Yes, of course, I ran a day late  this time since I didn't know back then that my workplace was actually giving us MLK day off. It's a good surprise.

This time, we're hitting up the produced script "The Strangers" by Bryan Bertino.  This script was quarterfinalist in the Nicholls Fellowship. That's the most prestigeous screenwriting competition there is after winning an Oscar. About 7000 or so enter every year and The Strangers were in the top 300. Which I think means he landed on a list that gets sent out to agents. We just want to know what he did right so we can follow that kind of example.
Link: http://www.oscars.org/awards/nicholl/index.html

Read the script here.

As before, 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. I'd also like to treat this script like any other we do. Although, Mr. Bertino is clealy not in need of feedback, tearing it apart is the best way to learn from it, so let's follow the same basic process, but with an emphasis on what went right.

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 (since nobody's perfect).

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
And since this is produced, script-to-screen comparison for those wh have seen it.

This thread will be locked until next Monday when we'll see what we can learn.

All right, the table is open (kinda late; it's been a busy day and I forgot). We're going to try and keep the discussion solely on the script until we're done with that and then we'll move onto script-movie comparison for those who have seen it. But try, try, try to stay on the script alone until then.

My first impression of this script was that it wasn't scary (I just didn't relate to the secluded aspect of the script), it had very little dialogue, and was a slow read.  Sometimes when you read a script, you get visual imagery of the script in your head - the movie kind of plays out for you.  This script didn't do that for me, even though I have seen the movie.  

First Impression.

For me personally, Crap. Badly written with weak, unlikeable and stupid characters.

But I can see why a studio picked this up. Easy and cheap to film, no CGI or expensive make-up, single location and appeals to a large enough demographic to make some money. A $75m return on a $9m budget more than justified the studio's faith in the project and has no doubt turned a first time writer/director into a hot property. So as a film I would want to watch? No, as a film I would have liked to have written? Hell yes.

Still a pile of crap but a successful pile of crap. I will no doubt explain my reasons as we progress.

First impression: okay, but slow read  

OK, cool, we've begun.  Let's get to it.

First impression is that this was not well written.  It does not look or feel like an experienced writer wrote this.  It's very, very dull, slow, and unimaginative.   Tons of mistakes that actually shocked me (I have to assume that this is a very first draft, and definitely not the one that helped Bertino place in the Nicholls).  Also, shockingly repetitive.  Dialogue wasn't good, and our 2 protags were neither likeable, nor believable...and yes, they were completely stupid and sure didn't seem to want to survive.

Like Cornetto said, I agree that it was not at all visually written, and for me, that's a big problem.

Giles mentioned that it was a smart script in that it was cheap to put together and returned a huge profit...well, I'd disagree because it was a $10 million budgeted movie, and although it did do fantastic at the Box Office (and on DVD), there's never any guarrantees, and $10 million is far from a low budget production.

I'll stop there and wait for others to jump in.

I liked the beginning. I wanted desperately to know what exactly had happened.

Then it got worse from then on...

Hey Pia, have you seen the movie?

My first impression was that my strings were being carefully pulled.

The beginning was crafted with a strong hook and I could feel it. This is a good thing in many respects, but I also felt that many things were a little too purposeful-- even to the point of being downright silly at times.

The cryptic dialogue wore on me after awhile. The drastic changes in both their characters to suit the story felt wrong to me. Again, I'm referring to feeling that my strings were being pulled.

Did I think it was boring? No. The writer's purposeful withholding of information is what generated the desire to read on and it's this that I think led to its success.

Who were these "strangers"? Why the masks? The relationship between Kristen and James is also something that has us wondering from the beginning.

Sandra

Quoted from Dreamscale Hey Pia, have you seen the movie?

Yes, got it on my iTunes. That's why I thought the beginning was good regardless of clunky writing. It hooked me and I wanted to know what the hell was going on.

The script soon deteriorated though, but I thought the beginning was good and during the beginning it was good enough for me to forget about other short comings.

Quoted from mcornetto My first impression of this script was that it wasn't scary (I just didn't relate to the secluded aspect of the script), it had very little dialogue, and was a slow read.  Sometimes when you read a script, you get visual imagery of the script in your head - the movie kind of plays out for you.  This script didn't do that for me, even though I have seen the movie.

This is strange that you should say that. Maybe it's because you've seen the movie first? I haven't seen the movie yet; so that's probably a good thing in analyzing it as a script.

I thought there was a lot of good images at times. Particularly the rose petals and the painted toe nails, the slapping at the gun like a child, the Pin Up Girl, Strawberry... I actually could go on and on without referring back to the script; so maybe you've brought up a good point although I don't agree. I think there was great imagery. Oh yes! And her dress with the zipper at the back. It was as the stranger said about Kristen: Pretty. And we saw her decline from the prettiness.

One thing I will say though, (and this might be what wore you down) was the sentence structure. It was all This happened and that happened without any variety.

Nevertheless, it was clear that the writer was trying to focus on the action and not so much the words themselves. I works in that regard.

Sandra

I'm just reading the comments now and I have a collection of negative comments, but those aside for the time being, I didn't see it as a failure of a script.

I actually did enjoy the read even if I did feel it was a little dishonest in its means to get the read and keep it.

It used devices that work. Plain and simple. The writing itself however as people have stated isn't great from a stylistic perspective. What gives the script its appeal (if one believes it has appeal) is its devices.

Sandra

Hey Sandra, glad you're participating in this!

I think the imagery you're referring to was very simple little descriptive things. Because literally nothing was going on in terms of action and dialogue for the first 13 pages (13 minutes!!).  You focused in on anything that you could that were even remotely interesting, or entertaining.

You alos knew it was a horror script that you were reading, so you knew that you should be feeling apprehension...knowing that at any time, SOMETHING was going to happen.

I've just got to throw this out...I took notes as I read and found so many pitiful "things", and at some point, I'm going to throw them all out (don't worry...I won't do it now).  But I'l leave this post with these words, and I can't wait to read what others say about them...



"rented shoes"


ARRGGHHH!!!!

Just a quick word on the Nicholl's. While yes it is a very prestigious competition and to be a finalist is seen as a great achievement and will no doubt open many doors I have discovered that there are hundreds of quarter finalists, as many as several hundred it seems, depending on the year. So maybe having a screenplay in the quarter final stage may not be as amazing as first thought.

"rented shoes" ?

Not as smart as one would first think and it does smack of a writer trying to be too clever.

I can understand the reference (though I counted 3 times it was used!), we know this guy has been to a wedding, he is dressed in a dinner suit, shiny shoes. Maybe the writer feels it important that he is not the kind of guy who wears suits that often and the idea of a rented suit and shoes was important to the character. I could understand that in some some scripts, but of course how on earth do you show that? Unless you stick a big yellow label on the side that says "rented" then what is the point? If we don't see him pick the shoes up, or take them back to the rental shop then why bother writing it in the script?

And besides the Character of James was not that complicated, I saw no reason why we should know he is someone who rents his shoes. He could be a billionaire investment banker or work nights in Quickie-Mart, as far as this script goes it was never apparent, never mattered and I never really cared so what a strange thing to say really.

"Rented shoes" I think was a deliberate metaphor for the lives we are all living and walking in as being not permanent and we must give them (it) back after awhile.

Maybe I'm just being brilliant LOL and reading something into it, but that's what I think.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. "Rented shoes" I think was a deliberate metaphor for the lives we are all living and walking in as being not permanent and we must give them (it) back after awhile.

Exactly!!!

I read the rented shoes part an extra time as well. I thought it said a lot about the characters...  Maybe I'm weird. ;D

Actually I was being sarcastic but they don't really have a sarcastic smilie.  I think this script delves into the realm of art film and it doesn't really belong there.  What is a metaphor about shoes doing in a horror film?  I don't want to even get into the fact that he never explains exactly why she didn't say yes.  That really irked me.

Holy shit.  They're rented shoes.  Shoes a guy rented.  I can't believe I've seen 5 posts discussing it.

HaHa...there we go.  I counted at least 4 times the "rented shoes" was used, and each time, I had to laugh...harder...and harder...and...then I got pissed.  Stupid...no reason to use the term once.

Another example of how little was going on here that the writer could reference "rented shoes" 4 or more times!  OK, my tangent is over. Thanks for seeing that and commenting, you guys.  I was hoping I wasn't going insane...completely.

I thought the rented shoes along with things like the inexpensive ring and the borrowed house said a lot...

It was his Dad's house.

You think that "rented shoes" being used 4 times isn't a bit overborad?

Most guys "rent" their shoes when wearing, and usually "renting" a tux.  They were driving a frickin' Saturn...they obviously weren't of money, but all that didn't matter at all...and never came into play.

