extra flourish.

There are a few writers around here that frequently find themselves on the wrong end of the "how much is too much" debate.

So thanks for sharing.  When I finally find the time to get back into reading features, if you are still around, I reckon I might take a look at one of yours.
Posted by: tomson (Guest), March 30th, 2007, 7:09pm; Reply: 10
I think all advice in this thread is valid, however... if a script can get your attention right away, I do believe readers/agents and such will continue to read on.

I don't think anyone is going to toss a script where they are truly intrigued by the story, but the formatting is somewhat off.

I read BLACK SNAKE MOAN last weekend, best damn script I've read in a looooooooong time and I read a lot (maybe I connected because I live in the south), but it sure was far from "correct" spec format. Someone told me some time ago that he wouldn't bother reading a script like that...

Well the guy who wrote the script is living the dream. The other guy isn't.....
Posted by: tonkatough, April 1st, 2007, 5:26am; Reply: 11
Hey Dickson. Just letting you know I have read 53 pages of your script. The format is excellent the structure is solid. I'm not a fan of crime genre so I didn't really get into the story or find it interesting, but this is a personal thing.

One thing I do dig is the dialouge and big personality you have given to Bedrosian.

Bedrosian is an awesome, tough nut character. His attitude gives your whole script an attitude that makes your script come alive. he is such a big character that everyone else is lost in his shadow. Cole slaw is forgetable and just serves as a vehicle to annoy Bedrosian and lets him vent more of his attitude.

I notice your over use of action has become the main focus of this thread already.

Your writing style reminds me a bit of mine as I too like to lay the action details on a bit thick as well. The first couple pages was a little to thick, way, way to much detail. (Introduction of the crime scene) I just skipped parts and still got the jist of what was going on. But by page 5 your action quickly fell into a rythem and was easy to read. It was also great and gave your story a visual style.

A lot of people will criticise  action such as: blah is repulsed by the naked granny thinks it is yuck! straight off the rule is if you can't see it on screen then don't write it. But I don't think it hurts to put in little sentence that explain something abstract like characters emotions. I think they're good as an aid to help the actor who would read the script. sort of a sugestion.

Your extra action give a very clear solid visual for your story. Just makes it more rich.

But I have to ask with a spec script are you just wasting your time over writing action? After all, it all comes down to the director and he might compromise your detail or it just might not be available to use.  This is why I am guessing a lot of purest writers stick by spec should be bare minimum, story only.

I think what you doing is cool and will keep reading as promised.    
Posted by: JD_OK, April 2nd, 2007, 12:32am; Reply: 12
sorry for delay. i usually party fri and sat, so im drunk by the time i have time to read.

end OF MY REVIEW***************************** spoilers

pg 85 if capt knows evans is dead... y does he ask questions about it b4 statin he is dead. he should just say it soon as they mention Evans'
pg 90. bedro sounds out of character delivering this overly long exposition. Two pages worth.. all while driving like a maniac (which u stated bottom pg 89) to top of 92 kiro takes time to look at file and stares at a photo.

How did those reporter get to ron paris's house so fast only when the police just learned of the house.

what good is the mystery of the killer or we never scene him b4 hand? Like in seven which u ge of ur story from, u see him as the reporter early in the story, who brad yells at.

Jen yells out blow his fuckin head off. He doesnt wear a gn in hisboxers or has a gun pointed at paris.. why does she say this.

Dunno, who scene with paris talkin and stuff to gun battle just wasnt excitin to me... Maybe cuz I didnt relly connet to the characters. You setup conflict with them, but i dont think it was executed properly.

Whole scenario with jen/ unstable relation, just feel flat. So did' berdo with his daughter.

You have a story here, but it needs fleshing out.

Too many times things take place we dont see happens. Alot of it things found out and they jus say they did blah blah and have more exposition.

We should find things out when they do, character discovery.

Over all decent draft. Next draft can be better for sure. Fixing structure, contrianvce, info discovery, mystery, format, tighting dialog and descriptions
Posted by: James McClung, April 2nd, 2007, 3:41pm; Reply: 13
Hey Eric,

I've got my first batch of notes here for you...

- This opening scene is a little dull for my taste. Stories like this need a grabber. Perhaps you could start with a scene with the cabbie and his fare. Maybe end it with the guy pulling out his gun. Something along those lines. Maybe you have a better idea. In any case, you need something to hook your reader/viewer.

pg. 3 – “41” should be written out. In fact, all numbers in the dialogue need to be.

- The cops take too long to nail Fraker. I think they’d know the guy as soon as they saw him. They shouldn’t spend so much time waiting to see what he does. You could trim some of the dialogue in this scene as well.

pg. 18 – “That wasn’t so bad.” Awful nonchalant on Kiersaugh’s part, don’t you think? He’s a rookie. If anything, he’d be on his toes expecting the worst. I’d omit this line.

pg. 19 – “Keirsaugh charges down the steps with authority, eager to catch his first suspect and make a name for himself.” I’ve noticed way too many of these kinds of lines so far. You can’t describe the inner workings of a character’s mind in your action paragraphs. As soon as it gets translated onscreen, it’s lost. It’s showing, not telling. Character development should be shown through a character’s actions and the ways they express themselves. You can’t just write it like you would anything else that happens.

