I totally plagiraized this from Pia on the other Script Club thread, though I necessarily altered it here and there. She just said so many things so well...so why not?

This script is written by mcornetto, the moderator of the writing game which is currently Shiva. This is a fresh revision put up only last week, and it's highly thought of even by Dreamscale, so let's tear it apart at our first available opportunity.

Read the script here.
If you want to give a review, do it here. From my own perspective, it couldn't hurt to post reviews since that not only gives the author some detail beyond the Script Club, but it also pops the script's thread into the recent read thread portal (something I kept hoping for on mine, but never happened).

Again, we're not rushing it. We'll give it a week before discussions start so everyone who intends to participate will have time to read it.

We're starting with the first impressions, so consider that while reading it through. First impressions are important so I would like to know what your first impression was after reading. Something simple like, Good, Great, Boring, Slow, Exciting, Scary or whatever. That may also help us later to narrow down why we felt this or that and where the problem areas might be.

I would still like to discuss this script in this order, though if we wear out one topic, we can totally move on:

First impression
Story/structure/plot
Characterization/arc/journey
Dialogue
Writing
Commercial appeal

See you all in seven (six?) days... well, the eighth, anyway.

Something about unlocking this one or something?

My first impression on this one was that I really enjoyed it. It was funny, sick, sexual, weird, and amusing all through it. I thought it was very well thought out, though there were a couple of things here and there that I found a bit too far out, and maybe it's just me.

That's what I think though...

I’ll try to keep to one predetermined topic at a time, starting with of course -

First Impressions

I like the premise, once I understood what was going on that is (more on that with the next topic). About three quarters of the way through I started to get a BEETLEJUICE vibe from it, which is a good thing (I only wish that had started earlier).

Frankly, I didn’t think it was all that funny, which is important in a comedy - right? Now I’m not saying it’s totally unfunny, just not as funny as the premise allows. This seems like an absurd (in a good way) story, and the author sets up scenes and situations that could make good use of that, but he doesn’t push it far enough to make it work overall and pushes it too far in a few spots - musical numbers anyone? (more later).

I won’t elaborate anymore just yet, but one more thing:

The ending blows! That’s brutal, I know, but the last seven pages feel like a huge “screw you” to the audience. Ending the story like that ruined most of the good will I had toward the script, and I definitely had some. Well, I still do actually.

In summary: Premise: B+, Execution: C, Ending: F.

I’m looking forward to discussing all that’s right and wrong with it for this is certainly a story that’s worth more work.

I did get to read this on Saturday morning, my impressions, in order, are as follows...

P1 - mmmm.. breasts. (In a Homer Simpson style)

P5 - okay, so Cornetto has written a teen horror set on a movie set, I can live with that. Looks promising so far.

P12 - Really good suspense being built with the old abandoned building, good read.

P19 - mmmm... more breasts.

P27 - Really good, even the movie scenes are working well, like the Nicky/Gee thing, a great B plot really.

P31 - WTF? This is getting a bit weird now, what's with all this dancing?

P50 - Sometimes Great, sometimes weird, I'm hungry now, gonna stop and go for breakfast.

P52 - Girl on Girl, never a bad thing.

P53 - okay, sometimes a bad thing. So here comes the horror.

P58 - now I see where we are going, original premise, could be good.

P74 - Not sure about this now, Where is this all heading? Probably the weakest section of the script.

P81 - I think the song and the beach scene saved it, Still very weird, but think it worked.

P98 - Ripped through the last 20 pages, good action and entertaining read.

P106 - What have the Imps got to do with anything? Must of missed something. I actually like the end, I think it was the right ending for this script.

Overall probably the strangest script I have ever read on SS, probably does not work as well on paper as it would on screen. With a very good showman type actor playing Kobal with tounge very firmly in cheek I could see this being very good.

Reminds me somewhat of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, is Cornetto the new Richard O'Brien?



Anyway, those were my thoughts while I was reading it. I am away this week so will not be online as much but will be adding my thoughts as this script club progresses. Although I liked it overall I do have some issues, as well as some praise of course. ;-)

My first impression is weird but cool.

Enjoyably quirky.

My first impression, and I mean my literal, first impression just based on the beginning, was that this was VERY campy.  The opening half of the script felt that way to me, and I even wrote in my review on the script's thread that, had it continued that way, I would have recommended adding more boobs and sex and pitching it to Skinemax.

Then, it took a turn and the story got much more interesting.  It still ended up being campy, but it was more of the fun variety than cheesy.

Funny...that's my first impression.

Also, is it just me, or did Michael go all Dickens with the characters' surnames?

I did find Doris O'Day amusing... I half expected a Stone Hutson or something to be her co-star...

Glad we're started now!

My first impression here is that ths is easily one of the wildest, whackiest, most unique scripts I've ever come across.  I also find it very, very laugh out loud funny at times, while other attempts at humor were too over the top and contrived.  I think Cornetto obviously spent alot of time on this and I feel it shows.

The plot is all over the place and it takes awhile to get going, although the beginning is still enjoyable.  For me, the last 30 pages or so are where it take a turn for the worse, as it just gets way too goofy and bizarre, but I bet that alot of people will feel exactly the opposite.  Same with the ending...it's very creative and out there, but I'm not sure it works and fits with the tone of the entire script.  It's definitely a love it or hate it scenario with the "from left field" ending.

My biggest concern here, is what audience is this going to appeal to?  (and yes, that was a first impression I had)  It's obviously a zany B movie at heart, and it falls into the horror genre, but with all the black and over ther top comedy, the singing and dancing, the graphic violence, nudity, and adult themes, I feel that a core audience is a tough sell.  That doesn't mean that it doesn't work for me in many ways however, and couldn't work for others as well.

As a final note, I want to throw out some of my favorite characters I've ever come across...Master Choreographer, Prima, and of course, little Rudolf!  Just wish they didn't disappear from the script the way they did (I think it may be a good idea to have them be the ones that deliver the strip-o-gram - that would have made that scene downright hilarious!!!!

Great effort though overall!

I know we will discuss commercial appeal later, but I just want to respond to Jeff's comment in regard to that.

Think of all the bizarre movies out there that clearly don't appeal but to a very small group of people and still have been commercial successes and become cult classics even.

I think if something is totally bizarre, but good, then it can definitely be considered to have commercial appeal.

I agree 100%, Pia.  I'm not trying to say at all that this doesn't have commercial success appeal.  I'm just saying that one of my first impressions was that I wondered what kind of audience it would appeal to.  I se it as a love/hate kind of thing in terms of its viewers.

I don't know.  I think being a commercial success and/or a cult classic are mutually exclusive.

You look at movies like Office Space, Idiocracy, Bubba Ho Tep or Army of Darkness (Mike Judge and Bruce Cambell kick...weird) and while they didn't tear it up at the box office for one reason or the other, they're now often talked about in the pop culture realm.

Quoted from Shelton My first impression, and I mean my literal, first impression just based on the beginning, was that this was VERY campy.  The opening half of the script felt that way to me, and I even wrote in my review on the script's thread that, had it continued that way, I would have recommended adding more boobs and sex and pitching it to Skinemax. Then, it took a turn and the story got much more interesting.  It still ended up being campy, but it was more of the fun variety than cheesy.

I need to press on and finish reading this...but I agree with Shelton's opening remarks.  It is "campy" in a good way so far.  I will refrain from chiming in until I have finished it now.  

Quoted from Dreamscale Glad we're started now! For me, the last 30 pages or so are where it take a turn for the worse, as it just gets way too goofy and bizarre, but I bet that alot of people will feel exactly the opposite.

I think that this comment helps us to pinpoint an important problem with many stories/scripts. It's important that:

The writer clearly defines "the world" in the beginning. We are forming an unwritten contract with the reader in the beginning as to "the kind" of story to expect.

Even in the case of Killer we had the same problem because the tone started one way, but it advanced rapidly into a completely funny kind of script. All well and good if it would have been founded in the beginning, but it was taken in a different direction due to the unleashed nature of that particular game.

In the case of Demon Beach, my first impression (at the beginning) was to expect a different story.

The use of the word "perfect" was clever and I thought uh-oh-- I know things are going to take a turn. I had thought however, it was going to take a much faster turn.

I started questioning in the beginning of my read: Why the beginning was chosen to be the beginning. I felt the writing was really good in the beginning, but somehow it felt out of place. (That thinking was after the fact- at about page 15 when the mysterious man on the film is revealed.)

My general impression was that this is a really good premise that just needs to be worked. I think the beginning needs to work harder to incorporate the elements you want to bring into this, including the dancing. The "all the world's a stage", needs to be worked into the beginning too.

I'm not sure yet how to go about this considering the fact that the second plot line almost takes over. Perhaps this might be a problem that I didn't realize before. Maybe the whole Gee and Nicky thing needs to be collapsed and only show snippets of it.

Another first impression was of the tendency of "overwriting".

For anyone who wants to read more on that in regards to this script, I've got some comments on the Demon Beach thread.

In this scene:

She sniffles as she wipes her tears on her sleeve.

The light on her mobile once again catches her attention.
She grabs it off the bed stand, her thumb hovers over the
buttons. Then she changes her mind and pockets the mobile.

She stands straighter, wipes away the last of her tears,
accepts her circumstances.

With her renewed strength and a grunt Gee lifts the large
luggage off the bed, then she picks up the other smaller
luggage.

She stops, as she reaches the bedroom door and gives a
bitter-sweet glance over her shoulder.

*I thought that you might shorten the descriptions and play-by-play account of what is happening here and simply write something that has punch.

So what you need to do is try and encapsulate her transitioning in her mood in a short dramatic way. I'm just right now thinking of a cliche way, but it works and it's this:

She pulls the last tissue from the box and blows. She tosses it into a pile with the rest of crumples. An angry look at the box and it's over. She chucks the empty tissue box at the wall then sees:

NICKY'S PICTURE.

She grabs it to chuck. Like a frisbee... No!

Gee draws the picture to her heart for a bitter-sweet moment, then places the picture, face down on the table.

I think that this is a good example of how we need to take apart our own scripts and determine how much time needed to bear weight on something.

To me, the most important thing that needs to happen in future rewrites is to find a way of integrating the "cold chill" elements into the beginning of the script rather then focusing on 5 pages of "the shoot" and the problems of Howard Hawker.

I think it takes too long for Cameron to come into his own as the main character.

Maybe you could show him seeing Howard Hawker being Howard Hawker, but his vision over blows him. So you could perhaps show some snippets of the movie in progress and of course the characters, but move more swiftly "somehow", (God only knows how at this point) but somehow into the mustache man scene.

Maybe if you pretend it's only an hour show. If that were the case, then I think maybe the first scene might show them together analyzing the film and all of a sudden-- "Wait a minute! I didn't shoot that!"

I think a big part of my first impression was that the concept needs to be more fully drawn up in the beginning.

This might be one of those cases when we have to kill some of our darlings. It always sucks to have to do that.

Sandra

I hear what you're saying Sandra, and I agree to a certain extent  This script definitely does not deliver on what it seems to set itself up for.  I don't think this is all bad though.

I think it comes down to what extent it verges away from where it starts out.  The beginning is quite goofy and campy for sure, but nowhere near as campy, goofy, and downright whacky as it gets in the 2nd half.  It kinda gave me the old WTF is going on here? feeling several times.  But things were amazingly well tied together when all was said and done, and whether or not I completely agreed with alot of the choices that were made, I did see  that alot fo thought and planning were involved.

Quoted from Dreamscale I think it comes down to what extent it verges away from where it starts out.  The beginning is quite goofy and campy for sure, but nowhere near as campy, goofy, and downright whacky as it gets in the 2nd half.