Sure, no need to be repetitive, however the rest said to me they were young people in love hoping for a nice romantic weekend using his dad's house (they borrowed it) the cheap ring and the cheap car.

Don't take me wrong, I had plenty of issues with this script, but the rented shoes weren't really part of it.

Quoted from mcornetto Actually I was being sarcastic but they don't really have a sarcastic smilie.  I think this script delves into the realm of art film and it doesn't really belong there.  What is a metaphor about shoes doing in a horror film?  I don't want to even get into the fact that he never explains exactly why she didn't say yes.  That really irked me.

The unresolved part of why she didn't say yes irked me too. Maybe though we're missing something. I think we might be here.

As to this:

What is a metaphor about shoes doing in a horror film?

Maybe I'm weird too, but why not? Is it against the horror code or something? Are there Horror police?  ;D

Sandra

Quoted from Grandma Bear I thought the rented shoes along with things like the inexpensive ring and the borrowed house said a lot...

It may say a lot if the audience could see it. But calling something a rented shoe in the script means nothing unless it can be shown to be a rented shoe.

He might have well said that his back account was empty and that he owed $400 to his bookie.

Quoted from Murphy It may say a lot if the audience could see it. But calling something a rented shoe in the script means nothing unless it can be shown to be a rented shoe. He might have well said that his back account was empty and that he owed $400 to his bookie.

I haven't seen the movie yet; so I can't comment on that. If they didn't show it, they could have and should have showed it-- that is, if they were going for this aspect.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. The unresolved part of why she didn't say yes irked me too. Maybe though we're missing something. I think we might be here.

I don't think we are missing anything.  I think he purposefully left that a mystery - more on the art film front.   I think he was trying to make his horror film artsy and I think it really didn't work, the artsy-ness became bothersome and brought down the tension level.  If this were an art film with a horror theme then maybe my expectations would have been different.  I don't have a problem with artsy or horror, just the mix he tried to make.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I haven't seen the movie yet; so I can't comment on that. If they didn't show it, they could have and should have showed it-- that is, if they were going for this aspect. Sandra

Not talking about the film Sandra, the script just says "rented shoes". A classic of example of telling and not showing.

Back to the damned shoes ;D

I disagree GM. It would simply be shown as not spiffy new shiny shoes, but scuffed and maybe not fitting perfectly... at least to me.  

Giles, you are 100% correct, and that's my entire point!  You can't show that they are rented shoes, and we as a viewing audience, never know that they're rented shoes...nor would we give 3 shits.

Right on brother for saying this again, cause it's something that we should all probably discuss...

A few have said they appreciated "reading" that James was wearing "rented shoes", and the fact that Bertino wrote it 4 times, didn't pose a problem for them...they actually thought it was good characterization.

Know what I mean?

Shelton...that's like 10 posts on the "rented shoes" now!!!!!

Quoted from Grandma Bear Back to the damned shoes ;D I disagree GM. It would simply be shown as not spiffy new shiny shoes, but scuffed and maybe not fitting perfectly... at least to me.

It's a tux, when you rent shoes for a tux you rent shiny shoes. One line of action actually says "shiny rented shoes". Besides, scuffed shoes do not usually mean rented shoes, I have some old tattered shoes that I love to wear and certainly are not rented.

I can't believe the shoe conversation is still going on, but I would have thought this would have been a simple case of everyone understanding this is certainly telling us something (three times!) that cannot be seen on screen and an example of fairly poor screenwriting craft/

Quoted from Dreamscale Shelton...that's like 10 posts on the "rented shoes" now!!!!!

Yeah, ten posts over four words in a 107 page script.  What's the point, really?  Do you think those words didn't help the costume designer?

Maybe you are right there GM. However... I still don't think the shoe thing is something that would win a producer over nor deter them from wanting to shoot the film...

In a way Shelton and Pia are right in that what does it matter? But you have to ask why then if they do not matter did the writer feel it important enough to tell us 3-4 times?

I don't really care about the shoes, apart from the bad writing. I am using it as an example of my major issue with this script and that is weak characters, I mean do I care that this guy wears rented shoes? I know nothing else about him. Who is he? Why does it matter? What if anything was the writer attempting to say about him?

I think that considering he had 13 pages of character development before the knock on the door (inciting incident) that we learned nothing about our character apart from the fact she has knocked back his proposal and his parents live in the middle of nowhere.

If these characters had been properly developed then maybe the fact he rents his tux and shoes would actually mean something.

[quote=me]Maybe you are right there GM. However... I still don't think the shoe thing is something that would win a producer over nor deter them from wanting to shoot the film...[/quote

This is an example....to me at least...of a very novice writer.  Giles and I are right in what we're saying.  There's no doubting that...is there?

To me, it's just something that sings out (once again) that mistakes of this kind are obviously more than acceptable...but why?  Is there really anything in this script that is original...exciting...terrifying...compelling...different?  I don't think so.  Is it so well written that it immediately jumps off the page at you?  And that's coming from a guy that saw the flick at the theater, thought it was well done and "good" overall, and even used it in back and forth in here many times, because of its success.

Back to first impression...it's not at all well done or polished at all.  Smells like total amateur to me (and yes, that's coming from a total amateur!).

Quoted from Dreamscale   Is it so well written that it immediately jumps off the page at you?

No, it isn't, but not very much does.  I sit back, read a script, and if I like it, I like it.  If I don't I don't.  This one falls into the latter, as well as the finished film.  I will mention that while this script is 107 pages, the film was only 85 minutes, including credits.  I'll bet a lot got cut out.

My point is that people need to stop being so goddamned analytical about things.  What everyone assumes matters, and what actually does are vastly different.

Quoted from Murphy Not talking about the film Sandra, the script just says "rented shoes". A classic of example of telling and not showing.

It is, but this was a decision that the writer made and I don't think it was an accident at all, but deliberate.

If the reader picks up on something that's subtle enough, but overt enough to be mentioned 3 times, then they're going to enjoy the irony itself.

What I'd like to know, was what did the basket ball hoop symbolize?

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. What I'd like to know, was what did the basket ball hoop symbolize?

The miracle of birth.

Quoted from Shelton My point is that people need to stop being so goddamned analytical about things.  What everyone assumes matters, and what actually does are vastly different.

I really agree with this statement. Well, the second sentence actually. I don't think there's anything wrong with being analytical. I think it's extremely interesting actually and I learn at another level entirely when I go below the water's surface.

But the fact remains that truth in what sells and what people pick bones over in scripts is vastly different.

For myself, when I write, I do it for the intangibles that are inside of the external reality we see and feel and process. The best writing has something "else" inside of it that is besides the devices, the rules/or not as the case may be.

I think the writer was touching on these levels with the "borrowed" theme. Now I'm curious if any of this came through in the movie.

Sandra

I thought the length of the script was way longer than it needed to be too. I was very surprised at the page amount especially since the film wasn't that long.

What I would like to find out though is why this script ended up in the top 300 out of 7000 scripts submitted. Was the rest of the scripts really that bad???

Ahhh, thank you Sandra, another of my issues that I noted...

Bertino used the words "basketball goal", which, by the way, is far from an ordinary description of a basketball hoop, or whatever you want to call it.  Again, he did this more than 3 times, and I thought it was so odd...and wrong.

It represented nothing, and was improperly labeled, yet, for Sandra (at least), it meant something.  Crazy!

Shelton, why should we be so God Damned less analytical?  When it comes to reviews of our own scripts, people are insanely analytical...as they should be.  C'mon.

What do you mean by that?  Let's pick this thing apart...both positive and negative...see what works, and what doesn't work.  I think we've already proven that at least 2 things that are technically incorrect, have worked for several people, just based on a read only basis, cause they'd never know what they're getting from the read.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I think the writer was touching on these levels with the "borrowed" theme. Now I'm curious if any of this came through in the movie.

Not at all, I just think the writer was trying to be clever and instead of just saying "shoes" said "rented shoes" and by mistake repeated it 3 times.

Maybe the basketball hoop was to remind us that James grew up in this house and had fond memories of it. Or maybe the writer just happened to live next door to a house with a hoop and decided to stick it in his script.

If the writer really was going for some symbolism then it missed the mark completely and is wasted on such a one-dimensional character like James. I actually do not believe that there is any symbolism here at all, I think he just wrote stuff and there is nothing more to it.

Probably should move on from the shiny rented shoes now but I disagree that is was unimportant, Not maybe the shoes themselves but as an example of clinical and an uninteresting writing style they served a purpose in the discussion.

I think a lot of things didn't come through in the movie.  Especially concerning the masked people.  In the script, the masked people have depth.  In the movie they don't.  If a came away with anything from this script it was a better understanding of the masked people.  Too bad 99% of the people who watch this movie won't be reading the script and won't have this added understanding.