- How could Keirsaugh possibly take his eyes off the suspect even for a second, rookie or not? I don’t buy this at all. You need a more feasible reason for the suspect to get a hold of a gun or, if not, for Keirsaugh to look away.

pg. 23 – “If that bullet went half an ass hair to the left, they’d be loading you into that wagon...” Underlines shouldn’t appear in dialogue. It’s the actor’s job to decide which words are emphasized. This pops up several times later. Keep an eye out for this stuff.

pg. 31 – For the sake of realism only: I doubt a veteran like Bedrosian would let a jelly donut spill all over police paperwork. I think he’d be more professional.

pg. 39 – You’re missing the time of day in your slug.

pg. 42 – You have a large gap between the end of the Rosterman scene and the one following it. Fix it.

- This package with the Zodiac sign is a major plot point yet you’ve waited until page 49 to introduce it. This is far too late. This should’ve shown up at page 40 at the latest and even that’s pushing it. Between pages 25 and 35 would be your best bet. I wouldn’t give you a hard time about this if you hadn’t written in your logline that this script is about a Zodiac copycat. This is your main plot and you’re introducing it almost an hour into your story (I’m going by the page-per-minute rule BTW).

- Kiersaugh isn’t giving Bobby much reason to talk by accusing him of murder nor is he asking him any questions about the Zodiac copycat, the whole reason Bobby was brought in in the first place. He seems to have some reason for doing this but I can’t tell what it is as of now.

pg. 59 – This seat belt gag is unnecessary. If it’s supposed to be funny, this isn’t the place for it. It feels awkward instead. I’d lose it.

pg. 69 – I don’t think it’s obvious this stuff is blood. I don’t even think blood stays red for this long (unless it’s fresh) and even so, there’s no way of telling it isn’t something else. Perhaps one of the characters should mention it.

More later...
Posted by: tonkatough, April 3rd, 2007, 3:08am; Reply: 14
Okay I've finished your script.

Other then what I have mentioned there is nothing more I can add. The dialouge was great gave each of your two main cops a distinct voice and attitude and while you detail is little over written, it is still visually rich and hope in the next draft you don't go over board with shaving off to much action as i would hate to see you lose the style of your script. It sets it apart from a lot of the scripts here.

I can't really offer much in the way of story structure as I am not a fan of the crime genre and I am not a police officer so I found all the running around doing detective work not very appealing or interesting. But I am sure people who are fans of this genre will get a kick out of it.

The only thing I can agree with in the  above reviews is that there in some parts there are way to much exposition. The worst offender was cole saw telling his partner about how he break up with girlfriend. You showed scene in begining with cole saw and girl have a blue. then the story line is dropped and he talks about break up later on.  If you not going to follow through with the scene or make it into a worth while subplot, you might as well just dump the whole lot. Focus on the main central problem that is tracking down the red phantom and ignore everything outside of this, including their love life.    
Posted by: ericdickson, April 3rd, 2007, 8:40am; Reply: 15

Quoted from tonkatough
Okay I've finished your script.

Other then what I have mentioned there is nothing more I can add. The dialouge was great gave each of your two main cops a distinct voice and attitude and while you detail is little over written, it is still visually rich and hope in the next draft you don't go over board with shaving off to much action as i would hate to see you lose the style of your script. It sets it apart from a lot of the scripts here.

I can't really offer much in the way of story structure as I am not a fan of the crime genre and I am not a police officer so I found all the running around doing detective work not very appealing or interesting. But I am sure people who are fans of this genre will get a kick out of it.

The only thing I can agree with in the  above reviews is that there in some parts there are way to much exposition. The worst offender was cole saw telling his partner about how he break up with girlfriend. You showed scene in begining with cole saw and girl have a blue. then the story line is dropped and he talks about break up later on.  If you not going to follow through with the scene or make it into a worth while subplot, you might as well just dump the whole lot. Focus on the main central problem that is tracking down the red phantom and ignore everything outside of this, including their love life.    


What I'm trying to do with Kiersaugh is create a character with some serious insecurities.  His girlfriend is a tough cop who comes from a family of other tough cops.  He's recently made homicide because he rolled over on another cop, ratting him out to Internal Affairs.  He's trying to prove his "manhood" by going straight to homicide and breaking big cases.  He feels he's in a role reversal type relationship with his girl.  This isn't supposed to take up the bulk of the story, just gives us some insight into why he was promoted and how he got there.  

This sub-plot comes full circle during the climax when Kiersaugh has the gun and must decide whether to kill Red Phantom, or bring him in and do the right thing.  This is what I set out to do, at least.  The toughest thing is...trying to fit all of this under 120 pages and having it read smoothly.  In most police thrillers, the supporting characters (family, The Captain, other cops, girlfriends), don't take up the bulk of the story.  They appear here and there throughout.  Most cop flicks focus on the two detectives, or the one going place to place, investigating.  

Maybe I should bring the George Sears character into the story, instead of talking about him so much.  Maybe he can get involved in the whole "corrupt cop" organization along with Duvall, Evans and Bowers.  This might generate some sympathy for Kiersaugh and give that backstory a little more emphasis.  What do you think?    

I hate to ommit the Jen character.  I think the idea of her is felt with Kiersaugh's character throughout.  In his eagerness, his desire to go after Bobby Evans.  In how he tries to prove himself to his partner.  I want this to be his character flaw.                

After the big chase scene with Red Phantom at the parking garage, I feel like there's a bit too much explaining about "Ronald Paris" and not enough detective work, finding out who Red Phantom is.  I have some ideas to fix this, so I'll work on it.  