This is where the tightrope comes in. Michael, I believe that the vision you have for this can be pulled off perfectly, it's just a matter of keeping the work thing going.

Regarding "campy". This is probably a good topic to discuss. I think if anything, you could play this up even more. Make it so very evident that there's no room for questioning it. Like how George mentioned in the Shiva discussion-- just bring it up right away and be done with it.

Perhaps this is where you could "make known" the Master Choreographer. Do it at the beginning with every bit of exaggeration you can muster. Give him a name.

Maybe if you could have him and Kobal, imps etc sitting around a massive round table discussing the hijacking of "Demon Beach". Then you could set the premise straight away. Kobal intends to make "his" film with whatever character forces and personal motives are at work in that determination. Perhaps then you could lead into a "dance" scene with The Master Choreographer and make it over-the-top wild. And then, you could get to the exaggerated Howard Hawker as seen through Cameron's eyes.

Now, at this point, when it's revealed that there's this mustache man showing up in the film, we, the audience know who he is, but the characters don't; so that's good for tension.

My wheels are turning with this one because like I said, I think it's got a lot of potential.

Sandra

So, are we discussing things in a certain order or just randomly?

Quoted from Grandma Bear So, are we discussing things in a certain order or just randomly?

We're supposed to be discussing first impressions at this point.

Sandra

At this point, we should be moving on to story/structure/plot. I thought the story itself was clever enough. I liked the film within a film deal and how it played heavily into the plot as opposed to being gratuitous. I think the threat was intended to be introduced early enough in that we got the idea that there was something funny about the warehouse, but the trouble there is that the warehouse never really turned out to be the true threat, though it was part of it. However, Kobol being the true threat, he was there, so I'm a bit torn.

I thought the whole flow of it progressed fairly well from point to point for the most part. Since we do get the idea that there is something up with the warehouse as it relates to everything else, I was thinking as I was reading initially that the dancers and their role was introduced a little late, and in the end, I wondered why they were there at all, since it seems to be Kobol's show, and he doesn't even acknowledge their existence until the credits. I "get" that they worship him to an extent, but it doesn't feel like at any time that he actually needs them. Their dance and such was just there. There needs to be more interaction and more use of them. Maybe some of them can have special abilities that are specifically utilized, but some level of interaction is needed to justify both them and the mysterious warehouse.

The warehouse is the catalyst that both gives us Felicity and brings us the weird red glow and allows Kobol into the movie to begin with. They should probably notice this, at least later, that he was captured in those initial shots by Cameron and indicate that was when he entered and no where else. It should also come out why exactly the Isabel character wanted the camera so bad. It never actually says. I can guess at this point, but while allowing the audience to draw their own conclusions is good in some ways, for this one, it needs something. It's something Felicity can take two seconds to give us.

Another point that escaped me, and this is from a filmmaker perspective, is the idea of "cutting" the scene out. I understood the idea behind it, but where does the scene go? Obviously, it can't be fully cut, or it wouldn't be in the final cut, so what are they cutting it out of, and where are they putting it when they're done? I know this seems a bit detailed, but you're writing a screenplay and people within the industry may or may not follow what is actually going on with the finished scene once it is "cut." it would make more sense on an old school film splicer, but on a modern NLE, nothing is truly deleted.

Here's a thought, though that might work, though it would take some explanation, albeit brief, from those involved. In my humble opinion, "cut the scene" would probably mean they have a second window open with a clean timeline, and once the scene is cut, it is moved to the clean timeline in the second window. Unless that cut with the cutting tool on the full movie file is actually what you're going for. Either way, that was one part I related to and didn't get fully, so it needs some measure of more complete explanation.

I did find the song sequences amusing, and while some may criticize placing actual songs in the script, I think they add something to it, especially in regard to Kobol's character, and anyone who would wish to produce this one would try to get the rights to the songs. I would think it would only be after they couldn't that they'd come back and ask for a rewrite.

I did think that everyone accepted the idea of the movie being changed by Kobol too easily. There was no resistence, no shock, no back pedaling in any way from the ridiculous notion that something is changing their finished product. They just accepted the idea and wanted to know how to fix it, all in the course of one or two pages. There should be some kind of "no way" moment from at least one of them. Somebody should refuse to accept this requiring that extra measure of character moments from them showing everyone how each one would react to this. I don't think I'd just nod and say OK if someone started messing with my baby. I'd want to know how the heck it would even be possible.

I think the B movie inside the bigger framework is amusing. It allowed you to write the bad movie you probably wanted to (or even more likely, already had) but place it within something more unique. I'll probably have to give it another read here since I think some of my details are a bit off, but those are my thoughts at this point.

EDIT: I just read Sandra's comment above, and while you do have an amusing "perfect" first scene, consider her suggestion as the first scene. You could make everything appropriately veiled to where they refer to a "demon beach", and then you move to your first scene making us think that they're talking about "this" actual beach, but as the film rolls on, their comments begin to make sense in the bigger picture. It could help some of the issues I had.

I agree with most of what George said, but the cutting of scenes didn't bother me at all.

I liked this script because it certainly was not something we've seen a thousand times before. I liked the beginning, but at the same time I thought it took a little long to really get going. Probably some of the chatter could be cut without losing anything important. Other than that, I wouldn't change the beginning at all. Just tighten it, but not change the order things happen or are introduced.

I did not think this script was predictable at all. I really enjoyed the ride and never really knew what was going to happen next. Even in the end where we know things must be resolved you tossed in the zombies and again made something enjoyable out of something that could easily have turned predictable.

I LOVED the "entertainment director of hell"! Only you would come up with something like that. Not to mention the white leather tuxedo. Little things like that kept a smile on my face during most of the script.

I liked the perfect, perfect everythings in regard to the B-movie.

Did I miss something, but where exactly did Felicity come from?

That's all can think of commenting on right now. I'm a little unfocused at the moment after having just been interviewed by the FBI for security reasons! My husband of course could not help but asking the agent if she worked for Filmore's Bottled Ink  ::)  and when she asked what we do here at work, he told her we gather and store information.  Didn't you see the antennas on the roof? I love my husband!!  ;D

I'll post more later. Maybe a little more coherent too.

I was fine with the cut scenes myself, but then again, I'm not an overly technical person in that regard.  Perhaps not putting too much thought into it made it alright for me.

Structurally, I thought the script was fine, but I did have an issue with the late arrival of Kobol.  I don't think he needs to be in there, wreaking havoc, right from the get go, but I do feel that their needs to be at least some plotting going on up front in that regard.

You establish who the villain is going to be before moving into the "perfect" world, and the reader/viewer can expect for that world to be turned on its ear.

Quoted from Grandma Bear but the cutting of scenes didn't bother me at all.

Quoted from Shelton I was fine with the cut scenes myself

What can I say? I am an overly technical person. I have a tendency to grill someone for details far beyond what they intended to ever tell me because I want to know details. I did this with a supervisor who thought the phrase "reasonable amount" explained everything. Of course, I don't work there anymore, but that's beside the point...

I love howstuffworks.com. And while a screenplay will naturally not detail everything, a screenwriter does have to have at least a notion of how something will be pulled off in order to write the dialogue or action around it. Hence, I'm curious as to what he had in mind with the whole "cut the scene" thing. It's a integral part of the plot, and it has to be convincing.

It's one thing to say "Bob fixes the car" when fixing the car doesn't affect the plot. The screenwriter doesn't have to know a thing about cars except that they can be fixed. But it's something entirely different when Bob has to do something specific to the car in order to make it go to further the plot. The writer has to know how the car works in order to make that plot point work or the car people will go nuts. It's something that will have to be clarified either now or in rewrites with an eventual producer, but it is something that must be clarified before anyone can film it since it affects the dialogue and plot.

Do you think the average moviegoer is going to mind all that much over the actual cut method used?

I suppose there are different ways to handle it, but for me, visually, actual film splicing would look odd.  Kinda like that weird sequence with Geoffrey Rush in that chamber in "House on Haunted Hill"

The average moviegoer won't, but movies are for everyone, and while I don't care about the detail of the uniforms of your average Civil War film, somebody does.

And yeah, actual film splicing would be odd and unbelievable for their low budget setup...especially since they aren't using "film" cameras. The thought I would use if I had to come up with something was what I said above: for them to "cut" the scene and then move it to a blank timeline in another NLE window. That would provide a visual movement that's simple, and get the scene out of the original movie file. Of course that brings up the issue with the credits.

But my thought when I was reading that drove me to this madness was "ok, they cut the scene...where does it go?" As long as that question gets answered, I'm good.

Quoted from George Willson Another point that escaped me, and this is from a filmmaker perspective, is the idea of "cutting" the scene out. I understood the idea behind it, but where does the scene go? Obviously, it can't be fully cut, or it wouldn't be in the final cut, so what are they cutting it out of, and where are they putting it when they're done? I know this seems a bit detailed, but you're writing a screenplay and people within the industry may or may not follow what is actually going on with the finished scene once it is "cut." it would make more sense on an old school film splicer, but on a modern NLE, nothing is truly deleted. Here's a thought, though that might work, though it would take some explanation, albeit brief, from those involved. In my humble opinion, "cut the scene" would probably mean they have a second window open with a clean timeline, and once the scene is cut, it is moved to the clean timeline in the second window. Unless that cut with the cutting tool on the full movie file is actually what you're going for. Either way, that was one part I related to and didn't get fully, so it needs some measure of more complete explanation.

I wanted to follow up on an excerpt from George's post above regarding "the cuts". I'm not a filmaker; I'm only a writer, but I understood the idea of "cuts" to mean that once a scene is "cut", it means that that scene will not appear in the finished movie. Oh yes, it might be hanging around in files somewhere, but it won't be "seen" and part of the whole exhibit. Now this is an interesting idea to keep in mind for a Demon Beach 2 - IF, Kobal was stopped somehow, or even partly in the end. He could come back! Mooh ha ha ha ah!!! Because he's still hanging out, he's just concealed - just going into hiding, because that's what he does when the heat is on.

Regarding the difficulty George had though with it, I'm going to express something that he's brought to light for me regarding this.

It's a hard thing for me and probably many others to visualize, "timelines" as is theorized. We believe they exist, but to conceive of them visually as possible quantum highway networks of some kind is really very profound and yet, that's very much what are brains are with all the transmissions that go on.

In Demon Beach, we've got the "creation of a movie" being used as an analogy for life and that is excellent. Perhaps, as George is suggesting, a way can be figured out to "show" these cuts visibly. Wow! That would be a challenge. To show more than people clicking buttons on a computer? I think for that, we'd need to do some research on some visuals in books like Steven Hawking's "A Brief History in Time".

This book is high on visuals and for a good reason:

According to trusty (?) Wikipedia

The author notes that an editor warned him that for every equation in the book the readership would be halved, hence it includes only a single equation: E = mc². In addition to Hawking's abstinence from equations, the book also simplifies matters by means of illustrations throughout the text, depicting complex models and diagrams.

What I'm getting at here is the idea of "building a virtual world" showcased visually of (I don't know) shapes? Analogical references, but simplified? Like how kids learn - "How is a hot dog like a shoe?" questions/symbols that could be "found" to exist within the computer files of the movie making software. This would be where the battle could play out.  

Ok, so, if there is to be more "fight" in the plot as George mentioned, and that's always a good idea. Maybe we could save two birds with one action and create some kind of platform of visuals that "show" the concealed portion of reality behind the film - just as life has a concealed portion behind it, (like how the heck a seed has the power to grow type thing).