Quoted from Dreamscale Ahhh, thank you Sandra, another of my issues that I noted... Bertino used the words "basketball goal", which, by the way, is far from an ordinary description of a basketball hoop, or whatever you want to call it.  Again, he did this more than 3 times, and I thought it was so odd...and wrong. It represented nothing, and was improperly labeled, yet, for Sandra (at least), it meant something.  Crazy! Shelton, why should we be so God Damned less analytical?  When it comes to reviews of our own scripts, people are insanely analytical...as they should be.  C'mon. What do you mean by that?  Let's pick this thing apart...both positive and negative...see what works, and what doesn't work.  I think we've already proven that at least 2 things that are technically incorrect, have worked for several people, just based on a read only basis, cause they'd never know what they're getting from the read.

Ok, now a pile of posts on a basket ball goal/hoop thingy. It has to mean something or he wouldn't have written it in.

How about? Life is a game. Or rust isn't a good sign.  ;D

Sandra

Quoted from Dreamscale Shelton, why should we be so God Damned less analytical?  When it comes to reviews of our own scripts, people are insanely analytical...as they should be.  C'mon. What do you mean by that?  Let's pick this thing apart...both positive and negative...see what works, and what doesn't work.  I think we've already proven that at least 2 things that are technically incorrect, have worked for several people, just based on a read only basis, cause they'd never know what they're getting from the read.

What I mean by that is that the "rented shoes" and "basketball goal" being referenced in the script have nothing to do with whether it worked or not. It didn't have anything to do with the finished film, and frankly, it sucked.

Would showcasing those shoes and goal make me think otherwise?  Probably not.

Is the story engaging? Not really.  Are people wondering why the reasoning behind Kristen turning James down wasn't revealed?  Yes.  Was it necessary to show that?  No.  It was fairly obvious in my mind.

It's things like that we should be discussing.

Quoted from Shelton Are people wondering why the reasoning behind Kristen turning James down wasn't revealed?  Yes.  Was it necessary to show that?  No.  It was fairly obvious in my mind.

Lol.

He did act like a bit of a twat, much more so in the script than the movie.

Maybe his shoes were too tight?

Probably not.

I don't know what they were doing there in the first place, I mean he acted like he hated her for turning him down. So why the hell were they still together in the first place? Any normal woman would have not gone back to his folk's place after that and any normal bloke would be on his second bottle of Jack and knee deep in strippers by then.

His attitude to her did not really make much sense and her being there made even less.

I found the entire script extremely annoying. The two main characters were so plain and indistinct, their dialogue practically overlapped. Many of the "horror" sequences I found unrealistic and bothersome. For a horror script whose story is grounded in reality, I couldn't relate to it and found myself underwhelmed.

And for those who haven't seen the movie, it's even worse.

Shelton, I agree completely, but this is the "first impressions" part of the review, and if Bertino made a conscious decision to use the words, "rented shoes" and "basketball" goal" 4 and 3 times, respectively, then that's a first impression for me!  That's why I continue to comment on it.

Your comments are agreed on by me completely, but I think they're far from a first impresssion.

Quoted from Sham I found the entire script extremely annoying. The two main characters were so plain and indistinct, their dialogue practically overlapped. Many of the "horror" sequences I found unrealistic and bothersome. For a horror script whose story is grounded in reality, I couldn't relate to it and found myself underwhelmed. And for those who haven't seen the movie, it's even worse.

What I'd like to know is the same thing that Pia asked. If it's so bad, how did it do so well?

Sandra

I think that the writer realised that he had some pretty uninteresting characters here and invented this whole proposal back-story solely to try and compensate for it. That is bad writing.

Characters should stand up for themselves, they speak to us through their dialogue and actions and that is how a good writer develops a strong character. Show us why they are deserving of our sympathy, make us feel a bond to them so that when the 3rd act kicks into gear we are rooting for their very survival and scared whenever something bad is happening.

Giving us a few half arsed flashbacks to a proposal that for some reason was rejected is not enough, not for me anyway. I read the rest of the script and couldn't care less whether they lived or died. In fact I was hoping that she would reach a very gruesome end. Like I said very bad writing.

Unfortunately our MTV generation don't seem to give a stuff about characters. All they seem to want is lots of gruesome deaths. Strange thing is they never got much of that either.

It did well because it was well done!  It accomplished what it set out to do.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It was much better done than 90% of the garbage that we get to see on the silver screen.  That's why they spent $10 million on this $100,000 idea.

Again, for all my bitching about this 2004 draft script, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done, onscreen.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. What I'd like to know is the same thing that Pia asked. If it's so bad, how did it do so well? Sandra

it's perfect for the audience it was aimed at. That in itself is justified by the strong box office performance.

If you read this script with the mind of a studio exec who wants a fairly cheap movie that is similar to other proven winners then this fits the bill. This is a great script in that respect because it is just the kind of thing many producers are looking to fund. With a solid marketing campaign it is just the kind of movie they can sell. While I think it was crap it is no worse than many of its peers. It represents a fairly low point in the history of horror films that hopefully someday soon the kids will get bored with.

Remember, it was not written for us.

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. What I'd like to know is the same thing that Pia asked. If it's so bad, how did it do so well? Sandra

Because the trailer was pretty damn good, but like most films of its kind, it's a one trick pony. Every "scary" moment of the trailer involves the strangers appearing, disappearing, and reappearing. It holds your attention for two minutes, but when you drag it on for over an hour, it becomes a monotonous experience.

I don't know why this film did so well, and I don't think anyone else does, either. If I had an answer for why bad movies made millions, I could explain to you why Meet the Spartans opened at #1.

Quoted from Dreamscale It did well because it was well done!  It accomplished what it set out to do.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It was much better done than 90% of the garbage that we get to see on the silver screen.  That's why they spent $10 million on this $100,000 idea. Again, for all my bitching about this 2004 draft script, I enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done, onscreen.

I really will be looking forward to watching this and I bet I'll say it wasn't as good as the book ...er, script.

Jeff, you know what? I'm starting to read a whole pile into this script and maybe it is crazy, but something had occurred to me in the read where James sets fire to the car. That definitely meant something I thought. Especially with all of the allusions to fire in the story. The smoking and the cigarettes was played up a lot as well as the fact that James offered to build a fire before he went out to get cigarettes.

Sandra

Quoted from Sham Because the trailer was pretty damn good, but like most films of its kind, it's a one trick pony. Every "scary" moment of the trailer involves the strangers appearing, disappearing, and reappearing. It holds your attention for two minutes, but when you drag it on for over an hour, it becomes a monotonous experience. I don't know why this film did so well, and I don't think anyone else does, either. If I had an answer for why bad movies made millions, I could explain to you why Meet the Spartans opened at #1.

Just remember folks we are talking about the script and not the film.

What we mean is why the script did so well? i.e. Nicholls and of course the fact it got bought and made with a $10m budget.

Quoted from Murphy Just remember folks we are talking about the script and not the film. What we mean is why the script did so well? i.e. Nicholls and of course the fact it got bought and made with a $10m budget.

With one setting, a handful of characters, and zero special effects, it is the cheapest movie you could ever make.

Quoted from Murphy Just remember folks we are talking about the script and not the film. What we mean is why the script did so well? i.e. Nicholls and of course the fact it got bought and made with a $10m budget.

Obviously the guy knows how to turn a phrase.  And he does an ok job at screenwriting (even though I really did not find the script all that visual - not in a filmic sense anyway).  The script falls in the low budget feature category, which is something everyone looks for, and the people who bought it were probably expecting less than that price tag.

If you've seen the film, I have this question:

Was Strawberry Shortcake and The Pin up Girl ever shown as flanking The Man in the Movie?

I'd have to go back and do another read to see if it happens in the script.

I see these two as representations of opposite forms. Yeah yeah... I know...

Sandra

I think quite possibly that somebody had seen "ils" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465203/
knew what a great little movie it was and how well it had done for a cheapo horror (probably less than a million) and then realised this script was written before that movie was released. Hey, a US rip-off of a great movie that actually isn't a rip off. It very much seems like a coincidence but maybe a good one for the writer.

Exactly Mr. Cornetto...how this turned out to be a $10 million production is completely beyond me...but maybe they realized that they had something, and they decided to up the budget to whatever it took to make this come off as what it did.

I've seen so many movies that are much better, look much better, and have WAY MORE expensive effects.  Wierd, cause when I got home from seeing this, I immediately went online to check out the cost. I was appalled at the budget..but it made over $50 million at the NABO alone, so everyone involved was laugiing all the way to the bank!

Quoted from Murphy I think quite possibly that somebody had seen "ils" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465203/ knew what a great little movie it was and how well it had done for a cheapo horror (probably less than a million) and then realised this script was written before that movie was released. Hey, a US rip-off of a great movie that actually isn't a rip off. It very much seems like a coincidence but maybe a good one for the writer.