After the hog-tie crime scene, we jump to a scene where the two cops explain that the dead girl is Duvall's daughter instead of us finding out for ourselves.  This is a cheat, and I should fix this.  TOO MUCH TALKING AND NOT ENOUGH SEEING.  I feel this is my major problem area during the second act.  Too much explanation.

So I'm gonna work Sears back into the story, actually giving him a face and a part in the story.  I think I'll make him friends with Duvall, or Bobby Jr.  I think Kiersaugh should have to face the man he got kicked off the force and have that story come full circle, so it doesn't fall to the wayside and feel unneccessary.  

I'll also trim some of the "cop talk" and explaining who's who and who's daughter is such and such and show more of this in the action so the reader can figure it out themselves.          
Posted by: ericdickson, April 4th, 2007, 3:16pm; Reply: 16
I've done another draft of the script, making some of the forementioned changes suggested on this forum.  The formatting is a bit tighter, dialogue has been trimmed here and there, but nothing major.  

I'd have to say my two biggest changes would include bringing the first Zodiac letter down to page 30, marking the end of Act 1 and the beginning of Act 2, where this scene should be.  This is where our serial killer story begins.  It's actually around the top of page 31, not 30.  Close enough.  

2)  I've added a scene where George Sears confronts Kiersaugh at a cop bar, taunting him in front of the other cops, calling him a rat and a fraud, challenging him to a fight.  I thought it was important to show this man instead of simply talking about him and making references to "back story".  This puts even more emphasis on Kiersaugh's guilty conscience about making homicide by ratting out a cop, and also his "inadequacies" concerning living with a hero cop girlfriend.  It also adds a comedic break from the otherwise serious murder investigation.

3)  Right before Kiersaugh shows Scarza how he's deciphered the Zodiac's secret phone numbers (the chalk board scene), I added a short scene with Kiersaugh and Bedrosian at the library, typing in specific dates, tying in a connection between the phone numbers and the dates of the murdered victims.

4) the ending is also different.  I've given Paris some better dialogue and put more emphasis on why he's chosen to turn himself in to Kiersaugh and not Bedrosian.  The actual ending is more fitting and reflects Kiersaugh's inner conflicts throughout the story.  You'll see what I mean.  I don't wanna ruin it.

THE NEW DRAFT SHOULDN'T BE UP FOR A COUPLE DAYS!  Give it some time before you do another review.  

Thanks again everyone for helping me be a better writer.  Your suggestions have been invaluable.  Let's keep up the good work.

Eric    
Posted by: ericdickson, April 4th, 2007, 7:29pm; Reply: 17
The new draft is up with lots of little changes, here and there.  Most of them due to your suggestions.  

The main thing I'd like to focus on now is bringing Jen back into the story at least for one or two more key scenes.  She is important to Kiersaugh, not just another girl.  This is why he's gone so far as to cheat his way into homicide.  What she thinks matters to him.  He's trying to impress her.  

The whole 3RD ACT...

(discovering Duvall's daughter dead, finding the picture with her, Bower's daughter and Bobby Evans wife, Cindy Bowers going missing and tying in all the victims as relatives of ex cops)

...This all needs work.  I still need to find a way to trim the heavy dialogue down, so the audience can SEE the detectives discovering all this with their own eyes, not just spouting off what they've discovered with their Captain.  

I'll work on this hard before posting my next draft.

HERE'S SOME IDEAS

Maybe Kiersaugh can ask Jen to fax him a DMV picture of Christina "Tina
Evans, linking her to the third "unknown girl" in the picture.  This way, we don't have to tell about it in dialogue later.  

KIERSAUGH
I need you to run a name through the DMV for me.  A Christina or Tina Evans, age 35.  Recently deceased.  Passed away March of this year.  I need you to fax me a picture right away at the following number...


We can figure out Gretchen is Duvall's daughter by Bedrosian finding a picture of the two.  This would be a simple way of doing it.

BEDROSIAN
Hey, partner.  Look who I found.  

KIERSAUGH
Duvall?

BEDROSIAN
Bingo.

Just like that...    
    
Posted by: James McClung, April 4th, 2007, 10:27pm; Reply: 18
This phone conversation should be in V.O., not O.S.

pg. 76 – The menacing eyes work for me but reveal anything else and I think people will basically be able to piece together what this guy looks like. Even the eyes are a bit of a stretch. Each shot takes away a little of the character’s mystery. I gather mystery is what you were going for. This is just an opinion, mind you. You really don’t have to change anything here. Just figured I’d offer some food for thought.

pg. 78 – “Without hesitation, the killer puts THREE SHOTS into the man’s chest, killing him.” It’s to be assumed these shots are fatal. No need to use the phrase “killing him.”

pg. 93 – I think you might run into some trouble with the use of these NFL logos were this to be produced.

pg. 95 – “They’re fine.”

pg. 103 – I don’t think Bedrosian needs to ask for Ronnie’s name. The name Albert Paris is already out there. Once the son is mentioned, I think it’s enough for him and Kiersaugh to put the pieces together.

pg. 112 – Bedrosian is no softie. I don’t think he needs to tell Kiersaugh he’s sorry and that he’s a good cop. I think his line before that is enough to indicate that he finally respects Kiersaugh. In fact, I’d say it’s in his character not to say anything further. Just a thought. Either way, I’d keep Kiersaugh’s “thanks.”