With the character's saying things like,

"Something's inside this thing and how the hell are we gonna find it? It's like a blind man looking in a dark room!"

"How DOES a blind man see in a dark room?"

"He needs another sense."

"Like Bees. Like Bats." ... and then perhaps they get some kind of idea just "how" to do battle in this "land of "impressions".

Now I'm gonna wrap this up:

Basically, regarding plot and structure, it might be a good idea to figure out a way to raise the level of tension quickly and begin "that battle".

To make a really dramatic pitch in the beginning of this that "shows" the kind of strange world we are going to be involved in. I've got more to say on this, but I'll end here for now.

Super de-dooper post George,

Sandra

In a nutshell, the story, structure, and plot are all quite different from what we’re used to dealing with…and that’s not a bad thing.  Demon Beach is a perfect example of a script that doesn’t follow the rules, doesn’t have to follow the rules, and probably can’t follow the rules to save its life.

What we have here (IMO, at least), is a movie, within a movie, within a movie.  I could be wrong, but I feel the actual movie being made was by Kobal, and it was premiered at the end of the script to all the minions of Hell or wherever they were.  Within Kobal’s movie, were all the “human” characters that most probably see as the protags.  And within this movie, the characters are making a movie.

Does that make sense?  Does anyone agree or disagree with this idea?

So, if I’m right in what I’m thinking, structure is thrown out the window.  Story and plot are mixed up to the point that the actual story/plot involves Kobal’s movie, but it all plays out as if Howard and the boys are making a movie that Kobal is infiltrating.

It’s a head scratcher for sure, and the kind of script (movie) that the more you read or watch it, the more things will make sense, and also, the more you’ll start to see and understand.

Are there issues with this script that need attention?  Sure.  Is it slow and meandering in the beginning?  Yep.  Are there instances of overwriting throughout?  You betcha.  But before we can get to any of that, I think we need to understand what the script is really about, where it’s going, and how it gets there.

Quoted from Dreamscale What we have here (IMO, at least), is a movie, within a movie, within a movie.  I could be wrong, but I feel the actual movie being made was by Kobal, and it was premiered at the end of the script to all the minions of Hell or wherever they were.  Within Kobal’s movie, were all the “human” characters that most probably see as the protags.  And within this movie, the characters are making a movie. Does that make sense?  Does anyone agree or disagree with this idea?

Yes, Dreamscale, that makes "perfect" sense. LOL. This is the way I see it too and it's clear by "the all the world's a stage" theme.

Kobal is "the trickster". Kobal plays a part in the turns of things and people (in life) characters in the script, scratch their head as to why they or someone else "did" something. As in life, we are players dancing to the beat of an unseen drum, dancing like puppets according to a force unseen. This theme is being worked in Demon Beach.

When Howard Hawker says, "Fuck, why'd you do that?"

And Kobal says/sings "Now only use four letter words".

I believe that it holds a double... actually maybe a triple meaning:

1. Why the hell does anyone do anything?

Because the trickster's at work playing the game.

2. The writer is poking fun at himself when things go "all ta Hell".

3. There's an element of reductionism here and also in lines like (referencing where Harvey Meddle got the car) "It just fell in my lap, literally," he says, meaning: it all boils down to Kobal's actions. Indeed, Harvey, must have sold his soul.

Sandra

It actually does make sense. That would also explain why someone at that club was a part of one of the song sequences along with the filmmakers outside the film they're making. It's a fascinating thought that works well, and would definitely break the mold.

It can never be said that story can go out the window. It might not be wholly traditional in the sense of "20 pages to the end of Act I," but it's gotta have a story and it's gotta move. We don't necessarily want to get caught up in what would be termed "the basics" since those are basically guidelines to help people write when they're stuck. If you've got a good story, kick it out there. As long as it flows, screw traditional structure.

See, this is all part of why I liked this script.

It's very complex with multiple layers. It works on the simple top layer just fine, but if this was a movie, it might actually be one of those that people can watch several times and still continue to discover new meanings and layers. Make you think.

I may not be able to describe very well what I'm thinking, like some of the others here, but I'm agreeing pretty much... except for changing the order of scenes in the beginning... did that make sense?  

OK, so you agree with what I'm saying then, right?

If that's the case, then we have to understand that everything in the script, up to the final scene is actually Kobal's movie, and all the characters in it, are simply his own creations.  So when George says he doesn't like the editing scenes, because they really don't make sense, he's actually saying he doesn't like how Kobal decided to shoot those scenes, and thinks that Kobal made some mistakes with his Earthly knowledge about editing and the like.

Does this make sense?

I guess 3 of us were all posting at the same time!

Pia, I agree with you very much.  These are the reasons why I also like this script...it's very deep and multi layered, although on the surface, it's just a cheesy, campy whacky movie within a movie.  It's actually so much more though, and it is defintely one of those that need to be watched again and again to get the entire gist of what's going on and maybe why.

George, I agree with what you said also about teh snigers from teh bar, etc.  At first I was totally confused as to why or how they'd be anywhere else but in that bar.  But, because everything is just a movie, anything can happen...and does!

My point about the cutting was not so much the scenes themselves, but the principal behind the phrase "cut the scene." That says to me, remove this scene from the film, and yet the scene remained. How is this accomplished? In this context, it would mean Kobal doesn't know how to make a movie although he is making one.

Does that make sense?

I took it as only the portion with Kobal was cut. Not the entire scenes deleted.

I took it the same way, Pia.  But then again, the cutting of the scenes was merely a way for Kobal's characters to mistakingly think they had a way to cut him out of the film, and thus restore sanity to their world.  But their world was simply that of Kobal's imagination, and basically, a way to move his story/plot forward, and show how hapless and maybe even stupid humans are.  I think that was part of the humor Kobal was after in his movie.

The way I understood it is that Felicity needed to go into the movie and clean up the scenes that Kobal had corrupted. Once the scenes had been cleaned, they would cut them from the movie in order to back Kobal into one end of the film and not allow him to move back to the beginning through the previous scenes. That told me that the scenes had a line drawn somehow that did not permit him to move back through them, but maintained the original scene in the movie. I was trying to wrap my head around how they could cut the scene once cleaned and still retain it in the final product.

And even if their cutting was a figment of their imagination, it still has to be believable.

Michael is probably laughing at us as we type, too...

But the reality of the situation (I think, at least) is that KObal never corrupted anything, because there was nothing to corrupt.  The entire script is his movie about him corrupting Howard's movie, thus, a movie within a movie, within a movie.

So the movie within a movie within a movie would work from that perspective. However, that should probably be taken from the perspective of it being a semi-autobiographical account of his corrupting the movie, so we're still dealing with the internal storyline itself.

What else do we have from the story angle. Clearly, we like it, but are there other plot issues that warrant some discussion. We had brought up that the villain wasn't brought in early enough, but from a story perspective, what else do we think this one needs?

The more I think about it, I am coming to the conclusion that maybe what doesn't work about this script, is that it is a movie within a movie, within a move!  I think the last scene most likely doesn't work because based on what it says and shows, it becomes quite clear that everything we thought we were watching wasn't real, and had nothing to do with anything.

Are Kobal and his minions the antags?  Are Howard and the other people in the movie the protags?  Where do Gee and the other characters in Howard's movie fit in in terms of antags and protags, etc.?  What about Felicity?  Who are we cheering for?  Who do we dislike?  Who could we give a flying fuck about?

I think these are some of the issues we should try and discuss, in terms of plot/story.  I know I've thrown out alot of characters, and we aren't discussing characters yet, but I feel that to discuss plot and structure, we need to understand our characters, and I'm not sure we really do yet.

There are definitely some character weaknesses, but with the story side, what gives the ending its love/hate angle is definitely the notion that "it's all a dream" or similar to that anyway. There's a niche for the "it's hopeless" kind of story, but I'm really no fan of those types of stories. Some people like them because they feel like they're "more real" than the happy ending types of tales, but personally, I need to feel like the characters accomplished something (good or bad) within the story, and the current ending does fly in the face of everything they accomplished (or tried to), and I feel like the bad taste comes from the pointlessness of the whole thing. You reach the end and it turns out to be all a game? Kobol never lost at all, so it's all for naught? I did get that Kobol invaded the credits and he basically "paid off" Harvey to leave him in (or maybe put him in) the credits.

A down ending is fine. In fact, there's lots of precedent for it. I recall one movie who had a down ending that was changed after it was shot. The movie version of Little Shop of Horrors originally had an ending where the plants invaded the world. It worked, because it was originally written that way. It's the notorious "everybody dies" ending. They recut the last 45 minutes of that movie into a happy ending because everybody hated the down ending, but the happy ending wasn't entirely satisfying because it let Seymour off the hook. He had killed several people to feed his plant, and the down ending where he lost everything was the justice for what he'd done. The happy ending showed that he could get away with murder.

So what is the point of Kobol winning? What did these people do to deserve that? Even if it is Kobol's movie, we still have to spend a couple hours with these people, and it is not only Dreamscale's "why do we care" that's important, but what journey are they taking and what did they do to lose it all in the end? We have to want them to lose before they can actually lose. It's not a twist if it isn't set up. The main characters didn't always win at the end of Saw, but we accepted it within the boundaries of the story and genre. It's something to seriously consider here.

Basically, it's a matter of not cheating the audience.

At first I felt the ending wasn't that satifying, but then it grew on me.

To me the main character was Cameron... I thought he had most going on. A girl and he goes inside the movie in order to cut Kobal out. He fights hard in the end too. So IMHO, he was our protag. Harvey and Howard were secondary, even if close to Cameron.

I thought Cameron and Felicity worked well. I'm still confused about where Felicity came from though.

I think you're on to something now George.  The end does play like the old "it was all a dream" BS ending that most hate, because again, we get the feeling that this was all a bunch of nothing that we sat through.

I have no problem with movies that do not have happy endings but again, they have to have some sort of reason for being.  In certain genres, I actually like when we're left with a less than happy ending because I do feel that it is more real, but here, that's not the case.

What did the characters accomplish?  Well, Kobal made his movie, and then went into some sort of rant about the plight of the imps...uhh...hmmm...I'm not sure what anyone else accomplished, or even did.

Maybe I'm (we're) reading too much into this, but I honestly feel like it's the kind of script that requires this kind of thought.  It's purposely very deep and multi layered, so I guess this sort of discussion and critique is what it needs and craves.

We'll see.

It's actually a good idea for any movie to have a lot of thought go into it and come out of it. We have to ask ourselves what the point was because no one likes to sit through a pointless movie. So why did it end the way it did? Is there a reason we can nail down?

I think that it ended the way it did because it was a far out, whacky script and the ending was definitely far out and whacky!  I wish it didn't end the way it did, but with any script, movie, or even idea, there are countless possibilities for where it could go.

As I said earlier, the last 30 pages or so, for me, were the weakest part of the script.  I wanted more Master Choreographer, Prima, and even Rudolf.  I wanted our supposed "heroes" to save the day, right what Kobal had made so wrong, and wrap things up so that we knew what was going to become of everyone. I was hoping that Cameron was going to live happily ever after with Felicity, or at least learn from his experience with her that he could find someone to love.  Just anything that we typically get in a movie wrapup.

But again, based on the premise of this script, I should have known better, and shouldn't have been surprised, or unhappy with where it went.  Whether or not I or anyone else likes how things ended, I think we have to take it for what it is and then decide whether or not it worked as written, and concieved.

For me, most scripts and movies are very easy to break down and decide what works, what doesn't, and how to make teh changes that are necessary (if there's something at heart that's worth "fixing").  This is a different animal completely though.  I do think thre are alot of great aspects to this script/idea.  The problem for me though is that there aren't really any easy fixes, adn even trying to figure out what needs fixing is difficult at best.