Maybe that would be one to study next and compare with this one?

Quoted from Dreamscale Exactly Mr. Cornetto...how this turned out to be a $10 million production is completely beyond me...but maybe they realized that they had something, and they decided to up the budget to whatever it took to make this come off as what it did. I've seen so many movies that are much better, look much better, and have WAY MORE expensive effects.  Wierd, cause when I got home from seeing this, I immediately went online to check out the cost. I was appalled at the budget..but it made over $50 million at the NABO alone, so everyone involved was laugiing all the way to the bank!

Liv Tyler probably never came cheap, maybe the shoes were rented for $200,000 a day?

Well, after all this I think we should write a script and call it Rented Shoes.  ;D

YES!!!  Those rented shoes did not come cheap.  I don't know...I do know that this wa made quite awhile before it was finally released, and I agree that Miss Liv wasn;t cheapcheap, and neiither was Scott Speadman, but still, it was a 1 set deal (INT nad EXT, of course), with 6 characters (in the filmed version), and no EFX.  Remember, Hostel was filmed for under $5 million...this could easily have been made for less...

Quoted from Dreamscale YES!!!  Those rented shoes did not come cheap.  I don't know...I do know that this wa made quite awhile before it was finally released, and I agree that Miss Liv wasn;t cheapcheap, and neiither was Scott Speadman, but still, it was a 1 set deal (INT nad EXT, of course), with 6 characters (in the filmed version), and no EFX.  Remember, Hostel was filmed for under $5 million...this could easily have been made for less...

I think that considering the economy, it would be interesting to work on writing "the ultra cheap" movie, but rich for people to watch. That would be an excellent challenge.

Sandra

Quoted from "Dreamscale" YES!!!  Those rented shoes did not come cheap.  I don't know...I do know that this wa made quite awhile before it was finally released, and I agree that Miss Liv wasn;t cheapcheap, and neiither was Scott Speadman, but still, it was a 1 set deal (INT nad EXT, of course), with 6 characters (in the filmed version), and no EFX.  Remember, Hostel was filmed for under $5 million...this could easily have been made for less...

From Wikipedia:

HOSTEL:

The filming locations were at the Barrandov Studios, Prague and in the Czech Republic. In addition to the lower costs of filming in the Czech Republic, Barrandov has well-equipped sound stages, making it a popular choice for US productions set in Europe.

THE STRANGERS:

Filmed in Florence, South Carolina, beginning on October 10, 2006 and finishing in early 2007.

Does anyone know why it is more expensive to shoot in the United States? And how much more are we talking about here?

A fucking lot more!!!!!  Totally different situation!!!

Quoted from Sham From Wikipedia: HOSTEL: The filming locations were at the Barrandov Studios, Prague and in the Czech Republic. In addition to the lower costs of filming in the Czech Republic, Barrandov has well-equipped sound stages, making it a popular choice for US productions set in Europe. THE STRANGERS: Filmed in Florence, South Carolina, beginning on October 10, 2006 and finishing in early 2007. Does anyone know why it is more expensive to shoot in the United States? And how much more are we talking about here?

I don't know, but I do know that I was born and raised in Vancouver, Canada and I don't know when it happened-- the 80's? It started becoming really popular for a film location.

Vancouver is a beautiful city. It's similar to Seattle weather wise.

Apparently though- it was the right place for the right price. Thus: Vancouver is a strategic place for filming.

Sandra

Quoted from Dreamscale YES!!!  Those rented shoes did not come cheap.  I don't know...I do know that this wa made quite awhile before it was finally released, and I agree that Miss Liv wasn;t cheapcheap, and neiither was Scott Speadman, but still, it was a 1 set deal (INT nad EXT, of course), with 6 characters (in the filmed version), and no EFX.  Remember, Hostel was filmed for under $5 million...this could easily have been made for less...

I don't get it either. Even if they paid Tyler $2-3m.

Who knows, budgets are weird. Maybe it includes marketing, I would imagine they threw a couple of million at that. Maybe they paid Bertino half a million for his script and another half to direct. It could all begin to add up. I mean, this is a what, 20 day shoot? Surely no more than a month. Did they use a real house or build a set?

Wikipedia says it cos $9m. That would only leave $3-4m for the actual movie, that would make more sense.


Anyway, irrelevant to the script. The point it looks like a cheap film when reading it and that is the key to its success I guess.

And while I am slating this script for being crap, that is only as far as my own taste is concerned. Again with a Hollywood hat on this is probably a good script. If Mr Bertoni set out to make this movie for a market that would pay to watch it then he has done a good job. On a percentage of budget this movie was bigger that The Dark Knight. How scary is that?

He is currently directing his second horror feature that he co-wrote too and no doubt is getting paid handsomely for that. So while I can happily say why this script does not work for me and why I think it is crap, I cannot say he has not done an exceptional job with it. If this is what the studio's want to make and this is what the kids want to see then who can blame anyone for delivering it? Does it not make anyone wonder whether we should be doing the same?

I should add that Vancouver's got a lot going for it. It's got the coastal waters, the mountains, (up at Whistler the skiing village Jeff  ;) ) the forest areas, the rain is plentiful for those rainy scenes that you sometimes gotta have LOL, and it's even got plentiful fog if you go to Richmond. When I was a kid, we had fun playing hide and seek in it. It was thick!!!!

So yes. It's a good location.

Sandra

Quoted from Sham Does anyone know why it is more expensive to shoot in the United States? And how much more are we talking about here?

Eastern Europe, much lower standard of living combined with weaker economies means your US dollars go much further.

We used to go to Eastern European cities for boys weekends and Bucks nights. You could have a whole weekend away for less than one night in a British city.

Plus there are often generous tax breaks in many countries to try and encourage movies to be made there. It is worth a lot to the local economy to have a film crew staying in your town for a few months.

Yeah, like Giles just said, Eastern Europe, and Prague for sure, is an area that is looking for influx of US film money.  Rmember, Hostel had a shitload of local "talent".  Smart move by Eli...smart move for sure!!!

Quoted from Dreamscale Yeah, like Giles just said, Eastern Europe, and Prague for sure, is an area that is looking for influx of US film money.  Rmember, Hostel had a shitload of local "talent".  Smart move by Eli...smart move for sure!!!

Leave it to the men to talk business, I say.

Thank you gentlemen.

That's what I love about you so much.

Sandra

Quoted Text I think that considering the economy, it would be interesting to work on writing "the ultra cheap" movie, but rich for people to watch. That would be an excellent challenge.

Actually, the shrinking economy has the opposite effect on films.

They're going to stop making cheap films.

Anything over $100M (tentpole films) generally gets its money back, even if it crap because they spend $35M on advertising. There is also a sweet spot between $25M and $50M if the film is good (the changeling etc).

Pretty much anything below $10M is a 99.9% guaranteed flop at the moment, so they say, as they don't have enough money to advertise it.

Pretty much all the independent distributors and the independent acquisition arms of companies have shut up shop already.

The model now is to make fewer, but better films with large budgets.

Quoted from Murphy We used to go to Eastern European cities for boys weekends

Cough cough, I seriously hope I misunderstood that.

;)

Quoted from sniper Cough cough, I seriously hope I misunderstood that. ;)

Haha Rob, so do I. We were the boys, there were sometimes girls involved too ;-)

Oh and I will get round to your script this week btw, you should think about donating it to the script club?

Quoted from Murphy You should think about donating it to the script club?

I've been wanting to but I've just haven't had the time yet. Maybe in the future.

Quoted from Murphy Who knows, budgets are weird. Maybe it includes marketing, I would imagine they threw a couple of million at that.

Budgets don't generally include marketing costs, since they're usually picked up by the distribution company after they purchase the film.  They decide how much they want to market it and at what cost.

That's one reason why people view Blair Witch as "the little movie that could" with its 60k budget.  Most don't realize that Artisan dropped about $25m on P & A.  The movie made a crapload of money, sure, but it put out a lot more than people think to get it.

If I had to guess where the budget on The Strangers went, I'd go with the talent and producers.   Another possibility is it just plain went over budget since Bertino was a first time director.

Where did our MC go?

Are we moving on to story/plot now?

I thought this started out well. I was hooked even though the writing itself was not stellar. Why? Because I wanted to know what had happened. I didn't see this as a he decided to not propose. Something happened. Why was she drenched in red wine? What did her mother dying have to do with this? I wanted to know so I kept reading. After that it got dullish. I never really saw the relevance of the good set-up.

The plot in its simplest is just two people who had just had a bad evening experience an even worse night when teenagers decide to terrorize and kill them just for fun. The plot isn't very thick in other words.