For the most part, I thought this script was really good but had two major flaws, both of them connected to each other. The first flaw is that your script is too heavy on dialogue and about half of it has little to do with the central plot. The dialogue in the first half of the story felt monotonous and repetetive. It's obvious these guys don't like each other. There's only so many times you can show it. This does not apply, however, to Kiersaugh's exchange with his girlfriend or anything else relating to his relationship. I thought this was something that made the story unique. Kiersaugh's got some serious baggage and isn't exactly the greatest guy in the world but I found him to be very interesting and wanted to see what happened to him. Bedrosian was a great character as well. Not as developed but I enjoy these hard cop types carved out of wood. Some conventions just work, you know?

At the halfway mark, the story finally kicks into gear with the introduction of the Zodiac copycat. I found this to be both good and bad. I think the whole reason the first half drags so much is because you wait too long to get to the main plot. Most of what happens early on, I found didn't really relate to the Zodiac plot. If you introduced this plot element earlier on where it's supposed to be, you could certainly take more liberties with the dialogue since people would already know what was going on. I have to admit I was a little lost in the beginning. I had a hard time telling exactly what this script was about. After the halfway mark, I didn't have any problems.

Those are the main issues with your script IMO. I really don't have much else to comment on. The characters, the action, the dialogue, the twists... for the most part, all these elements seemed to be in good shape. I think if you stretch out the main plot, you'll have a stronger, more readable work on your hands (not to say your script wasn't readable; I think you get the idea). Overall, I enjoyed this and think it has the potential to be great.
Posted by: ericdickson, April 7th, 2007, 9:21am; Reply: 19
I've changed quite a bit of the script, but still have some touching up to do.  I still need to clean up the "hog tie murder scene" with regard to Kiersaugh and Bedrosian piecing everything together a little too easily. (i.e., the exchange between Kiersaugh, Bedrosian and Captain Scarza about Chief Bowers daughter, Tina Evans, and Duvall's daughter.)  This dialogue goes on forever, I know.  

All of your above comments seem to suggest there is too much explanation concerning the identity of the Red Phantom's victims, instead of us finding out for ourselves.  I will fix this in the next draft.

1)I've fixed the scene where Bedrosian suddenly appears in time to shoot Red Phantom at the night club.  In the new draft, he doesn't show up until the next scene at the garage, in a taxi cab.

2) The ending has been changed to reinforce Kiersaugh's internal conflicts throughout the story.  His "do the right thing" mentality versus his desire to be liked and looked up to by his peers.  I think the ending really fits now.  Hope you like it.

3) One of you mentioned the unbelievability of the media calling our shooter the "Red Phantom" after only one letter and one shooting.  Remember, the killer sent this letter to the LA TIMES first.  The broadcast doesn't take place until after Kiersaugh and Bedrosian find the package at the Mailbox place, then link the taxi shooting to the death of the young couple at the golf course, one year earlier.  The Zodiac killer once signed a letter "The Red Phantom" suggesting his love for Phantom of the Opera and other silent films, like THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME.  They figure the R.P. in the letter might stand for "Red Phantom", which later, we discover, it doesn't.  It means Ronald Paris.  In either case, the three killings are linked and this news of a serial killer is leaked to the media.  You know how that stuff goes.  Anyway, we're supposed to figure this out for ourselves.          

            
Posted by: ericdickson, April 7th, 2007, 9:26am; Reply: 20

Quoted from ericdickson
I've changed quite a bit of the script, but still have some touching up to do.  I still need to clean up the "hog tie murder scene" with regard to Kiersaugh and Bedrosian piecing everything together a little too easily. (i.e., the exchange between Kiersaugh, Bedrosian and Captain Scarza about Chief Bowers daughter, Tina Evans, and Duvall's daughter.)  This dialogue goes on forever, I know.  

All of your above comments seem to suggest there is too much explanation concerning the identity of the Red Phantom's victims, instead of us finding out for ourselves.  I will fix this in the next draft.

1)I've fixed the scene where Bedrosian suddenly appears in time to shoot Red Phantom at the night club.  In the new draft, he doesn't show up until the next scene at the garage, in a taxi cab.

2) The ending has been changed to reinforce Kiersaugh's internal conflicts throughout the story.  His "do the right thing" mentality versus his desire to be liked and looked up to by his peers.  I think the ending really fits now.  Hope you like it.

3) One of you mentioned the unbelievability of the media calling our shooter the "Red Phantom" after only one letter and one shooting.  Remember, the killer sent this letter to the LA TIMES first.  The broadcast doesn't take place until after Kiersaugh and Bedrosian find the package at the Mailbox place, then link the taxi shooting to the death of the young couple at the golf course, one year earlier.  The Zodiac killer once signed a letter "The Red Phantom" suggesting his love for Phantom of the Opera and other silent films, like THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME.  They figure the R.P. in the letter might stand for "Red Phantom", which later, we discover, it doesn't.  It means Ronald Paris.  In either case, the three killings are linked and this news of a serial killer is leaked to the media.  You know how that stuff goes.  Anyway, we're supposed to figure this out for ourselves.          

            


One thing I didn't do with the first letter is state that he was the killer of the taxi driver.  Somehow, the police are handed this letter by the LA TIMES, but why?  I can see how this might seem a bit unbelievable.  I'll fix the first letter.    
Posted by: ericdickson, April 13th, 2007, 6:40pm; Reply: 21
Hello there.  My new draft should be up in a couple days.  

I've really focused on trimming the more meatier scenes of heavy dialogue and too much explanation with more investigating, detective type work.  