Having thought about this for a moment now, I actually think the ending suits this script. I think making it a happy wrap it all up neat and tidy would go against the very flavor of this script. Including taking the dark humor away...

I agree Pia (wow, that's like the 3rd time I've agreed with you...I'm even agreeing with George!).  I may not personally think the "ending" chosen, is the best ending out there, but it does somehow fit the "feel" of the script.  It definitely goes further in terms of the campy, goofball aspect, but doesn't come across completely as "WTF?".

Where are all the other peeps in Script Club?  I'm getting the feeling this is the George, Pia, and Jeff citique panel.

C'mon people!  Help us out here!  Capt. Cornie deserves more feedback, and this script is so off the beaten path, it should be ripe for wonderful discussions both pro and con.

OK, I feel better...are we still on story/plot/structure?  Sorry if I veered off course.

I'm pushing to finish this as fast as I can.  i'm on page 40 and like it.

So while I don't have the time at the moment (right before going to bed here) to really get into it, I do think we've begun to veer into the character part of the script and whether the characters took real proactive journeys, or just meandered along at the whim of the screenwriter. Did anyone get anything out of the events that they really didn't survive in the end or were they just as pathetic at the end as at the beginning? Every character needs a journey of some kind whether it's major or not, and the lead should really grow during the course of the story. The lead is easily Cameron here but does Felicity lead too much? Kobol is the antag, but he seems to have minions as well. What is their purpose? Do they contribute to Kobol's own journey as the antag or are they just filler for the writer's amusement?

Oh, the ponderings...

And slabby, the ship is sailing day by day... You'd better hurry...

Quoted from Dreamscale But their world was simply that of Kobal's imagination, and basically, a way to move his story/plot forward, and show how hapless and maybe even stupid humans are.  I think that was part of the humor Kobal was after in his movie.

This is true. It's showing the frivolous means that humans use to fix a problem.

What I'd still like to see though, as George pointed out early on, is a more vigorous attempt of our humans "to try" to solve their dilemma.

Personally, I like the idea of Kobal backing off at the end- only because he's ready for another game later. He just needs some time to think and plan a new strategy. What would amuse the dear fellow?

That's what I think. Plan on working this one over for maybe another year and in the meantime, begin the strategy for a Demon Beach 2.

I think it's definitely worthy of the time.

Sandra

I just want to say that I've read the recent comments and I understand the feelings behind them all and I think they all have a justification.

Remember the movie Pay it Forward? I loved that movie and hated the end. Yes, I would change that one, but it doesn't mean that sad endings aren't warranted.

But in this case, I didn't feel that it was a "sad" ending. On the contrary, I saw the humor and realness in it.

What I don't like about the ending has already been stated and examined much better than I could have done by Dreamscale and Pia and George.

Some of the comments do reflect a lack of "tying up" of things, but that's already been explained as "it's Kobal's" fault. I HAVE TO digress here. (Really sorry I don't mean to but...)

At home, we talk to our cats, Merlin and Merry, and we have this thing (invented by my husband) where when anything goes wrong, we say, "It must be Merlin's fault. POOR MERLIN!!!

Anyways, I think the very fact that we're discussing Kobal means that he's a good (bad) character that needs introduction at the beginning of the movie (IMHO).

If it takes a few scripts to investigate him, then so be it. If it takes a novel, then why not?

We are obviously in tune with the flavor of this script on various levels; so I think it's worth pursuing.

Ok George, we're on to character then... Lots of interesting characters happening in this one for sure!!!

Sandra

Back to the ending...

I was not really let down by the ending itself, but I thought it petered out when Kobal made his little "Oscar" speach. That dialogue came of as something not that bright, funny, witty or anything. After having just read the script, I guess I was just expecting more of a punch there.

Btw, does anyone here remember looooong time ago there was I believe a Tjech TV show with a character in it that looked just like Kobal. Umbrella and bowler and everything. It drives me nuts that I can't remember the name of that show.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Btw, does anyone here remember looooong time ago there was I believe a Tjech TV show with a character in it that looked just like Kobal. Umbrella and bowler and everything. It drives me nuts that I can't remember the name of that show.

I kept thinking of Snidely Whiplash, or more recently, "Bowler Hat Guy" from Meet the Robinsons.

Really, it wasn't this?



or even...



or perhaps...



Or maybe not.

Okay, the funny pictures weren't meant to derail the conversation. Maybe it throws off the image of Kobal that everyone had in mind, and if that's the case, I'm sorry.

Let's consider these characters. The basic issue they all have is that they have no past and no future. Of the three filmmakers, we know who they are right now, but we don't know where they've come from, what they've done before the movie began, before they started shooting this film, what their interests are outside of moviemaking, and what they plan to do once this is experience is over (provided they survive it). Who is Felicity? Granted, she's different and should be revealed slowly within the plot, but she has no real character either. Where did she come from? Where will she go if it works out? Does she have any wishes outside of her mission? How about that villain Kobal? Has he made any movies before? He's the "entertainment director of hell," but does he have any credits? Has he worked with any big names before? Has he been planning this? Did he do anything before he was the entertainment director? How does he feel about the Master Choreographer and the imps? Does he have any opinions about God and Satan (maybe that's a bit too far, but you get the idea)? The other characters (with the exception of the deliberately thin B-movie characters) also need something a bit more, particularly the choreographer and prima donna. Who are they? Where did they come from? Do they have some kind of rank within the structure shared by Kobal? Are they imps? Does Kobal like the imps? Are they a necessary evil or does Kobal find them expendable? How do they feel about that?

There's a limit to how much detail will be in the screenplay, but the writer should know all of this intimately before he writes the story. We should actually know this much about the leads. We should sympathize with their plight and even wish we could do something to help. We have to care, and the way to care is to make them real people. Real people live in the past, present, and future, and constantly reference all three. We know these guys hate each other now, and they won't work together again, but we need more than that. Really, none of the characters exist outside of this framework. They perform the plot within their capacities, but they need more.

Such is my opinion.

I agree George...none of the chacters seem to have any life whatsoever outside of the script.  I also think way too much time is pent on Gee's family in teh end.  They are minor, secondary characters, but tehy take over near teh end when everyone else seems to disappear.

Who or what are Master Choreographer, Prima, and little Rudolf?  Are they evil?  What do they do other than dance?  

Ironically, I think the B-movie characters are the least important when it comes to filling out their characters. The actors are very minor characters and their movie roles don't need to be much more than that either.

Come to think of it, the movie they're making isn't a horror flick at all. It's some kind of teen drama, by what I say. It has a cute little love triangle with perfect kiddies at the beach, and a super sappy ending.

EDIT: It took way too long for this to hit me... The movie is more like and R-rated version of Beach Blanket Bingo and stars Frankie Avalon and Annette Funicello. Hence the cute kiddies on the perfect beach. Talk about pulling in an old and well-treaded genre of movie. Makes it kind of like a character in and of itself, doesn't it?

I read this about a week ago. The characters that I still remember are Cameron (I liked him), Felicity (would like to know more about her), Kobal (would have liked to know more about him too), Harvey and Howard, but I wished their names had been less similar. It took me a while before I quit getting them mixed up.

Those are the characters I remember the most, so what does that mean? Were they more important to the story or just better developed?

What about the hilarious Master Choreographer, the laugh out loud Prima, and of course, the goofy little Rudolf?  They are my 3 favorite characters for sure.

I don't know what script you were reading, Jeff- but I didn't find them funny at all.  I laughed out loud twice near the end...that's about it.

First impressions for me- mind fuck.  romantic.  erotic.

It was a complicated story for me.  i tried to stay with it...I guess I have a feeble mind.  Not to say I didn't like it.  I might have to think a litl more.

Really?  I'm surprised.  I literally was laughing out loud every time they were onscreen.  I don't know why, but tehy were just so funny to me..the way Prima would copy the Master...the goofy dance steps...and then little Rudolf continually dancing to his own tune.  Whacky, funny stuff for me.

Okay...so I'm jumping in here.  I finished the script this morning after trying to stay awake last night reading with one eye open and one eye closed...lol 2:30 I had to put it to bed...I soooo wanted to see where it would end...so I got up and read the final 27 pages this morning.

Unlike Slabby, I laughed out loud a LOT! It was bazarre, sweet, seductive, evil, goofy, and campy.

I felt like I was in a maze, but I got that it was a story, in a story, inside the overall story and I thought that was clever...VERY CLEVER. Since there is nothing new under the sun, it is hard to find something that is different and original - out of the box. Deamon Beach qualifies!

I think if I smoked something I could have even enjoyed it a lot more. *wink

I would have like to see Kobel brought into play a little sooner...I did not understand who the dancers in the old building were really aligned with...but I did get that Felicity was a soldier, police - if you will, to locate demons and keep them from reeking their demon troubles on the rest of the world.

The problem was - she just seemed to exit this story, leaving Cameron to click his red tennis shoes together to get home.  He still turned into a zombie and all her efforts to restrain Kobel dissapaited into thin air just like her.  He won in the end.
I personally loved Kobel's character, sinister, whacky...loved when he would wave or start talking on the editing screen. :)  I think this story has some under developed elements that could have helped the finish or at least - possibly changed the outcome.

For example: Felicity gave us insight into Kobel's use of music as his way of distracting the players when he felt he was losing control of them...why didn't  Cameron use this information and call Kobel out.

I also loved the use of capturing people inside a picture, Felicity herself was suspended for a while in that place...

Overall...I like very much the premise of this story...reality is after all, not reality in the normal definition of the word. Everyone was played by Kobel.

I'm not sure how some of the character's could be played out on the screen...and if you wanted to go see a movie that woud entertain you, make you laugh, have you dropping your jaw and then scratching your head...this would be the one...and I'm not saying that is a bad thing...

Critics would definitely have a great time with this film once produced.

I enjoyed it...and if I take it simply for what it is...I was definitely along for the ride...especially if I could be driving that maserati (which I looked up because I didn't think they had a back seat lol)! :)

As Michael would say, hat tipped to the crowd...Cheers!  

Well, we're up to the dialogue and it seems a lot of the discussion has died away. How was the dialogue in this one? I'm about the worst dialogue writer in the world. I can turn a yarn, but the characters are all wooden, so while I can talk plot and characters, I can only recognize very, very bad dialogue.

Did anyone have any dialogue issues with Demon Beach at all (not counting the B movie dialogue)?

If you've got nothing on the dialogue, we can combine this topic with the overall writing and get to the commercial appeal portion tomorrow..

No need to rush. There might still be some people who wants to chip in.

I need to glance at the script again to better talk about character and dialogue. I will try to do that tomorrow. I've busy this week, but I want Michael to get the most out of this so I will try to do better. I do wish some more people would join in though... Maybe the Holidays are keeping people busy.  :-/

I thought the dialogue was pretty good.  For the most part, each character had their own voice and way of communicating.  Everything was prtty campy, but that's the way it was intended to be, so no problem there.

It's too bad that so few people are even commenting.  I really thought this script would be ripe for strong back and forth commentary.

I still think that the structure is where this script may need help, and I wish we could have gotten more input.

Well, don't let the conversation about structure stop just because the topic has moved on. If there are things to discuss on the structure, let's do it. If you've recently finished reading it, feel free to comment on anything we've discussed. All input is valid. The only thing we haven't gotten to really is writing and commercial appeal, which we'll discuss once we get through the other topics. If the conversation goes past the week, we can keep discussing. There's not a time limit here.

I'm sure Michael would be thrilled.

I didn't see anything wrong with the dialogue, even the B movie stuff, which I think should be addressed even more than what's in the actual film.