Hey Sniper, didn't know you had a feature up!!! Congrats. I'll get to it as soon as I can!  :-)

Ok, wow. I have been caught up on stuff on this end and totally missed the nonsense from yesterday. This is now a thread with 78 posts, and a lot of them don't really relate to the script itself. So the apparent first impression of the script is that it isn't that good.

However, since this is a produced film, concentrating on what didn't work shouldn't be our focus here. We need to see why this script was picked up beyond the obvious fact that it was cheap. What did the writer do right?

We are moving onto to story/plot, so from a plot perspective, how does it fare? More to the point, what went right in there? We know there are shortcomings, but let's keep those to a minimum if possible.

And let's not discuss the rented shoes...

Ok, I will now admit that I finally got a few moments here to finally finish reading it.

My first impression was that it was simple and he appeared to do something a little different in the horror genre while doing a lot of things we're used to. It plays to the isolation part of the genre, while foregoing the big party scene that lends itself to a high body count.

Instead of teens, we have adults along with an attempt at characterization, but the character moments play very little into the larger story, and really needed to be chosen better.

As for the story/plot/structure, it had a short intro intended to hook us into the story. It needed this since it started the story proper so slowly. The detective was serving to tell us how brutal it all really was. The inciting incident fell at about the right place as the big event was also where it needed to be. The prologue throw off the page count a smidge, but we needed to learn about these people first. James and his rented shoes and Kristen and her frail body.

The story is clearly Kristen's more than James as she becomes the active character right around where act 3 would start, and yet it is right before this that the story starts to fizzle a little bit. They find a gun, but no one knows how to work, and James has an almost irrational fear of it. That needed some explanation. The old man was a cheap gag after James stated that the street was almost deserted. It was deadly obvious that he was going to get shot.

Then James goes out, and for some reason Kristen doesn't follow him. Um, safety in numbers anyone? When she does go out, she stay as out of sight as she can, but she's on her own. Then she hits the radio, and all of a sudden, doesn't know where she is. While she may not know the address, she would know the nearest city and state at the very least. I came form a wedding in (city) and we drove 50 miles out into the country to this little house. Something.

I had some character issues as well, but that's another day.

What was right about it? Well, it's a genre movie. Plain and simple. It follows the genre rules that are tried and true, so it was an easy sell. There are chases and isolations. The bad guy wins and there's lots of blood. What's not to love? It's a cheap and easy sell that's guaranteed to appeal to the horror crowd. Not only that, but it's a single location, so low budget is also guaranteed.

Genre movies are always wanted, so he couldn't lose, especially when it bent a few rules and established a couple of characters on an intimate level. It could have done a few things better to force some more difficult choices from both sides of the conflict, but he chose to keep it simple.

You have kind of summed things up nicely George, it is typical of the genre and contains the right ingredients that make these movies work. The most important one is stupid people making stupid decisions. Hence my overall dislike for this genre, the whole movie usually rests on the fact that the victims make choices that just seem to defy all logic. It is like the biggest Deux ex Machina in the world because put someone half intelligent in this position and they will escape unharmed, but of course you no longer have a movie.

If you were to sit down and write a script in this genre and you really wanted it produced this is exactly what you should write, there is no mystery as to why this was bought, it ticks all the right boxes. Hollywood execs love a winning formula, it is all they know, if something worked once they will keep doing it over and over again until it stops working, then they will move onto something else.  Just like all comic book adaptations in the wake of Dark Knight now need to be dark and broody (John August famously has had a project dropped because it was superhero movie but fun and lighthearted) the studios will not relent until they realize that we no longer want to see our superheros tortured souls and then the circle with begin again. It is screenwriting equivalent of playing to the gallery, give people what they want and you can do no wrong.

This followed an already tried and trusted formula and hence why it was so easy to greenlight. We start of with our characters in a strange situation, alone in a scary, rural house. We have quite a few pages where nothing really happens, this is supposed to build our suspense and introduce us to the characters. The inciting incident appears at Page 13, just about the right place to peak our interest and let us know something odd is happening. We then spend the rest of the first act building tension, feeling scared for our heroine.

The break into act two ramps up the tension even more and sees our heros places in a difficult situation but they still appear likely to win in the end.  The lead up into act three sees the villains gain the advantage, they take control and our heros have to fight for their lives. And of course what seems to be all the rage at the moment is that when the climax comes it is the antagonists that win, something I am beginning to get a little bored with I might add.

This genre of films is like the reality TV version of Hollywood. In a world where normal people can become celebrities while having no talent whatsoever why can't we have horror films where the monsters are not ghosts, zombies or victims of possession but are normal everyday people who just like being nasty for no other reason that they are bored? Again, this is starting to get a little boring now.  All in all it gives people what they seem to want and while it is certainly not original it seems to be slightly different enough for them to spend $9m on it.

I think George has done an excellent job of taking a look at the script from a surface perspective, however I have to disagree with the light that this thread is painting the script in.

After last night's, as George put, (nonsense) I started looking deeper into certain things that had stood out for me. Because there were things that seemed wrong and right at the same time.

I appreciate Jeff's comment on the Rented Shoes, (yes them again) even if I don't agree with the idea that they were wrong and didn't belong in the script.

As far as plot goes, I completely missed it the first time around, but now I apologize to the writer for not "getting it".

I completely felt like I was missing something and now I understand why because I've read it again and confirmed what I felt, but wasn't sure about. At least to me and you are all free to think differently of course.

This is a story about ghosts. Both Kristen and James are dead. When they enter into the house for the first time, we're already in flashback mode, but it happens as if "by magic".

How do we know what happened? Not through the characters telling us. They're dead. Not through the detective. He just has his evidence and doesn't know the whole story. So we enter into this "things gone wrong" night through our imagination completely.

Look:

The car is running.

They are two houses down from "the basketball goal".

*Not the car, not the house, but this basketball thingy.

When we end the story, the car is still running. But the writer carefully showed James
setting it on fire.

I see this story as written like a ghostly time loop- a cleverly concealed dream.

Here's something I also found so very perfectly inserted:

KRISTEN
Come back.

JAMES
I will. I just wanna see the sun.
It’s about to come up over there.
I haven’t seen a sunrise since
college.

Kristen grabs a cigarette. James watches the flame

James gazes at the light growing brighter on the horizon.

Why hasn't James seen a sunrise since he was in College? 'Cause it has something
to do with the fact that the last real sunrise he saw was the night of his death.

And this regarding the ring:

Kristen
I don’t want it.

JAMES
You should take it. I can’t keep
it. I can’t take it back.

KRISTEN
Yes you can...

JAMES
...no, I can’t.

KRISTEN
Oh...

Why can't he bring it back?

"Cause he's dead.

And this:

She tries to yell, but her voice does not come out. Her eyes
show her fear. She cannot find his voice.

Just like in dreams when you're trying to talk but can't. Trying to run, but
it's all in slow motion.

And here:

Her feet crunch the broken glass beneath her but she
seems unfazed.

She's unfazed because she's a ghost.

The sun peeks over the barn. It is hard for James to see
because of the glare from the window.

I think it would be hard for James to see because he's dead,
not because of any glare. But he sees. He's trying to see.

The women stare
at Kristen’s dress as it turns red in front of them.

James and Kristen are still alive.

This says it all.

The music fades and the record player hums, waiting for the
next song.

The next song is the next go around of this paradox of paradoxes.

This is written as a time loop.

A person dies after being stabbed like it's been depicted, but:

He turns to call to his friend and Kristen bolts up, her
hands ripping at his shirt.

She's not dead. The car is running.

In the barn, she doesn't know where she is because ghosts don't
always know that they're dead. Or if they do, they just can't
let go for some reason.

In this case, these two were unable to get married, but strangely,
they're together forever after all.

Sandra

Sandra, while I am glad you have seen something else in this script I think you are giving the writer far too much credit. This is a paint by numbers tale of two stupid people stuck in a house being attacked by bored teenagers. I honestly do not believe for a second that it goes any deeper than that.

Of course you are free to interpret this script in any way that you want, a good movie should have the ability to say different things to different people. Though I think in this case you are seeing things that just don't seem to be there.

The beauty about any medium of entertainment is that people can interpret in whatever way is best for them. There are people that see stories within stories across the ages whether the author *intended* for the to be there or not. But therein lies the beauty of being in that writing zone. Sometimes you have your idea and write to that idea, and when you write, your subconscious flows in almost impossible ways. This is an earlier draft of the script than was shot, and it's possible some of the author's subconscious remains that brought in all kinds of interesting ideas and Sandra found some. I think it's clever.

Quoted from Murphy You have kind of summed things up nicely George, it is typical of the genre and contains the right ingredients that make these movies work. The most important one is stupid people making stupid decisions. Hence my overall dislike for this genre, the whole movie usually rests on the fact that the victims make choices that just seem to defy all logic. It is like the biggest Deux ex Machina in the world because put someone half intelligent in this position and they will escape unharmed, but of course you no longer have a movie.