We learn what they learn, not just hearing about what they've learned through dialogue after the fact.  

I don't think there was too much of a problem with this in the first place, but just in a couple of key scenes.  Especially the hogtie murder scene and how the detectives connect all of the murders together.  In this scene, we get to see more of the two cops finding evidence, piecing things together.  

Anyway, I've done just about all I can with this issue.  I think there should be some explanation in places in case the reader isn't quite following every little detail.  The dialogue here is used to reinforce what we've already shown in action.  It's there, you just have to read it.  There's lots of detail here.  Too much to brilliantly figure it all out ourselves without some dialogue to help piece it together.  We need a little help sometime.  I don't think I'm too off base with this.

    

  
Posted by: medstudent, May 13th, 2007, 10:00am; Reply: 22
Dickson,
Just finished reading your script. I haven't read any of the earlier posts so...

This is perhaps one of the most solid pieces of work I've read on this site. It's tough to give any real "help" for a script such as this but I'll try.

First, immediately your character introduction and set up was instantly noticeable. You're main character's were, in fact, what made this such a dynamic and interesting detective story. I think good detective stories do one of two things really well...

1. They have such an interesting, unique twist (Seven, for example) it alone makes the story a winner.

2. Or the characters make the story itself shine (48hrs, Silence of the Lamb, etc.). Like yours does. While the 'case', in my opinion, is average the interactions between your two main characters is what make this story amazing. Sure you have a nicely developed, solid story but your characters set it apart.

Immediately, I get a good sense of who your characters are and what motivates them. You characters develop nicely even up until the last scene. Great job.

This is such a solid piece, I would be surprised if this didn't get picked up by someone if it hasn't already.

After reading, I sat awhile and thought about what I could possibly say to you about this. And I realized that it wasn't what I was going to say about THIS that was important but about your future stories that was. You definitely have talent and I expect you'll be writing for production companies soon... but what is going to set you apart from the rest of the "hired guns" in Hollywood? I think you should stretch you imagination a bit. Don't be so conservative with your stories. I think the inherent desire for every screenwriter is to be the one to write the next "Memento", "Matrix", "Being John Malkovich". That's mine anyways. I want to be the next Lynch, or Mahmet. Do you remember the name of the guy who wrote "Cellphone" or "Payphone"? Niether do I. The guy's probably the best paid writer in Hollywood. Nobody outside of the business knows his name. That's what you should strive to do. You have the skill to do just that. Set yourself apart from everyone else. I would love to read something by you where I go "wow, now that was a f'ing great movie!" That should be your goal as a writer. I want to leave the theater thinking about the damn thing all day!

Not to take anything away from this screenplay. Like I said, more than a handful of producers would pick this up. It would bring people to the theatres and make them money. And it's good. But it's safe.

Anyways, on to some specifics...

PG 1: Shots from the interior of the cab? How does the audience see this? Gun shells on the seat?

I like how you're setting this up, introducing your characters.

PG 2: You don't "throw on" surgical gloves. Maybe "pull" or "yank".

PG 5: "Why is there a mime at my crime scene?"  Beautiful line of dialogue.

PG 10: I wouldn't use "SOMETIME LATER" as a slugline. Just use the same one as before. We'll get the inference.

Pg 30: "A bald, thin-faced man." Is this a description of the sketch or the Captain again?

PG 33: Bedronin(sp?) answers the phone with a question. Why is he questioning the caller about his name?

PG 35: So far you have set the characters up nicely. Their relationship is nicely done. Very layered backgrounds. Good job!

PG 37: Why do you suddenly begin using scene transition headings?

PG 49: spell out numbers when they're spoken.

PG 54: I don't think the police would read the letter outloud to the public. They would keep the contents of the letter priviledged.

PG 80: Use a VO for the phone conversation.

PG 82: "Continues down the alley a piece..." --  " What's a "piece"?

PG 92: From what I know about murderers (the serial kind) is that they utilize a killing method or weapon of choice. So far RP has used a gun to kill his victims. I don't think he'd switch to a knife for later killings. The difference of using a gun to kill someone vs a knife is a whole different pshycological state.

PG 112: I thought Kiersaugh no longer had a girlfriend? I would set it up before that showing that he is reluctant to go home because she's there. Maybe set it up with a piece of dialogue.

PG 117: Why does RP push Kiersaugh to the floor?

PG 118: Need to make each person's immediate goal a little clearer here. RP's, Kiersaugh's...

Okay, hope this helps a little. Let me know if you have any questions.

Joseph




Posted by: ericdickson, May 20th, 2007, 12:39pm; Reply: 23

Quoted from medstudent
Dickson,
Just finished reading your script. I haven't read any of the earlier posts so...

This is perhaps one of the most solid pieces of work I've read on this site. It's tough to give any real "help" for a script such as this but I'll try.

First, immediately your character introduction and set up was instantly noticeable. You're main character's were, in fact, what made this such a dynamic and interesting detective story. I think good detective stories do one of two things really well...

1. They have such an interesting, unique twist (Seven, for example) it alone makes the story a winner.

2. Or the characters make the story itself shine (48hrs, Silence of the Lamb, etc.). Like yours does. While the 'case', in my opinion, is average the interactions between your two main characters is what make this story amazing. Sure you have a nicely developed, solid story but your characters set it apart.

Immediately, I get a good sense of who your characters are and what motivates them. You characters develop nicely even up until the last scene. Great job.