Reason being, is that the dialgoue in there is supposed to be B movie like, and has to be written that way.  It's actually a little difficult in a sense, because it has to go above and beyond just sounding believable.  It has to be believably bad, where as you would really get the impression that a writer sat down to write this beach movie, writing what they considered to be good dialogue, only to have it come off as campy/corny/on the nose.

It's very much like writing a character that way.  You don't want a character that's a complete idiot talking like he went to Harvard, and you don't want your B Movie dialogue to sound like David Mamet.

I liked the dialogue with the parents. That cracked me up.

I never thought about the dialogue much when I read it, which for me is a good thing. I often think that good dialogue just goes on unnoticed, If I am reading a script and start to think about the dialogue it is either because it is poorly written or very good. In this case it just seemed to do it's job well. Nothing seemed to out of place or forced.

I for one do not believe that Kobal should have been introduced earlier, I think that the one thing that would keep people watching this was the great suspense that Michael managed to build up in the first act. With the old building and the early guest appearances of Kobal in the early scenes. (I am assuming that we would see Kobal in the background of the early scenes as they are being shot?). This suspense was well written and very visual and would keep the audience trying to work out where we are going. Introducing Kobal earlier would not help that at all.

I did think however the script did take too long to get going and think something really needs to happen around page 25 to get the main plot kicked off. This does not have to be Kobal appearing but we certainly need some kind of inciting incident, a death or attack, fire etc. etc.. Something that kick starts the chain of events that take us to the rest of the story. I was starting to feel a little bored towards the end of act one and the dancing scenes did not do much for me. In fact the Gee/Nicky movie within a movie storyline was the only thing propelling the story forward for me at that stage and did think that story would play more of a prominent part in the last two thirds.

My main problem with this script was that it took too long to find out what it was actually about. Forgive me if I'm repeating stuff, I've only glanced through the thread. Kobal should really be introduced earlier on in the film, I mean he could even be in the first scene - the volleyball one. I just felt it took too long to get going.

The whole dancing thing got a little old after the third or fourth appearance of them. They were really funny to start with but I would cut down their scenes or give them some differing lines. 'Dance my brothers! Dance!' was said a few too many times lol I just felt it started heading towards daft instead of alternative humour by the end.

The musical numbers really didn't work for me. It just seemed far too random. Maybe have the one at the end, that would be alright, but the rest I'd cut out.

I did really enjoy the script though.

I find it important to watch the portion of the beach movie that plays since it factors into both later scenes in cross-cutting, Kobal rewrites them, and they move through those scenes later as well. I pondered what else could be done with them since those scenes are right on where we should be getting some serious movement. If nothing else, those scenes should play earlier since they're the "life is boring" part of the story. But then, he's got two stories going on here and setting up one story is difficult, much less two. Maybe Cameron could tell about Felicity later. I know that story takes up a lot of time and by then, we're not emotionally involved in anything going on. But again, he's got some important plotty stuff going on in the camera, and Felicity trying to swipe the camera is significant.

I dunno. I agree with it needing to move forward quicker, though.

Have we already discussed who was the protagonist by the way? I can't really decide between Hawker and Cameron. I guess Cameron probably changes the most so it's probably him. I don't really think that is defined so well though...altho I guess, given how bizarre this script is, nothing was going to be black n white.

I can't see Hawker being the protagonist. Cameron would be my vote but he never reaches a point to where he must be emotionally committed to the story. He's the cameraman. He can go home and tell Howard to shove his movie up his butt.

So it's sounding like most did not appreciate the dancing scenes like I did.  Funny, cause in real life, I literally despise dancing, and everything about it.  But in here, I found it hilarious, and could picture those scenes playing out so vividly.

In terms of the antags and protags, there are obviously a bunch in both categories.  At different times, different characters take the fore front, but when all's said and done, I think Cameron has to be the main protag, and Kobal is the main antag.

Does it matter that we're asking each other which character is which?  It probably does, and says that based on the very involved, non formulaic script, it's difficult to know these things which are usually so simple.  Not that that's such a bad thing, it's just not the way we're used to seeing things.

Well, it's like this. The Godfather is a huge, multi-layered script that doesn't follow a mainstream format (it's 45 minutes before much of anything happens). It has a ton of characters and most of them are really well defined. Who is the main protagonist? Who is it that changes the most during the course of the story?

That would be Michael Corleone. He goes from good Army boy to the next Godfather. Marlon Brando may be the title character...for most of it, but it is Michael, who at the end of the film is the Godfather and holds that title role. Throughout all of the characters, there's little doubt of this.

The antagonist is another story entirely as a lot happens during the course of the story, though in the end, Michael's struggle was against himself and his family during his slow progression into the role he took at the end. Technically, The Godfather didn't have a happy ending since Michael succumbed to his destiny, but it was inevitable.

This story is more straight forward than that and yet, we're wondering who the main character is? That in itself says there's a problem. Movies only have enough time for one real main character. There are supporting roles throughout and parallel subplots, but the lion's share of the story should be about the main character and we have to know his journey.

I agree to a certain point, George.  I don't feel that there can only be 1 main antag and 1 main protag...I feel there can be 2 or even 3 of each, if they tend to be together for most of the script.  Take "Bonnie and Clyde" for instance, "Pulp Fiction", "Natural Born Killers", or even "True Romance".  Each has several "main characters" in both the antag and protag roles.

Who is the main antag and protag in Pulp Fiction?  Does it really matter?

Most movies do tend to center and focus on 1 antag and 1 protag, and many times, secondary characters have so little to do, that it is painfully obvious who the story is about.  This is not necessarily such a good thing however.  It's just difficult to actually put together a story that has a number of strong personalities, and more than a few characters who actually are involved in the plot.

For me, the "problems" with identifying the main protag and antag have more to do with what the story is really about, than it does with the actual characters.  It would be interesting to see how the actual screen time and amount of dialogue actually plays out between all the different characters here, and I have a feeling that Cameron may not actually have as much to say and do as some others do.

Well, don't confuse a main character with a supporting character whose role and characterization is just as important. In the musical Oklahoma, the story of Ado Annie parallel Curly and Laurie (I think that was her name). She is fully characterized and undergoes a change, even though she isn't the "main" character. Her story is intended to be a subplot to the main story, but that doesn't negate her role.

A movie will ideally have one main storyline and the other storylines serve to support that and move it in ways that the main plot can't. The example of the Godfather is perfect in that respect as well. Pulp Fiction is a different film entirely as it has several intersecting storylines, but each storyline has it's own main character, but that's more or less off topic.

It's a basic principle of storytelling and not a rule. If you want to tell two stories, that's your prerogative, but in the limited run time of a feature film, you have to focus on one tale. Lord of the Rings is a film that runs over 10 hours, so it counts as an exception. Demon Beach is a typical feature, so it doesn't have the time for more than one tale.

OK George, so what is that 1 tale that Demon Beach is telling us?  I can't personally answer that question.

Maybe the "problem" is that the 1st half of the script seems to be telling 1 tale, but then the 2nd half tells us a completely different tale, and then finally, the very end tells us that what we just read was actually something completely different.

Know what I mean?

And back to Bonnie and Clyde...do you agree that they are co-main characters, or is 1 truly the main character?  Are they clearly our protags because they're the main characters, or courld they be antags because they're law breaking killers?

Just curious what your thoughts are on this, because Demon Beach is actually a comedy movie that the Director of Entertainment from Hell made for his minions, and is definitely Kobal's story...maybe Kobal is actually the main character here?  Hmmm...

Quoted from George Lord of the Rings is a film that runs over 10 hours, so it counts as an exception. Demon Beach is a typical feature, so it doesn't have the time for more than one tale.

The same could be said about The Godfather really. I really judge the trilogy as one film, so the early wedding scene, in context, doesn't run overly long.

I feel that the protag has to be the one that helps the viewer connect with what's going on. Using the whole Godfather example then that is definately Michael. He's outside the family and slowly becomes interlinked with them. The viewer learns about them at the same rate Michael becomes deeper and deeper involved.

I don't see anyone doing this in Demon Beach. Nobody really has any idea what's going on, and you get the feeling that Cameron doesn't understand fully even by the end of it.

To make it a little clearer I would seperate Cameron from Meddler and Hawker. Have him less involved with them and more of just their gopher. He comes across a little like that but I think the three of them are on too much of a level playing ground. Make Cameron more pathetic and the audience will connect better with him and then his development and eventual bravery would be a better pay off.

Just my opinion of course, I may be talking out of my ass.

I feel the story lies between two main characters...Kobel the puppet master :) and Cameron...that's why I would have liked it if he could have done something to Kobel in the end...everyone just peters out in the end except him and his motley crew.

We mentioned having Kobel introduced earlier...his presence was on the beach but it wasn't in any significant way...(I think) and I felt that something was up with him from the very beginning...I just didn't know what.

During certain sections of the script it did get a little confusing with dialogue...it was fast paced and a lot of things were going on so I had to really keep up with it...I think it would be much easier to follow on the big screen though.  This is a tale of whacky antics and imagination and as Pia mentioned...quite a ride.

I think there is a brilliant mind in there (in Cornetto's mind) Makes me wonder about the writer....lol  I keep chuckling over this...whenever I think about it...and that is a good thing!
~m~

Regardless of the layers, Demon Beach plays off to me as a single storyline with intersecting subplots. Each plot point takes us to a new part of the story, but it remains a single story. Note that the concept of it being Kobal's movie doesn't begin until the credits sequence.

Is Cameron really our main character? The real decision maker on the protag side in most instances is Felicity. She initiates contact with Cameron; she bails him out of his awkward situation at Kiki's; she knows how to defeat Kobal's plan; she pulls Cameron into the film with and only has him there because she doesn't know the plot of the film; and she is the one that actually defeats Kobal. Cameron provides little more than a distraction. Felicity is actually the most active character and does the most to move the story forward. This is that Felicity isn't relatable where the main protagonist must be relatable to the audience somehow. We have to be able to see ourselves in that person's position, and Cameron is placed in that position.

The Protagonist should do stuff. Howard and Harvey can't be protagonists because they don't do anything. During the climax of the movie, they're climaxing themselves and not helping.

Kobal is clearly the antagonist. He begins to disrupt our other characters' lives with the movie interference. He provides the problems that need solutions, which is what an antagonist does. Granted, the problems are often perceived, but Kobal is the instigator for most of the issues.

The single plot? Of course. The central plot is in Michael's logline. Moviemakers discover that someone is screwing with their film and have to work to set it right. The movie is a McGuffin in this story, and only gets as much screentime as it does because it is a film and we have to be able to understand that story in order to follow the bigger one. But that in itself is not the central plot at all -- only a plot device.

If we try to break the story into some basic plot points, here's what I come up with:

Catalyst: the filming of the warehouse and meeting Felicity; it even occurs at about the right page count.

Big Event (or Act I-Act II transition): The dance begins and Harvey notices the Kobal in the footage. Without the film footage, it would have occurred right around page 23, which is about right.

Pinch: The rest of the guys find out about Kobal in the film and Felicity reveals that she can correct the footage by entering the film with Cameron. It happens in two parts, but again, this falls almost dead center, which is about right again for textbook form.

Crisis (or Act II - Act III transition): Felicity has a plan after everyone starts returning to normal. This is about the only place where there is a low enough point in the story and that feels like any kind of big decision is made. So this is my only reach.

Showdown: Finally, Cameron gets some guts and he attacks Kobal to provide a distraction for Felicity to defeat the Anne Creature, and then sacrifice herself to get the better of Kobal (for the moment).