This I disagree with to an extent. I do agree that these films have this ingredient of the stupid people doing stupid things, but I think these films can be made better if some measure of logic were infused into the characters. Imagine how differently the outdoor scene would have played out if they'd both gone to the barn and were separated forcibly by the antagonists instead of separating themselves. What would have changed if Kristen told the radio guy "I'm at 1801 Clark Road"? What if the old guy hadn't come in to be shot and the strangers were forced to deal with the gun themselves? Or what if they'd had someone with them ready to deal with this? What you'd have is a movie with a lot more action from its participants instead of one that relies on what amounts to coincidence to make it go.

My dearest Sandra...I cannot disagree with you more on what you've posted, I'm sorry to say.  I've seen this movie twice, and read all kinds of stuff on it, and at no time did I ever think for a second that it involved ghosts, or anythign remotely like that.

As Giles has said repeatedly, this is a by the numbers horror script.  But actually, it's not by the number and that's why it did well and was well received and greenlighted.

By the numbers horror involves more people, a much higher body count, outlandish kills, etc.  This had none of that, and went for a more real atmosphere.  It was touted as an actual true life story (which is BS), and asked the question, "what would you do in this situation?".  Well, I sure wouldn't do what James and Kristen did, but that's another story.

On film this worked, but for me, on paper, it's pretty weak, cause there's so little going on, and it's so very simple.  I have to believe that the final draft of the script was much, much better (we know it was very differnt, just based on the filmed movie, vs. this script).

No ghosts here, my friend!

Quoted from George Willson This I disagree with to an extent. I do agree that these films have this ingredient of the stupid people doing stupid things, but I think these films can be made better if some measure of logic were infused into the characters. Imagine how differently the outdoor scene would have played out if they'd both gone to the barn and were separated forcibly by the antagonists instead of separating themselves. What would have changed if Kristen told the radio guy "I'm at 1801 Clark Road"?

But these things would most likely have happened if our characters had an amount of intelligence, i.e. were less stupid. That is what I mean by my comment about stupid people being the key to making this genre work. Not sure you really are disagreeing.

Quoted from Dreamscale As Giles has said repeatedly, this is a by the numbers horror script.  But actually, it's not by the number and that's why it did well and was well received and greenlighted. By the numbers horror involves more people, a much higher body count, outlandish kills, etc.  This had none of that, and went for a more real atmosphere.  It was touted as an actual true life story (which is BS), and asked the question, "what would you do in this situation?".  Well, I sure wouldn't do what James and Kristen did, but that's another story.

Naaahh, this is nothing new. The "true life story" or "reality horror" was not invented by this script, as I have said it is almost exactly the same as "ils" released 2 years earlier, and even that was not the first.

I was not talking about a "by the numbers horror" but a "by the numbers reality horror", this adds nothing new to the genre that has not been seen before. I can almost guarantee that this was not green-lit because it was different, it was green-lit because it followed an existing formula and Hollywood loves that cookie cutter machine.

Giles, I'm a horror buff for sure, in that I see and have seen just about literally everything that has come out, and although this is not unique, it is different, and comes across as different.

It is a very high level of tension, and once it gets going, it never lets up.  The different thing is that basically, no one dies until the very end, and there isn't any reveal or twist at the end.

Mainstream horror is few and far between recently.  Seriously, look at all the releases in the last 2 years and you'll see what I mean.  This was played as real the entire way through...no wise cracking killers, no over the top set pieces...just good old fashioned stalk and torment, and then kill.  It's rare that the good guys die and the bad guys get away stock free.  It just doesn't happen that way very often.

To try and get back on point here are my thoughts on this story and why I think that it just fell apart from word go. It relied on the fact that the two protagonists would make the wrong decisions and the antagonists relied on being lucky that these two unknown victims would not make the right decisions.

Let us start with the whole premise...

1 - Out Antag's are indiscriminately knocking on doors trying to find suitable victims. - They pick a couple in their mid-20's both physically fit and presumably not stupid. Are they really the right choice?  Oh, lucky for us they are stupid - that's a relief!

3 - She smokes, she is out of cigarettes, but despite being dumped James is happy to drive somewhere to buy her some smokes - he must be a nice guy - that's a relief!

3 - They allow James to drive off looking for cigarettes. How do they know where is going? How do they know he is not picking up 4 of his football playing, weightlifting friends from the train station? Oh, he has come back alone - that's a relief!

Why did they allow him to drive off not knowing where he was going? It made no sense when you think of what happened the next time they tried to drive off.

4 - She has got a mobile phone!! Oh no! Oh, lucky there, it is out of battery - that's a relief!

5 - James has left his phone in the car - that's a relief!

6 - All this time and James forgets he has a gun - that's a relief!

7 - Oh no, we forgot the radio!! But she has no idea where she is, not even which state she is in - that's a relief!

8 - James remembers he has a gun, but does not know how to use it - that's a relief!

9 - They decide, against all the odds, to split up - that's a relief!


And it goes on. It seems like no real thought was put into this screenplay at all, just one lucky coincidence after another.

And to be honest, I don't think the movie was any better at all. In fact in some ways the script worked better, at least we got some kind of idea of what the antags were doing.

Like I said earlier, I thought the script started out pretty good, leaving us wondering what on earth has happened before. But it soon loses that because the characters are extremely stupid.

I agree with what you are saying GM except for when I watched the move it felt a lot more tense. I felt no tension or thrills in the script. So I agree with your points there GM, but I agree with Jeff on the movie.

Although I have to agree with what Giles has said, I don't think it's fair to lay things out like that and point out all the negatives, and only the negatives.  In most movies, we have to suspend our disbelief to allow the movie to work, in the ways that it can.

Compare this to most mainstream horror, and you'll see that it is much better...it makes more sense, it's done better, and it works better.

Quoted from Dreamscale Giles, I'm a horror buff for sure, in that I see and have seen just about literally everything that has come out, and although this is not unique, it is different, and comes across as different. It is a very high level of tension, and once it gets going, it never lets up.  The different thing is that basically, no one dies until the very end, and there isn't any reveal or twist at the end. Mainstream horror is few and far between recently.  Seriously, look at all the releases in the last 2 years and you'll see what I mean.  This was played as real the entire way through...no wise cracking killers, no over the top set pieces...just good old fashioned stalk and torment, and then kill.  It's rare that the good guys die and the bad guys get away stock free.  It just doesn't happen that way very often.

Ils, Wolf Creek, Eden Lake are just three that spring to mind that rely on the same formula. Although In Wolf Creek at least one of the protags manages to escape. And like I have already said Ils is almost the exact same film.

It certainly has a European influence to it, Europe has taken the place of Japan for influencing US horror at the moment and this style of film is typical of European horror. Looks at films like The Devil's backbone for instance, classed as a horror but is 90 minutes of story with a build up of suspense with the actual horror occurring in the final moments. The Orphanage too is very similar.


* But of course these movies do horror/suspense with far more intelligence that The Strangers, I dislike having to stretch my limits of believability just to watch a movie. As i said, this movie was not made for me, I can live with that and think this writer did a good job of doing all that was expected of him. My problem is the people who watch these movies and do not demand a better class of horror for their money, better writing and more believable plots and stories.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Like I said earlier, I thought the script started out pretty good, leaving us wondering what on earth has happened before. But it soon loses that because the characters are extremely stupid. I agree with what you are saying GM except for when I watched the move it felt a lot more tense. I felt no tension or thrills in the script. So I agree with your points there GM, but I agree with Jeff on the movie.

If I was to say one positive thing it would be the scene where she is in the Kitchen and one of the baddies is just standing in the room watching her. Very good suspense and a little scary, it was actually the highlight of the whole script/movie for me. I found it very creepy when we just saw them lurking in the background - that was well done.

Quoted from Murphy To try and get back on point here are my thoughts on this story and why I think that it just fell apart from word go. It relied on the fact that the two protagonists would make the wrong decisions and the antagonists relied on being lucky that these two unknown victims would not make the right decisions. Let us start with the whole premise... 1 - Out Antag's are indiscriminately knocking on doors trying to find suitable victims. - They pick a couple in their mid-20's both physically fit and presumably not stupid. Are they really the right choice?  Oh, lucky for us they are stupid - that's a relief! 3 - She smokes, she is out of cigarettes, but despite being dumped James is happy to drive somewhere to buy her some smokes - he must be a nice guy - that's a relief! 3 - They allow James to drive off looking for cigarettes. How do they know where is going? How do they know he is not picking up 4 of his football playing, weightlifting friends from the train station? Oh, he has come back alone - that's a relief! Why did they allow him to drive off not knowing where he was going? It made no sense when you think of what happened the next time they tried to drive off. 4 - She has got a mobile phone!! Oh no! Oh, lucky there, it is out of battery - that's a relief! 5 - James has left his phone in the car - that's a relief! 6 - All this time and James forgets he has a gun - that's a relief! 7 - Oh no, we forgot the radio!! But she has no idea where she is, not even which state she is in - that's a relief! 8 - James remembers he has a gun, but does not know how to use it - that's a relief! 9 - They decide, against all the odds, to split up - that's a relief! And it goes on. It seems like no real thought was put into this screenplay at all, just one lucky coincidence after another. And to be honest, I don't think the movie was any better at all. In fact in some ways the script worked better, at least we got some kind of idea of what the antags were doing.