This is such a solid piece, I would be surprised if this didn't get picked up by someone if it hasn't already.

After reading, I sat awhile and thought about what I could possibly say to you about this. And I realized that it wasn't what I was going to say about THIS that was important but about your future stories that was. You definitely have talent and I expect you'll be writing for production companies soon... but what is going to set you apart from the rest of the "hired guns" in Hollywood? I think you should stretch you imagination a bit. Don't be so conservative with your stories. I think the inherent desire for every screenwriter is to be the one to write the next "Memento", "Matrix", "Being John Malkovich". That's mine anyways. I want to be the next Lynch, or Mahmet. Do you remember the name of the guy who wrote "Cellphone" or "Payphone"? Niether do I. The guy's probably the best paid writer in Hollywood. Nobody outside of the business knows his name. That's what you should strive to do. You have the skill to do just that. Set yourself apart from everyone else. I would love to read something by you where I go "wow, now that was a f'ing great movie!" That should be your goal as a writer. I want to leave the theater thinking about the damn thing all day!

Not to take anything away from this screenplay. Like I said, more than a handful of producers would pick this up. It would bring people to the theatres and make them money. And it's good. But it's safe.

Anyways, on to some specifics...

PG 1: Shots from the interior of the cab? How does the audience see this? Gun shells on the seat?

I like how you're setting this up, introducing your characters.

PG 2: You don't "throw on" surgical gloves. Maybe "pull" or "yank".

PG 5: "Why is there a mime at my crime scene?"  Beautiful line of dialogue.

PG 10: I wouldn't use "SOMETIME LATER" as a slugline. Just use the same one as before. We'll get the inference.

Pg 30: "A bald, thin-faced man." Is this a description of the sketch or the Captain again?

PG 33: Bedronin(sp?) answers the phone with a question. Why is he questioning the caller about his name?

PG 35: So far you have set the characters up nicely. Their relationship is nicely done. Very layered backgrounds. Good job!

PG 37: Why do you suddenly begin using scene transition headings?

PG 49: spell out numbers when they're spoken.

PG 54: I don't think the police would read the letter outloud to the public. They would keep the contents of the letter priviledged.

PG 80: Use a VO for the phone conversation.

PG 82: "Continues down the alley a piece..." --  " What's a "piece"?

PG 92: From what I know about murderers (the serial kind) is that they utilize a killing method or weapon of choice. So far RP has used a gun to kill his victims. I don't think he'd switch to a knife for later killings. The difference of using a gun to kill someone vs a knife is a whole different pshycological state.

PG 112: I thought Kiersaugh no longer had a girlfriend? I would set it up before that showing that he is reluctant to go home because she's there. Maybe set it up with a piece of dialogue.

PG 117: Why does RP push Kiersaugh to the floor?

PG 118: Need to make each person's immediate goal a little clearer here. RP's, Kiersaugh's...

Okay, hope this helps a little. Let me know if you have any questions.

Joseph








Thanks man.  I read Perception and want to post my review.  Where's Perception at on the site?   I can always email you my comments if you'd rather.  Let me know.

Take care,
Eric
Posted by: aurorawriter, May 23rd, 2007, 10:52pm; Reply: 24
Hey Eric,

Thanks for your offer regarding our script, Peephole.  We'll be happy to do an exchange with you -- we checked out the first few pages of yours and we're looking forward to reading the rest.

Thanks again--

Aimee
Posted by: elis, May 31st, 2007, 10:26am; Reply: 25
Hi Eric,

Trivial but important…others may have problem.
I had problems with your Pdf file.  It is 5mb in size, enormous!
Normally it should only be about 0.2mb.

In your first descriptive paragraph, Shouldn’t it be a voice over?
I am not from that area and there is no way that I would know it was a once busy street.

This is a really good script. The suspense was held throughout the whole plot and I was kept guessing as to who the Red phantom was.
I like the clever way your story is tied to the Zodiac.
You seem to have tied all the lose ends to all your characters.
My favourite character is Veteran detective Bedrosian.  He reminds  me of “dirty Harry”.  I liked that.

The story has a lot to tell but I think it could be tightened up.
I think Kiersaugh works out the clues a little too quickly. I believe it did not give me a chance to work them out for myself.

I love the play on Kiersaugh’s name. Clever!

The suspense and action from p 78 to 83  is fantastic.

Minor typos
P39 Minor spelling error Petal instead of Pedal
P80 tires should be tyres

Overall, the script is well structured and flows freely.

I really cannot make any bad comments.

Great script!

also sent you a PM. :D
Posted by: aurorawriter, June 9th, 2007, 2:26pm; Reply: 26
Hi Eric,

Thanks for agreeing to trade reads with us.  Overall, I think your story is very good.  It takes too long to get going – and I’ll go into specifics of why I think that is, down below – but the mystery works.  You do a nice job of setting up back story for these characters.  Also, you write very natural-sounding dialogue, so kudos on that!  It’s not easy.

The end felt like a bit of a let-down for me.  I felt like I was being set up for a big twist at the end, but it never came.  I was surprised that Kiersaugh killed Paris, but I didn’t really understand *why* he did it.

The number one thing I think you can do to improve this script is to edit yourself.  You’re a good writer, but almost all of your descriptions and action sequences are over-written.  Lots of times, you’ll describe the same thing two different ways.  One easy way to trim is to go through and try to eliminate every single adverb.  Don’t say that Bedrosian walks slowly, as if he’s tired.  Say that he trudges.  Use stronger verbs, and you won’t need so many words to get the point across.