There it is. One basic plot. A lot goes into that in order to make the story work, but it's all subplot from there. That tells the story of Cameron and his buddies, though Felicity makes some of the bigger decisions. The big event piece doesn't involve Cameron directly, but it is the point where the plot starts rolling. There you go.

Quoted from Grandma Bear I read this about a week ago. The characters that I still remember are Cameron (I liked him), Felicity (would like to know more about her), Kobal (would have liked to know more about him too), Harvey and Howard, but I wished their names had been less similar. It took me a while before I quit getting them mixed up. Those are the characters I remember the most, so what does that mean? Were they more important to the story or just better developed?

Pia, I felt the same way about the similarity of the names: Howard and Harvey. For the sake of the read, I think that needs to be changed because I kept mixing them up.

I also liked Cameron, but felt he was sacrificed for the other "movie" within the movie thing that was happening and that's why I wouldn't let it take over so much. I think I'd work more with the abandoned building aspect and Kobal himself-- but now I'm getting off the character track.

I'm going to read some more comments and think character.

Sandra

Quoted from George Willson Is Cameron really our main character? The real decision maker on the protag side in most instances is Felicity. She initiates contact with Cameron; she bails him out of his awkward situation at Kiki's; she knows how to defeat Kobal's plan; she pulls Cameron into the film with and only has him there because she doesn't know the plot of the film; and she is the one that actually defeats Kobal. Cameron provides little more than a distraction. Felicity is actually the most active character and does the most to move the story forward. This is that Felicity isn't relatable where the main protagonist must be relatable to the audience somehow. We have to be able to see ourselves in that person's position, and Cameron is placed in that position. The Protagonist should do stuff. Howard and Harvey can't be protagonists because they don't do anything. During the climax of the movie, they're climaxing themselves and not helping. ....

George, you've done some excellent work at dissecting this.

Regarding Felicity, I never realized the weight she actually had until I read your post, but you are correct. She "does" do stuff and therefore acts very much like a protagonist, though she isn't developed as one.

If I were to choose a solid protagonist in this, I'd spin it in the direction of Cameron most definitely. In fact, I'd probably play him up even more.

A memorable scene is when he falls into the "big guys" arms at Kiki's gay bar and he's all woozy.

Working with Cameron's character would be fun I think, making him rather vulnerable, and then pitting him against someone like Kobal. But instead of having Felicity initiating, the efforts, I'd like to see Cameron come into his own in an attempt to prove himself "The Man" to Felicity.

If, in the end, Cameron, outwits the witter, I think it would be a very satisfying ending. And like I said earlier: Kobal isn't defeated. He can't be defeated, but he goes back in hiding for a little while and does his planning for the next kick at the can.

I think we're all after a satisfying ending and this script has enough juice to provide one. It's just a matter of (that sounds easy, but it's not) killing darlings.

This is what I believe needs to happen in this script. I think some sacrifices are going to have to be made, but I'm not sure how that would be executed.

I remain with the belief that Kobal should be introduced earlier. He's an anchor and an antagonist. I don't think hiding him is necessary for suspense.

For some reason I can really imagine beginning this very close to the point where they are reviewing footage and "the mustache man" is seen for the first time and nobody filmed it.

Sandra

I was hoping that George was going to respond to my last post yesterday, but I guess not.

I do not think that Kobal needs to be introduced earlier.  It would completely take away the obvious angle that Cornetto was going for.  He didn't want this to read or play out like 99% of scripts do.  This was all completely intentional, but I guess then we come back to the question of "does it work the way it is?".

I'm not completely sure, but I definitely would not suggest that it be changed to follow in the foot steps of all the other crappy, campy B movies out there.

I agree Jeff!

I didn't read it today because I was overwhelmed with The Black List scripts haha, but I do remember from my first reading that I did not think he needed to be introduced earlier. However, I do think the beginning needs some trimming down with a few pages to get going a little faster.

Cheers! or skål as us viking types say!  ;D

Quoted from Dreamscale I was hoping that George was going to respond to my last post yesterday, but I guess not. I do not think that Kobal needs to be introduced earlier.  It would completely take away the obvious angle that Cornetto was going for.  He didn't want this to read or play out like 99% of scripts do.  This was all completely intentional, but I guess then we come back to the question of "does it work the way it is?". I'm not completely sure, but I definitely would not suggest that it be changed to follow in the foot steps of all the other crappy, campy B movies out there.

I don't know that Michael intended it. Maybe he did; maybe he didn't. We'll find that out later. But let's flex this a little.

If Kobal was introduced earlier, how do you think it will take away from anything. Can you be specific?

I'm imagining a scenario where the characters DON'T know about him right away up front, (except as the Mustached Man invading the footage). But we, the audience get to meet him and know a little bit of what he's all about, and perhaps, we learn a little bit more as we go along.

Besides, this, we could be entertained by an off shoot with the mysterious Felicity and watch Cameron in action trying to use that wonderfully mysterious pick up line. I really liked that part.

Truthfully, I didn't like how the "other movie" took over. For me, it mixed things up too much, but, I should mention, as has been before, a lot of times these things would work a lot better on screen than on the page. That's one of the great challenges of writing for screen I think. Trying to make it top notch for both mediums.

As it stands, Kobal shows up out of the blue at the end. I think it would be more interesting to move the musical elements up to the early/mid portions to establish that kind of theme right off and straight away. That kind of whimsical slant is best set early so that the audience is familiar with it.

I'm thinking of it establishing this kind of contract with the audience:

"Ok, we're here to play-- to have a good time; so don't take anything too seriously."

And also:

"But even still, there are some serious themes being played out, if you care to consider them; if not, forget them and enjoy the fun stuff."

That's my take. That if that's established firmly, then it will run easier.

Sandra

If Kobal is introduced earlier I think it takes away some of the mystery about him and we will immediately suspect that something's up with him and that he will be really important. The way it is now, I remember I kept wondering what was up with this guy in the bowler and mustache. I wanted to know... and that's a good thing. Made me keep turning the pages.

AS it stands now, it doesn't follow any standard plotlines/structure, cliches, etc.  That's what it has going for it...well, that and the fact that everyhting is so cleverly strung together, even though we don't realize this up front.

Introducing Kobal earlier would completely change the feeling that I think Cornetto was going for.  I also don't know how one would even try and intruduce a demon entertainment for Hell type character.  I just don't think it would fly.

I'm thinking right now is a good time to bring up my thoughts on the title: Demon Beach.

Even though the logline tells what the movie's about, I had a different feeling from the title. The title has this lovely dark tone. I'd save it as a keeper, but write a different script for it.

This script, although Kobal is supposed to be a trickster, (and I know there are supposed to be some horror elements) weighs to me more heavily on the side of intrigue rather than  extremely dark.

Why is Cameron so drawn to the building? What is it about Felicity that turns him on especially? What motivates Kobal? Or actually I should say: Why is he motivated so? Because I, at least understand what motivates him, but I want to know a little bit more of the details why? I think I even know the why, but I'd like to see it explained.

Kobal can't explain anything if he's not "in" the movie. Right now, as it stands, he's not really-- not until the very end and it's not enough.

Even though Kobal is an antagonist, I still see him as having good qualities. Does that make sense? Or is it just me?

So, I would say change the name somehow and lose the word Demon.

Sandra

I posed the question yesterday that maybe Kobal could actually be the protag.

This is his story...his movie.  He's funny, goofy, whacky.  He may be a Demon, but as Demons go, he appears to be a pretty funny, good guy, and as far as I can tell, everything that he did (which wasn't all that nice) was merely in his movie.

A final line after the credits roll could be "No human beings were actually hurt during the filming of this movie.

Ya know????

Quoted from Dreamscale I posed the question yesterday that maybe Kobal could actually be the protag. This is his story...his movie.  He's funny, goofy, whacky.  He may be a Demon, but as Demons go, he appears to be a pretty funny, good guy, and as far as I can tell, everything that he did (which wasn't all that nice) was merely in his movie. A final line after the credits roll could be "No human beings were actually hurt during the filming of this movie. Ya know????

Oooooooh I love that idea!!!!!

Dreamscale, I know where you're going with that thought, but Kobal is simply a main character however you want to slice, and it's all pure opinion and labels. I can see how it is his story, but you also don't know that until the end, and the end could certainly be played up for what it is, and that's basically a big twist. ut a big twist does not a protagonist make. If Kobal becomes the textbook protagonist, he has to be introduced as such, and doing so would ruin much of the suspense. Also he is antagonistic towards the other characters which sort of defines his role (if you want to define it, which you have not wanted to do for anything else).

As for Bonnie and Clyde, I have to admit that it's on my iPod and I haven't watched it yet. I read your post and meant to watch it today, but I just didn't, hence my lack of response. However, there are movies called buddy movies and one such that I have seen is Toy Story. Both Woody and Buzz each have a character arc throguh the tale and they both go through a journey during the story and they do it together. I have little doubt that Bonnie and Clyde plays out the same way. Both characters are given equal weight throughout and while they don't have to necessarily work together, they also tend to work toward a common goal. Sorry, Demon Beach is not a buddy movie.

And when it comes to antagonists, they can have good qualities. Really, there shouldn't be truly "good" or "evil" characters, Each has a goal they wish to accomplish and they each believe they are doing the right thing for them. Kobal has a purpose and the means heuses to reach his ends are just a little off for the average person. Clearly, Dreamscale is totally on board with Kobal's methods and that's fine, but for the most part, people would wonder what he's smoking.

Kobal needs more time and more development, that's for sure. He does exist in the first act (as I laid it out) in that he's on the footage that Cameron takes. In fact, that's probably how he gets into the movie, and Felicity was attempting to steal the camera to prevent Kobal's inclusion.

Yes, I get that there's an angle that it's Kobal's movie, and they never stood a chance, yadda yadda yadda, but if Kobal is this masterful director and writer, then he would construct a believable and satisfying plot for his target audience and that means no deux ex machina to finish it off in his favor. The protags have to work for their goal which is in opposition to the antags. From Kobal's perspective, he's the protag and the moviemakers are the antags, because they're opposing forces. It's all in which side you take.

Kobal's slow introduction can work, but when he comes in full on, he needs to come in like a barnstormer and we have to learn a lot about him. I have a script out there where I introduce who the main antag is fully in the third act. We get the involvemet of someone and we know his position, but we don't know who he is to the protag until act III and that meant telling quite a bit in no time flat near the end of the story. But he's got to be someone and we have to know what he's up to and who's involved. Just as Cameron is dragged along too much, Kobal is way underdeveloped as a villain. Just like we have to believe in Cameron's goals, we have to believe in (though maybe not fully agree with) Kobal's goals.

Maybe that makes some sense.

I hear ya George, and everything you're saying is right...and "textbook".  BUT, this isn't a textbook script, and that's why it works and that's what it has going for it.

The angles I was throwing out were merely meant to show how things can actually be...or at least seem to be, what they shouldn't, or can't be, in terms of text book...or familiar...or maybe even cookie cuttter.

I honestly believe very strongly that a script or movie does not have to be any certain way...it just has to work, when it's all said and done, and if it works...well...then it works.

I'm not completely convinced that this works yet, but I don't think its problems are tied to the fact that it doesn't follow normal rules of most everything we've discussed so far.

I'll make this response painfully brief (or try to), because I don't wish for this to turn into yet another rules debate. I don't care about "the rules" or textbook definitions or what have you. Textbooks are things that observe how stories generally go, and I was simply making that observation. I do honestly think you're grasping a little bit and insisting on a lot in your interpretation, which is fine.