I saw the coincidences too and I commented early about it being silly-willy from a lot of perspectives with the same kind of questions you ask such as:

Why does he finally remember there's a gun? Why did she "absently" cut herself when she was in the bedroom squeezing into the knife? There were a lot of things like that I know.

But according to an interview with Brian that I just researched, he took part of the idea from his childhood growing up out in the middle of nowhere and he said it always scared him because there weren't any people around for miles.

He certainly might not have intended these people to be ghosts, but this script sure does have a certain sensibility about it, (to me that is) and I can appreciate it for its strengths.

The sentence style may be very bland, but there's something about it that resonates with me.

The question came up:

Why me/us? And the answer from The Stranger is simply: Because you were home.

Well isn't that the way? When bad luck comes knocking at your door-- you get an illness, you get in a car accident, you meet up with a killer... What is the reason? Because you were there. With the circumstances and negative energies culminating around you and  there you have it: Because you were home.

There are many incidences where the writer doesn't intend something, and other people see it.

I would love to have Brian Bertino show up on these boards and ask him a few questions myself.

Sandra

Quoted from Murphy To try and get back on point here are my thoughts on this story and why I think that it just fell apart from word go. It relied on the fact that the two protagonists would make the wrong decisions and the antagonists relied on being lucky that these two unknown victims would not make the right decisions. Let us start with the whole premise... 1 - Out Antag's are indiscriminately knocking on doors trying to find suitable victims. - They pick a couple in their mid-20's both physically fit and presumably not stupid. Are they really the right choice?  Oh, lucky for us they are stupid - that's a relief! 3 - She smokes, she is out of cigarettes, but despite being dumped James is happy to drive somewhere to buy her some smokes - he must be a nice guy - that's a relief! 3 - They allow James to drive off looking for cigarettes. How do they know where is going? How do they know he is not picking up 4 of his football playing, weightlifting friends from the train station? Oh, he has come back alone - that's a relief! Why did they allow him to drive off not knowing where he was going? It made no sense when you think of what happened the next time they tried to drive off. 4 - She has got a mobile phone!! Oh no! Oh, lucky there, it is out of battery - that's a relief! 5 - James has left his phone in the car - that's a relief! 6 - All this time and James forgets he has a gun - that's a relief! 7 - Oh no, we forgot the radio!! But she has no idea where she is, not even which state she is in - that's a relief! 8 - James remembers he has a gun, but does not know how to use it - that's a relief! 9 - They decide, against all the odds, to split up - that's a relief! And it goes on. It seems like no real thought was put into this screenplay at all, just one lucky coincidence after another. And to be honest, I don't think the movie was any better at all. In fact in some ways the script worked better, at least we got some kind of idea of what the antags were doing.

I strongly agree with most of this.

However, I will say that most city boys like the one in this script truly don't know how to use a gun, so his urgency when trying to use one was spot-on to me. It was something different that really worked.

Quoted from Murphy 1 - Out Antag's are indiscriminately knocking on doors trying to find suitable victims. - They pick a couple in their mid-20's both physically fit and presumably not stupid. Are they really the right choice?  Oh, lucky for us they are stupid - that's a relief!

I think the antags are expecting the protags to be stupid.  I think that is part of the point of the story.  Everything points at them being pretty dumb.  

Even the stuff with the engagement.  He was stupid enough to think she would say yes - despite something about her mother something something...He even went so far as to put roses in the bathtub...

She was stupid enough to come home with him after saying no...

So we're set up for them to be stupid and any stupid things they do later are in character.

Quoted from mcornetto I think the antags are expecting the protags to be stupid.  I think that is part of the point of the story.  Everything points at them being pretty dumb.   Even the stuff with the engagement.  He was stupid enough to think she would say yes - despite something about her mother something something...He even went so far as to put roses in the bathtub... She was stupid enough to come home with him after saying no... So we're set up for them to be stupid and any stupid things they do later are in character.

Good point. Some of the things are blatantly stupid and that's one of the problems I had in my feelings towards the script. I couldn't understand how "the stupidness" worked. I felt it wasn't just stupid. That's what was coming through to me. That's why I read the script again. Maybe that was stupid. I don't know. But I didn't feel bad about reading it again. I still feel there's more to it than what's on the surface, but after reading Brian's interview, I agree with Jeff that ghosts weren't (at least not on a conscious level) intended. That's something I'm perceiving. Unless Brian is keeping that his little secret.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. Good point. Some of the things are blatantly stupid and that's one of the problems I had in my feelings towards the script. I couldn't understand how "the stupidness" worked. I felt it wasn't just stupid. That's what was coming through to me. That's why I read the script again. Maybe that was stupid. I don't know. But I didn't feel bad about reading it again. I still feel there's more to it than what's on the surface, but after reading Brian's interview, I agree with Jeff that ghosts weren't (at least not on a conscious level) intended. That's something I'm perceiving. Unless Brian is keeping that his little secret. Sandra

Thinking about my last sentence:

I think that with some of my work, I will certainly keep a few secrets so that the audience can discern what they want from it. That's an important thing I think:

Leaving some things open to speculation.

These points on stupidness actually help me in understanding why I feel the way I do about this script. I think it's very much like a painting or any piece of art: The painter, the artist, the author-- they leave an impression of themselves in the work. I don't know what it is and I don't know why some of us connect with something and others don't, but that's special in itself.

For me this is a totally weird moment of gratefulness because I wouldn't be analyzing this script if it wasn't for Simplyscripts. And I do plan on seeing the movie so that's another thing that wouldn't have happened. Whether it comes of to me as good or bad it doesn't matter. I have the opportunity to connect with some writing that means something to me personally. This is an awesome experience. But then again-- I don't take movies for granted.

The amount of movies I've watched in my life are minuscule compared to some of the heavy fans here. I grew up in a day when to watch a movie meant that you darkened the room and ran those old reels-- if you were lucky enough to own one. The other option was "the vacation slide" view. That too involved closing the drapes and making a big production of it.

I never did get the click on a movie in the middle of the afternoon for no good reason thing. Although today-- that's what people do.

So for me, movies are still very much of a novelty. When I go to see one in a theater. IT'S A BIG DEAL!!!!

Studying scripts without having seen the movie first is a marvelous opportunity because they truly are two completely different mediums and yet the script animal
must serve its purpose and be the tunnel into the visual realm.

I went to a hockey game tonight, but tomorrow night I think I'll be watching The Strangers.

Thanks everyone,

Sandra

All right, for the next day, let's move on to the characterization/arc/journey portion.

Did you get a sense of who these people were? Were you able to relate to them or sympathize with them? Were you sad to see them go or grateful that they weren't able to do anything else stupid?

Personally, I would like to have seen something in their character background to explain some of the things that happened. One thing I never fully understood was why she said no. Ok, she's not ready, but why not? Is it just because her mother died? Well, they just came from a wedding which makes the stereotypical single woman a little wedding crazy. I think I missed when mom died, which might have factored in, but even then, losing someone close to you makes you long for someone else in your life, so what was it that really made her say no?

And I would also have liked to know what it was about guns that freaked him out. I grew up in a city. Well, it's more like suburbia, but still, I never had a need to hunt or defend myself throughout my entire life and yet, I don't fear guns. Now, I was in the military and I managed to score expert on the M16 and M60, but still, I've never been in any kind of battle to necessitate me shooting at someone. I also wasn't afraid of the weapon when they issued it to me. If I were threatened, they would find me to be one heck of a shot. Usually, a fear that profound stems from something in the past. We never learn that. An innate fear of guns? I don't think so.

We had a whole lot of hotel flashbacks that told us very little to nothing about these people. I know they were supposed to, but those scenes didn't relate to the STORY. It would have been so easy to plug those flashback with pertinent character building info, but instead, it was more about whatever their relationship is or was supposed to be and didn't really define anything for me. Maybe I missed something.

In the end, after watching the stupidity, I was kinda numb. As a person, I was sad to see them lose, but no part of me was lost when they went. I can relate to the fear of the isolation and situation. Yeah, that would really suck, but that's the atmosphere, not the character.