I’ve listed some specific examples below of places and ways you can make your writing crisper and cleaner.  I think you can tell this story in under 110 pages, and it will be a better, more readable script.  

If you have any questions, please let me know.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts on PEEPHOLE.

Thanks,

Aimee


The descriptive passages can be trimmed quite a bit without losing their impact.  You’re a good writer, but your style in this script is more novelistic than cinematic.  For example:

“This dark, dimly lit Hollywood back street is a mere shadow of what it used to be.  The windows of this once busy strip are now boarded up.  Forgotten about and left to decay.”

Your slugline gives the information that it’s (a) a barren street; (b) Hollywood and (c) night.  You don’t need to repeat that information.  So how about:

“Dimly lit.  Boarded-up shops.  An air of decay.”

It’s crisper, cleaner, and creates more white space, which readers love.

p.3 You say in your description that “the bullet exited at a different trajectory and speed.”  This is another area where you can trim and make your script more readable.  You can’t show that the bullet exited at a different trajectory, you can only show the results of that – which you’ve done, in the previous sentence.  

p. 4 “Why is there a mime on my crime scene?”  LOL, great line

p. 6  This is another example of how you can trim some fat from your script easily.  You say that there’s “red blood” on the pole.  Do you really need to say it’s red?  It’s blood.  

p. 8 Just one more example of how I think you can trim things, and then I’ll leave it alone and focus on story.  You say that the Donut King manager is “giving [Bedrosian] the skinny on a possible suspect.”  Don’t put that in the description.  Your dialogue is already doing that work for you – and the dialogue is good!  Trust it – and trust the reader to be able to interpret the dialogue correctly.

p. 11 “Loanpoke”  I’m pretty sure the name of the real-life prison is Lompoc.  Not sure if that’s what you were going for, but “Loanpoke” looks funny.

p. 15 Just a note that numbers in dialogue should be spelled out – the only exception is years.  So for someone’s height, six-two.  For an apartment number one-twelve.  Etc.

p. 17-19  I get that you’re keeping it a mystery whether the suspect is Fraker or not.  But you need to give him some sort of name.  If you want to call him Suspect, that’s fine, but it needs to be capitalized.

p. 32-33 You’re inserting the envelope twice here.  Once is enough.

p. 37 You’re using “Match Cut To” for a situation that’s not really a match cut.  INTERCUT would be better here – it’s the most efficient way to show a telephone conversation from both ends.  Set up one scene & character, set up the other.  Then just put “INTERCUT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION – BEDROSIAN AND KIERSAUGH”  Then just put the dialogue and you don’t have to switch back and forth between scenes.

p. 43 You refer to the white car as both a hot rod and a sedan.  That’s confusing.

p. 48  This is where I feel the story really kicks into gear, and that needs to happen earlier.  You’ve got, in my opinion, way too much set-up and not enough action.

p. 53  “grizzly” should be “grisly”

p. 54  I don’t believe that the police would make the contents of that letter public.  Why?  It could compromise their investigation, and it doesn’t contain any information that might require the public’s help.

p. 71  “Donut withdrawal.”  LOL!












Posted by: ericdickson, April 23rd, 2012, 9:19am; Reply: 27
will have a new draft up in a few days.  did a page one overhaul
Posted by: ericdickson, April 2nd, 2018, 8:42pm; Reply: 28
I've done a page one, complete reboot of this thing since 2007.  All new characters, new setting but kept the Zodiac premise in tact as far as the clues and codes and letters to the police, etc.  

This is the seventh draft of this latest version and could REALLY use some honest feedback.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, April 16th, 2018, 8:10am; Reply: 29
Eric

This has a lot of potential. You clearly know you’re way around the procedural genre. The plot comes thick and fast, new revelations, information, leads, blind alleys, developments happen pretty much every couple of pages to keep us hooked and wonder what’s around the corner. By and large, the pacing is solid, we are drip fed the information, for the most part, in a controlled and assured manner. I feel like I’m in relatively safe hands in that regard. As I said, its evident you’re a fan of these type of films and have applied their techniques to your own writing.

Technically, the writing starts a little on the verbose side both in dialogue and prose. The latter gradually streamlines and becomes leaner, more direct, less decorative. There are times when sentences run on, like most scripts it could be tightened up but it didn’t hinder the read too much. The dialogue on the other hand, is one of my criticisms, in that it is long winded and overly expositiory a significant amount of the time, stuff got repeated a lot, particularly in Dr. Fink’s scenes. The reasoning behind the protagonist’s trauma is writ large, then repeated and generally explained in far too much detail I reckon.
Going back to the story, while it kept me engaged, it did feel very familiar. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every beat of this story in other films. I appreciate that it’s hard to be original, especially within such a saturated genre, but is their some twist or wrinkle you could give it to make it stand out?

I guess utilizing the zodiac imagery and what that implies is one way although this could also be construed as crass exploitation of that “brand” (for want of a better term). However, to your credit (even though it perplexed me in equal measure) the characters don’t make a big deal of it and acknowledge it only once I think. It’s like it goes without saying and perhaps for San Fran denizens it does since that case was so famous.

As with these types of stories, there were some plot contrivances and convenient divulging of information right on cue when we needed it. I get that’s par for the course but a couple of times it felt like there was an unreasonable/illogical delay in following stuff up. As in certain leads, although clearly important, weren’t perused until it suited the plot to pursue them.