When I make suggestions or recommendations, I don't follow a book or any rules whatsoever. I just consider what, in my opinion, I would like to see. If those thoughts happen to fit a textbook you've run across, then swell, but when I think about story and plot, I just go with movies I've seen (primarily, and that includes normal and abnormal -- yes, I've seen most of Lynch's films) and books I've read (that'd be novels, not "how to write a screenplay" books, of which I've only read one).

The problems are not tied to the fact that it doesn't follow rules. I've found that it follows a lot of "rules," but does so in an unconventional way. But screw the rules. Seriously. Every story, by nature, has a beginning, middle, and end. That's just a fact.

Let's try to keep the discussion on the story and its needs, and not break into rules discussions which I doubt are useful to Michael at all, and to be honest, just annoying to me.

Maybe my post here won't matter, but I like the way this one is structured (besides the longish beginning). I will even say I think it's one of the more enjoyable unproduced scripts I've read in a long time. Does it work for everyone? Probably not, but neither does Lynch's films, which is funny you mentioned because somehow he came to mind occasionally while I read this.

I really think Michael should be applauded for having written such a unique script. Perfect or not, it's still fresh!

Okay, so are we moving along to commercial appeal now? Just asking since I've heard from the grapevine that Cornetto is pleased so far and thinks it's okay if we move on to the next subject.

I'm good with hitting commercial appeal at this point. I think when it comes to the big picture, I think the appeal will be limited to a smaller audience, but has the potential of being a cult classic (I believe someone else mentioned that already, and I can't disagree). I say that because it has a lot of elements that won't appeal to the mass majority of moviegoers. Specifically, the extreme gore, the lesbian scene (and both of those are the same scene (?!)), and cross genre films like this one appears to be often get left by the mainstream wayside only to be picked up by a loyal fan base. It's not a popcorn flick or a date film, or even a solid halloween classic. It's something that does stand in its own unique corner and will probably stay there. That being the case, it will be difficult to sell it, because cult classics tend to emerge from filmmakers that need to make something and do so by making something different, like this. It will very likely to appeal to the independant crowd (who will love it) before it is ever noticed by a (shall we say) "reputable" filmmaker.

I tend to agree with Geoge to a certain extent again.  I highly doubt that we're talking cult classic here, but it is a script that some wil absolutely love...I think that "some" though, is a rather small number.

It's a mid R rated flick for sure.  It could flow over to a hard R, but I doubt it would be made that way.  We've got gay and lesbian content, graphic violence, potential sex scenes, and some swearing.  There's really no terror or the like.

I don't know if I see this as wide screen release.  I actually think it's more of a DTV, and I believe that is the intention.  It could actually find a home this way if it was marketed properly, and I don't feel the current slug line is doing that now.

As I've said again and again, I do like this script and concept.  I feel it's wildly unique and laugh out loud funny in places.  It is definitely not a film that's going to be widely appreciated though, as it's just way too whacky and wierd fro that boring, tight lipped mainstream America.

The discussion appears to have largely foundered. If anyone has anything else to say on this, please do so today. Michael, the floor is yours tomorrow to offer any insight you may have that we completely missed, or to tell us we're out of our minds.

For my part, unless someone sparks something interesting, I don't think I could add much else.

I'm late onto this, but I'll throw some thoughts out there.

Overall, I thought it was quite good. It was an enjoyable caper that I think with a bit of work could be a nice diversion. Having read the other comments I was expecting something much less commercial. I don't think it is quite as unmarketable as people have made out. The horror comedy genre is fairly well established and I think with a little more focus it could easily get noticed with a clever marketing scheme.

Anyway, i echo the thoughts that Kobal should play a more obvious role from the start. Even if its just establishing his presence and raising the question of who he is.

i also think the ending was a bit of a let down in that it just came out of nowhere and seemed unmotivated. Personally it reminded me too much of Harry Potter and the sub plot in that series regarding the freeing of the House Elves.

If i was Producing it I would do the following:

Establish Kobol earier and also give him a more interesting reason why he is doing it. Personally I would play with the idea of Media sensationalism and the argument that violent films corrupt young minds. He decides to use films to get the Devils message across.

I'd also scratch out the gee and Nicky film and go with something a bit more controversial. Something like the Passion of Christ. That would fit in better with the Good and Evil thing going on and allow for a nice organic conflict. It would also make the film a bit more controversial.

You can imagine Kobol corrupting famous Biblical scenes, like the Nativity. It would cause a nice little storm and be really subversive but funny at the same time.

I would also try and get a more direct link with the Dancers and kobals attempts. they are a nice aside but I didn't get a feel for how what they were doing would really help him.

Pretty good though. I'd just turn the screw a lot tighter.

Rick.

Sorry George, I wasn't ignoring this or anything, just got busy doing weird things this weekend.

Rick, makes some goods points I think.

On the commercial appeal of this script, George and Jeff are maybe right, but at the same time I ask myself "didn't all of us who read this really like it?". If we did, why wouldn't many others?

When I think of commercial appeal, I don't just think of "Hollywood blockbusters". Commercial appeal to me means, will filmmakers out there see this as a film that would give them return on their investor's money? I think it could, because I think this could also be made on a fairly low budget. Maybe not an indie no/low budget, but still in the low range of film budgets.

I'm not sure most of us did like it?  Most people seemed to say that they didn't find it funny at all, or not very funny. Maybe I'm taking comments from the other post as well...not sure.

It's hard to say much as it seems like other than a handful of posts, the only people that have been commenting here are myself, Pia, and George.  This leads me to beleive that interest level was rather low with others.  Not sure.

I do agree with Pia that commercial appeal does not deal with blockbuster status at all.  But, appeal has to be there in terms of its genre and how it delivers, and to who it delivers.  The fact that I find it laugh out loud funny at times, could be a negative, because first of all, I'm not the target audience, and scedondly, I literally HATE comedies most of the time.  And I'm talking about pretty much all forms of comedies, from film to TV. So me thinking this is funny, doesn't really say much cause I don't find things funny that most do.

I do believe this could be a good, solid little DTV release that could actually garner praise both critically and commercially, based on its uniqueness and whackiness.  I see the budget being an issue though, unless it purposely was made to look cheesy, as there are alot of special effects, including creature effects, gore effects, and wierd, other worldy effects - these things ain't cheap!

Again, though, all in all, I like it and find alot of creative genius at work here.

Jeff,

I thought most people said it was an enjoyable read. I took that as they liked it.  :-/

"I do believe this could be a good, solid little DTV release that could actually garner praise both critically and commercially, based on its uniqueness and whackiness.  I see the budget being an issue though, unless it purposely was made to look cheesy, as there are alot of special effects, including creature effects, gore effects, and wierd, other worldy effects - these things ain't cheap!"

Yeah, I think you could play the effects for laughs. You could always throw in a line from Kobal along the lines of :

"What can I say, Hells got a budget too you know"...

I do agree Pia, but if people say that a comedy isn't funny, then I'm confused a bit.  Maybe to say this is a comedy is a big mistake (I think it is).  But then again, we're back to the same old problem...what is this really?

To me it sits comfortably within the Horror Comedy genre, at the end of the scale with the likes of Shaun of the Dead where it's comedy with scares rather than, for instance Scream, where it's scares with laughs.

As it is, it could probably use a few more laugh out loud moments, but most comedies could. This is a work in progress, so it's not like we've got an insurmountable problem here.

We just need to stick 10 laugh out loud jokes in there to raise it up. Even if that means bringing in a specialist comedy writer to do it, it's not a problem imo.

There is easily enough potential for both verbal and slapstick humour to make it genuinely funny.

I don't think I'd want to see laughs for the sake of laughs, but with the sheer comedic moments that I saw in this one, it definitely hits the comedic side of the tracks. I did laugh out loud when I was reading this and that doesn't happen much for me. If you wanted to add laughs, I would find a way to emphasize the comedic points of what is already going on, either by comment or even better, by the action of one of the characters. Action comedy tends to work better than spoken comedy, in my opinion, anyway. So more Shaun of the Dead and less (or better yet, none of) Scary Movie.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films "I do believe this could be a good, solid little DTV release that could actually garner praise both critically and commercially, based on its uniqueness and whackiness.  I see the budget being an issue though, unless it purposely was made to look cheesy, as there are alot of special effects, including creature effects, gore effects, and wierd, other worldy effects - these things ain't cheap!" Yeah, I think you could play the effects for laughs. You could always throw in a line from Kobal along the lines of : "What can I say, Hells got a budget too you know"...

I enjoyed this as I have shared a few times...it is cheesy and corrupt, naughty and nice...(It's almost Christmas) I believe it would be a film that would raise a bit of discussion in the media world based on it's unigueness...and as mentioned above...one of the concerns I had mentioned earlier was that if made...it does have some characters that would be hard to reproduce...in order to keep the "cheese" maybe they should just be costumed people like I always imagine are in a circus.  It has that feel for me in places.

I like the mention of the good versus evil too, but I think the movie of Gee and Nicky is just the avenue that Kobel decided to make himself known in...I believe it was more the little town he arrived in with his circus of players and their chaotic trail.

I think to make it more appealing the end needs to be shored up a little bit...so many little pieces just seemed to evaporate into thin air and Kobel went off on a little tangent about the "imps".  Again, I think Cameron needs to utilize the information he knows about Kobel that Felicity shared with him...cause some trouble in the end, some struggle of the good versus the evil...

As has been said before...I too applaud Cornetto for a unique, whacky piece that I enjoyed and chuckled over and it can only be made better if the "good, constructive" criticism is taken from all the voices and personalities represented here.

I don't think it should be a DTV project...I could definitely see it in the theater, monsters, boobs, and all.  In fact I could picture it as one of those whacky comedies where there's a bunch of major celebrities in it- like George Clooney and Brad Pitt.  In my eyes this is a type of movie where I think a lot of big names would be attracted to it.  I don't think it works as well on paper as it would on screen (only my opinion), but its still good.  Things seem to be happening all over but its still a very good attempt at a different kind of story.  Many things could be cut to make it an even tighter, faster script, mainly some stuff Sandra pointed out...like the descriptions....anyways, yeah.  Wish I could contribute more but as I already told Mike before hand I'm not really that good in the SC.

While I think there is certainly room for improvement I could certainly call this a "produceable script". It could quite easily be made on an ultra-low budget if required, has few locations, a manageable cast size, light on make-up and effects. Has it got an audience? I think so too. It is the kind of movie that could get a following at a few of the more minor festivals, maybe generate a bit of a buzz and do well on DVD and downloads. Why not? I have seen some real turkeys* that have taken a similar approach and managed to not only make back their money but more importantly earned a credit and IMDB page for the people responsible.

What of course I am saying is that this is far from blockbuster potential, but it does have its place. I am with Pia in that this the most fun unpublished script I have read on here and I enjoyed reading it very much. With this script I think that Michael has already achieved much and while getting produced would of course be fantastic I would think that making some of us smile is not a bad outcome.

Nice job Michael.



EDIT: * Of course I am not suggesting this is a Turkey, far from it.

Okay, Michael, the floor is yours. I do hope you got something out of this. Feel free to say your piece and ask questions or whatever. I'm sure we're all still here for you to round out the end of this thing.

It’s been great watching this thread unfold, thanks all for reading and commenting on Demon Beach.   I was pleased to see a number of people that really enjoyed the read.  And for those who had criticisms of the dancers and ending, well I understand why you had issues with them and I sort of half-agree with you. What surprised me the most was that a couple of people had issues with the musical numbers.

As far as the story went, I think George hit it on the nose.  It’s structured pretty much how he outlined and it is a story that follows the logline.  Kobal scene at the end can be considered the only “reality” and the rest is his movie.  This is why he wins.  I doubt Demons would enjoy a movie where the humans win.