The deficiencies of this police department also facilitates for the many surprises, dead ends and red herrings that occur, especially the central twist. They sometimes shine and gain traction in the case before a honking error is revealed. This lot needs to go away and do some 101 investigative training...or binge watch CSI. I’m partly joking but most of the officers here should take a long hard look at themselves. Except Craig actually and he’s an asshole...whom I did enjoy.

To be fair, at least Wells admits this and I appreciate that this learning process is part of the arc but it’s an issue if the story’s ability to function is contingent on the good guys being bad at what they do. It might work in a comedy, not a drama. I don’t expect a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’, or for them to be super on point, like those savant investigators you generally see. Just a reasonable level of competence to make things plausible, a consistency. The oversights committed by this department are embarrassing at times bordering on the comical.

The final act does feature a neat twist that I didn’t see coming and pretty much rings true story-wise when it’s laid out for us. My concern is (and this could be just be me being slow on the uptake) how it’s seeded throughout the script. In some ways, the breadcrumbs are up front and centre, blatant even (flashbacks/dreams) but their veracity is always up for debate. This is intentional I guess but I don’t know if it will entirely work on screen. Some of these sequences are fact, others are distorted, skewed, fictional. That inconsistency will rankle some I reckon.

Then, in other ways the true nature of things are buried so deep behind misdirection and sleight of hand so were we ever going to be able to figure it out anyway? And I get it, that’s the nature of a twist, setting that trap. My question is how they’re executed, are they believable within the greater narrative or unfairly misleading.

The most satisfying curve balls are ones that when explicated make you go “Oh yeah, I should’ve got that. It was there I just never picked up on it, now it makes sense”. That reaction happened here for me in a partial way but not completely as some “clues” called back to which point the finger at the killer are scant at best, abstruse or just shoehorned in to tie things up. In some instances there was no setup, we only learn of connections and chunks of back-story when it’s relayed to us via dialogue at the most opportune moment or by the killer themselves (a certain internal investigation coupled with a lack of follow through regarding it, Wells’ presence during Nicole’s murder, Angela Cowell’s daughter, significance of pizza shop/proximity to vital confrontation)

So while I appreciated the twist being unanticipated yet making sense in the main, the ramifications of it could also leave a bitter taste in the mouth for some and the experience as a whole, rather frustrating. It sort of feels like we’ve been had, like everything kind of meant nothing, you know. It was all a construct, a puppet show, orchestrated from day 1, a wild goose chase. Of course, there is a perverse delight in that as the puppeteer, a certain cleverness but as a viewer, I believe some will feel a little cheated.

Personally though, my perverse side is strong so I enjoyed the middle finger it essentially sticks up. It’s quite a dark and nasty resolution when it all shakes out, a faithless screed of how debased humans can become. I have to give you props for going all the way in that regard.

Anyway, I’m waffling on, I enjoyed the read for the most part, there is a lot here to like and a lot here that makes for something I could see on screen (as I’ve seen its primary components on screen before) Likewise, it could do with some discipline and pairing back, maybe a little simplifying...three approaches I could well do with taking on in my own writing.

Best of luck with it.

Col.
Posted by: ericdickson, April 16th, 2018, 7:19pm; Reply: 30
Thanks for the detailed notes.  Yeah, I was going for a real neat card trick with this ending much like Usual Suspects and Keyzer Soze.  We're being led down one road the whole time and then...gotcha!  

Your reaction is much like Siskel and Ebert when they reviewed Suspects.  They felt they'd been had by the big reveal that Spacey lied through his teeth.  I'd be interested in seeing how many other people feel the way you do about the twist.  One thing about this script is it originated back in 2006, even before Fincher did Zodiac.  I based the original script on Graysmith's novels.  

It's become a tired concept with the Zodiac copycat angle since then and it hurts this script.  A couple years ago, a San Fran director was looking for a psychological thriller police procedural so I catered it toward his needs.  Of course, nothing ever came of it.    

Posted by: Colkurtz8, April 17th, 2018, 7:47am; Reply: 31

Quoted from ericdickson
Your reaction is much like Siskel and Ebert when they reviewed Suspects.  They felt they'd been had by the big reveal that Spacey lied through his teeth. I'd be interested in seeing how many other people feel the way you do about the twist.


- That's true, I never made that connection. I love The Usual Suspects, it's an ingenious rug puller. I should reiterate that I dig what you do here, I appreciate its nihilism, there is a fair amount of "fuck you" in it, I'm just unsure about how its embedded within the script, I reckon it needs a bit of finessing. Like you, I was merely wondering how others will take it due to the reasons mentioned.


Quoted from ericdickson
One thing about this script is it originated back in 2006, even before Fincher did Zodiac. I based the original script on Graysmith's novels.


- Yeah, just checked the script's date now, that is a pity. Fincher's film probably closed the door on this story for awhile but we all know how much Hollywood loves a remake, reimagining, reboot, rehash, reheat, etc, so you won't have to wait long.

Just curious, did you like that film?


Quoted from ericdickson
It's become a tired concept with the Zodiac copycat angle since then and it hurts this script.


- Would you consider excising that element then? As I've said, the characters don't make a big deal of it and there are no cryptograms (because of who turns out to be the killer) only the symbol really connects it to him so would it lose anything if you took those out and let it stand on its own?

Col.
Print page generated: March 28th, 2024, 2:38pm