The imp speech is there to run under the credits, but to also to say that Kobal is not really happy with the movies he’s making, he wants to say more with them (get political with them) but his audience is not going to be happy with it.  The imps are subtly foreshadowed during the script at several locations.

Ultimately this movie is meant to be a metaphor for the movie making process, the way it kind of takes over your life as you make it.  Therefore, the ever present beach movie – even the way it changes through different edits.  To me the beach movie is alive, another character and an important one.

But even if you didn’t get any of these things and you got a laugh from it then I consider that a success.  For those that didn’t get a laugh, I’m still not certain why, but I’ll give it some more thought.  I have more to say about Demon beach, about the dancers and the other characters, but it will have to wait until I have some time to type it up.  

Cheers again.

Michael

Quoted from mcornetto As far as the story went, I think George hit it on the nose.  It’s structured pretty much how he outlined and it is a story that follows the logline.

And George does the happy dance... I knew I understood it.

Damn, somehow I missed all these new posts!  No E-Mail came telling me we had new posts...sorry.

Yeah, George, I think you and I both "got it" and understood what it was and what it was trying to say.  It is very ambiguous in my mind about that point, but as long as some got it, then it has to be considered a semi-success.

As per Slabby's post about it being a "star-driven" wide screen release, I'm not so sure.  I can see what he's saying and how that could play out, but I just don't think this script wants to be a major motion picture, star driven vehicle.  It justs screams of DTV to me, and that's not a bad thing at all.  I think it's too whacky and wild, and not funny or scary enough to garner a fan base that it would need to succeed.  The humor itself is such that most probably wouldn't even get it.

I also disagree with the post about it not needing a decent budget.  There are tons of special effets required here, as well as old school make up effects.  Sure, they could be done cheesily, as the movie itself is purposely cheesy, but without any star power, it's still a $5 million budget, more or less, and adding in actors salaries, it could go anywhere.

Would mainstream America (or the world) come out to see this?  I doubt it, the way it sits now.  Could it garner a semi-cult following?  Yes, definitely.  It's R rated, first of all, and that takes away from all your pre 17 ticket sales.  Based on the subject matter, it'd be a hard sell unless it was ingeniously marketed, and I think DTV is the only way to go that makes sense.

Looking forward to hearing more about my favorite characters, Master Choreographer, Prima, and of course, little Rudolf!!!!  I love those guys!!!

I wrote Demon Beach for the Australian Project Greenlight competition.  It was written with the intention of actually having to produce it myself and this has a lot to do with the content.  It was planned to be very low budget with cheesy effects and lots of overacting.  Many of the locations are locations I knew would be available to me and many of the characters are based on the abilities of the people I knew would play them.

I was planning on playing Howard and if I wasn’t going to have the time to play him then I knew someone else that would.  If you have watched the Aileen film – the lead guy in that film was going to play Cameron, and Aileen’s second meal was going to play Harvey (The Maserati thing actually came from him).  

The skills of the three filmmakers – matched our own skills as filmmakers.   This is perhaps why these characters seem to not exist outside the film. I never really felt the need to give them back story because I knew the characters already.

Felicity is based on a medical technician who took my blood for a blood test.  I thought her voice was amazingly unusual.  We got to talking about it and she wanted to be in the film – I thought she would make a great Felicity.

Kobal has perhaps changed the most of any character.  In the original story  Kobal was going to be a very young girl.  Kobal didn’t have that name then and the story was going to be pure horror with cast members dying as they were killed onscreen.  I didn’t take this route because 1. It was too much like Nightmare on Elm Street part whatever 2.) a little girl playing a major role was going to drive the production cost up.

So Kobal became a bit older and was based on this waitress that used to serve me my lunch everyday at the time I was thinking about it. In this version Kobal was going to be a bit like Bugs Bunny and the movie became a comedy.   Only there was “No way, No how” the waitress would be in the movie.   So disillusioned I reinvented Kobal.

Around this time a troupe of dancers became involved.  They would let us use their space if they could be in the movie and most importantly dance in the movie (you can guess where this is going but more on that later).  At this point the movie became a musical and  Kobal became a dancer with each kill from a different type of dance.  Put a bit of danger in that tango.  Only I thought that would get old rather quickly.

So I searched the web for demon ideas and found the entertainment director from hell who is not actually a historic demon but is popular with Role Playing Games.  Kobal.  And his character and looks came from that and my fascination with Rene Magritte’s surrealist paintings.

Now that Kobal was settled and Kobal wasn’t a dancer what would the dance troupe do?  They would have a couple of musical numbers to dance in but what if I took them a step further and made them the cult that invoked the demon.  

It was then the Master Choreographer and Prima were born.  And how could I fit them in the story?  As a greek chorus, a dancing greek chorus.

I hope that was illuminating.  Next up, what I plan to do Demon Beach now that I have all these great comments (As soon as I get a chance to type it up).

That's incredibly enlightening and explains a lot. Given that it's at least two years since you originally wrote it, I'm assuming the competition piece is out. I know that since I plan on shooting some of the pieces I've written, writing one that is free and outside of my shooting abilities will be difficult for a little bit (which is one reason I wanted to do Shiva, because it was more of an assignment with parameters).

Do you still intend on shooting it yourself at some point, or is that coupled into your next answer? I know when I read through, I considered the production aspects, and really, there are some rather expensive aspects to it, though I'm sure it could be done on the cheap -- but definitely not a "no budget" film. The glowing effects as well as the wrecked cars and Anne-beast sort of take it out of that loop.

Thank you Cornetto for the insight...very cool to use the people around you to come up with the personalities of the characters...and that thoroughly explains the dancers, which I thought was slightly goofy, but somehow it worked and now that you have explainded it I can see why it is in there...it is a bit of a circus in that it's players and parts kept growing as it moved along. :)

Thank you for the details.

Quoted from mcornetto Kobal has perhaps changed the most of any character.  In the original story  Kobal  Kobal didn’t have that name then and the story was going to be pure horror with cast members dying as they were killed onscreen.  I didn’t take this route because 1. It was too much like Nightmare on Elm Street part whatever

I definitely would not have thought of Wes Craven's New Nightmare had you did that...but since you specifically brought it up, I understand where you're coming from.  But hey, New Nightmare wasn't that bad either.

I have no plans to produce this script on my own, but from the comments I can see that people think a few areas need work.  

Some people think Kobal needs to be introduced in the beginning.  Some think the dancers need to be introduced earlier as well.  There seems to be a movement toward having the dancers more involved in the story or totally removed.  Some people don’t like the musical numbers. And most everyone thought the ending needed to be changed.

The parts that I always thought were weak were Kobal’s meeting with Howard, the dancers aren’t that involved in the story, and Howard’s and Kobal’s movies aren’t that different.  

I’m still not too keen on changing much with this particular incarnation of the story, because I’m pretty happy with it.  But if I were going to change anything, it would probably be that the dancers become more involved.  Maybe give Kobal a bit more screen time and change the imp speech at the end since people seemed to have a lot of trouble with it.

However, if I were to give the story a rethink and rewrite, I would make the difference between the Howard's and Kobal's films much greater. I would make Howard’s beach movie really seedy and sexy, almost worthy of current Kobal.  Then I would make Kobal change that movie into a sweetsie musical where everyone is good and kind to one another.  That would really get on Howard’s nerves and would push the point that Kobal is out of touch with his audience and behind the times.  

I’m just not sure if that would get on the real audiences nerves or not.  But it certainly wouldn’t be your normal Demon fare.   What do you all think of the above idea for a rewrite?

Cheers,

Michael

I absolutely agree with giving Kobal more screen time. I think that developing his character and motivations would really be impressive.

People have discussed humor in this. I found some parts funny. Like when Cameron fell into the arms of the big gay guy.

Sandra

Quoted from mcornetto Some people think Kobal needs to be introduced in the beginning.  Some think the dancers need to be introduced earlier as well.  There seems to be a movement toward having the dancers more involved in the story or totally removed.  Some people don’t like the musical numbers. And most everyone thought the ending needed to be changed. The parts that I always thought were weak were Kobal’s meeting with Howard, the dancers aren’t that involved in the story, and Howard’s and Kobal’s movies aren’t that different.   I’m still not too keen on changing much with this particular incarnation of the story, because I’m pretty happy with it.  But if I were going to change anything, it would probably be that the dancers become more involved.  Maybe give Kobal a bit more screen time and change the imp speech at the end since people seemed to have a lot of trouble with it. However, if I were to give the story a rethink and rewrite, I would make the difference between the Howard's and Kobal's films much greater. I would make Howard’s beach movie really seedy and sexy, almost worthy of current Kobal.  Then I would make Kobal change that movie into a sweetsie musical where everyone is good and kind to one another.  That would really get on Howard’s nerves and would push the point that Kobal is out of touch with his audience and behind the times.   I’m just not sure if that would get on the real audiences nerves or not.  But it certainly wouldn’t be your normal Demon fare.   What do you all think of the above idea for a rewrite? Cheers, Michael

I think the end would be better with Kobal and his cast of players and dancers :)  All the world is a stage afterall and I think the "imp" speech is so far off the beaten track...maybe that time could be better used if Kobal actually thanked all the players...including the ones who were played, like Cameron, Howard, etc. :)

I don't think I agree with Kobal having a "sweetsy" attitude...he is humerous, devious, wickedly in control and I would hate tosee that go away.

In my mind I can see such a twist and whacky group of players in his group...I likethe dancers (it's a part of Kobal's world) and they could do a lot more than summon him...dance him into reality.  I agree that you should work/weave them in a little more to this story so they don't seem so out of place...like an oh by the way...their goofy antics made me chuckle...I could imagine the dance moves and the silly gestures and I think on screen it would be so "out of the box" like WTF...that people would have to chuckle despite themselves.

My 2 cents anyway.
~m~

"However, if I were to give the story a rethink and rewrite, I would make the difference between the Howard's and Kobal's films much greater. I would make Howard’s beach movie really seedy and sexy, almost worthy of current Kobal.  Then I would make Kobal change that movie into a sweetsie musical where everyone is good and kind to one another.  That would really get on Howard’s nerves and would push the point that Kobal is out of touch with his audience and behind the times.  "


Maybe I missed something in the script, but that seems backwards to me.

The entertainment director of Hell is surely in league with the Devil and would be attempting to glorify his Master in his work no?

Why would he want to alter an already seedy and sleazy work that is already doing Satans job for him?

Like I said before, it makes more sense if he tries to subvert a strongly religious film. That just seems to fit perfectly with the charcaters you've created.

That way you can also corrupt Howard along the way, in a simialr way to Harvey. Ie they get promised material wealth and sell out as the film goes on.

For me that raises the level of conflict in the film, gives it a far deeper theme and also creates more opportunity for comedy, plus makes it more commercial. It's a win-win situation.

Your call obviously though...

Actually I can kind of see where you're coming from.

I don't like the idea of Kobal being out of touch with his audience though. Maybe make Howard produce a typical horror, lots of tits and gore. Kobal tunrs it into a very innocent drama.

The point can be made at the end that there are millions of Horror filmmakers in Hell, so all the demons and Imps are bored out of their minds of the same old stuff and this soft melodrama is a refreshing change for them.

You could fill the cinema with all the minions of Hell weeping at the typical lover story ending.

That would make quite a funny scene and also make a point about where Cinema is heading.

Wait, I thought Howard's movie was another silly teen beach lover story drama. It wasn't "Demon Beach" at all. There was no horror in it. Kobal's movie was completely different. It went from sappy drama to horror. Did I miss something?