Now, as for their journey, the experience did serve to bring them somewhat closer together, and I wonder if they might have ended up together in the end had they survived. After all, they nearly had sex despite the fact that she dumped him right before. And although he didn't defend her or show much in the way of bravery, she might have found him more endearing in the end. She did keep the ring on. So as a journey, they showed some growth as a couple which helped to bolster the sadness of the ending, so that's something.

Quoted from Shelton What I mean by that is that the "rented shoes" and "basketball goal" being referenced in the script have nothing to do with whether it worked or not. It didn't have anything to do with the finished film, and frankly, it sucked. Would showcasing those shoes and goal make me think otherwise?  Probably not. Is the story engaging? Not really.  Are people wondering why the reasoning behind Kristen turning James down wasn't revealed?  Yes.  Was it necessary to show that?  No.  It was fairly obvious in my mind. It's things like that we should be discussing.

It was because he wore rented shoes, right?

Quoted from Sham I don't know why this film did so well, and I don't think anyone else does, either. If I had an answer for why bad movies made millions, I could explain to you why Meet the Spartans opened at #1.

Dummy!  If I had an answer for why bad movies made millions, I would have written Meet The Spartans!   :P

I wish I was better at articulating my thoughts...

I agree George that the journey here was them as a couple. Individually I didn't really understand them at all. I also didn't find either one of them likable at all. Their relationship didn't really work for me at all. They didn't seem particularly close or anything. I think they must have been pretty close before the previous evening and must have known each other so when they are threatened by outsiders it seemed to me they would work and rely on each other pretty well, but their relationship didn't come across as such at all, IMHO of course.

The fumbling with the gun on James' part almost embarrassing.

Don't know if any of this makes sense... it did to me..  :-)

Possibly she woke up and realized she could never love a man who wears rented shoes?

Personally I never connected with either of them at all, they were both easy to dislike, both rather shallow and lacking personality, and yes, no back story at all, which the hardest thing to understand seen as we had so many flashbacks and had plenty of time to build character.

Who were they? What did they do? Where are they from?

Nothing. To enjoy a movie I need to believe in the characters, these guys I couldn't and it is as simple as that.

.......

On a related note there is an excellent article in the LA Times about Horror movies and what the studio's are looking for at the moment. Well worth a read....

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-ca-horror25-2009jan25,0,4347465,full.story

Good one GM.

I thought Kristen seemed extremely clingy and it annoyed me that she kept apologizing.

Nowhere in this script did I read them saying anything intelligent. Only lots and lots of repetediv stuff like

KRISTEN
It’s so cold.
JAMES
Just think about the bed.   It’s
warm in the bed.
KRISTEN
Can’t this wait til tomorrow?
JAMES
I’m thirsty.  I need ice.  We could
be sleeping.

One of the things that really got to me was at one point during the script the couple was trying to be sexy with one another.  I don't know about you, but if I were in this situation the last thing on my mind would be sex (and that says a lot).

I also agree that we really needed to know why she says no to him in the first place.  It almost seems like he expects that he has explained it obliquely.  But he hasn't.  

Quoted from mcornetto One of the things that really got to me was at one point during the script the couple was trying to be sexy with one another.  I don't know about you, but if I were in this situation the last thing on my mind would be sex (and that says a lot).

Actually, I can say this has happened to me on more than one occasion. There is a name for it, "break-up fuck" or something? That scene actually never felt that odd to me, or at least it would not if we had a bit more detail about them and what happened. I guess it did come across as a bit cold and clinical but having an imagination helps, we can sort of fill in the blanks with emotional experiences of out own. If that makes any sense? Still not good as the movie should be providing us with some emotion rather than relying on us to imagine or remember those feelings for ourselves.

But in order to believe in these characters we really should have had some knowledge of what happened. If this were my script I would have started at the wedding. Surely they knew people there? had friends there? What a great place for some exposition and a way to clear up some of those strange decisions that were made later on.

She is in the bathroom with a girlfriend, discussing James and how she is not sure anymore, maybe she has feelings for someone else, maybe she is scared etc.. etc..

* Tick one for having a reason.

Her friend offers to take her back to her place and stay there for a couple of days. She says no, she can't, she needs to go back to Jame's parents house because.... I don't know, maybe he is epileptic and she does not want to leave him alone, maybe her car is parked there? Can't be hard to think of something.

* Another tick for getting over the strange reason why she is there at all.

At the same time James is talking to his friend, they suggest he goes and parties with them. No he needs to take her back, he does't want to to just dump her, he wants to show her he can handle this etc..

etc... etc...

Not difficult is it?

Quoted from Murphy Actually, I can say this has happened to me on more than one occasion. There is a name for it, "break-up fuck" or something? That scene actually never felt that odd to me, or at least it would not if we had a bit more detail about them and what happened.

I don't think a "break-up fuck" is that unusual but it is when you are being terrorized by a bunch of masked "whatever they are".

The "sex scene" came before they were terrorized.

As for James and Kristen's characters, I actually don't agree that we needed anything more than we got.  This isn't a movie that needs to go into much detail or background...I think that's why most of these scenes didn't make the final cut of the film.  I personally didn't care or even think about why she turned him down, as it didn't have anything to do with the plot and action.

I do agree that neither was very interesting though.  Was I routing for them?  Of course I was.  Do characters need to be well developed in a horror flick?  I don't really think so.  Should they be more developed than what we get here?  Probably, but I think that's the least of the problems with the script.

It's already painfully slow and dull until the first knock at the door.  And because of the tiny cast, extremely limited scene settings, and very simple premise, I think that Bertino was simply going for nothing more than tension and terror, which works so much better on screen than on the written page.

Much of what worked in the film was creepy BG shots of the masked man lurking in the shadows, unknown to Kristen (as someone said earlier).

This just isn't a genre where backstory or character arc really comes into play.  I know alot of you shoot these types of projects down because of that, but I definitely don't.  It is what it is, and we should understand that and discuss what does work and what doesn't work, within what Bertino was trying to accomplish.

What Brian's done is painted these characters in a kind of empty shell.

This is amazing to me.

Look:

KRISTEN MCKAY WAS BORN ON AUGUST 26TH,
1977.

JAMES HOTOPP WAS BORN ON OCTOBER 12TH,
1975.

No mention of when they died. No mention of anything unique to them.

This same thing appears at the end of the script. No mention of the
date of their death.

All they appear on the page is as if they're empty vessels.

The situation is creating a whole atmosphere around them.

The writing's simplicity enhances the emptiness of the characters.

JAMES
You can smoke if you want.

KRISTEN
Your dad won’t get mad?

JAMES
I don’t care. He won’t after this.

**Why would James say that? *After this.*

Note that the name of Tamara is a character in an American horror film entitled: Tamara

Does the girl in that film who was treated shabbily by her peers have anything
to do with Kristen's "prettiness" as being a reason that she was stalked out
this way? Yes, she's pretty, but also pretty empty and shallow. She doesn't
want to say yes to James perhaps because she still feels there are greener
pastures out there?

A good person looks at the soul; not at the looks. Kristen does care a lot
about her looks. That's why she wants to wear the dress. Does she really
think she's pretty though? She calls herself a fatty.

In this script it feels like these characters are empty on purpose.

Their characters aren't inside of them. Their characters are inside of their circumstances.

**

When James says,

JAMES
No it doesn’t. Look at me. Not
tonight. Look at me. Don’t think
about why, okay. They’re bad. If
they come through this door again,
all I will be thinking about is how
to get them the fuck out.

Then he says:

They’re not like you.

Why would he say that? They're bad people. Is she a sinner? Sometimes?

Regarding the hotel flashbacks:

I had wondered about these myself and to me I was thinking that
it reinforced on the empty and borrowed theme.

My guess is that these two individuals are in the kind of relationship
where there exists a kind of emptiness. There may be love. A "kind" of
love, but it's a love/hate relationship perhaps. Maybe more based on
sex than anything else. Why else would they have so little to talk
about? Nothing of any substance.

Here:

INT. HOTEL HALLWAY - LATE AFTERNOON

James walks back and forth between two rooms. His hands are
full of fast-food bags and drinks. He stops himself from
knocking on one of the doors. Unsure, he pauses, then
presses his ear against the door. He backs away, surveying
the two choices again.
Then, he knocks on both. Kristen opens the door.

*After that, Kristen calls him a retard when he explains
he forgot which room.

Regarding the proposal:

KRISTEN
Why did you have to wait? I
wanted...I needed you to ask me.

JAMES
You should have told me.

KRISTEN
James?

JAMES
I wish you would have told me.

KRISTEN
I’m lying.

Kristen has a lot to say here
it seems:

Page 49

KRISTEN
That day when my mom...when she
died. My dad called, remember. It
was a Saturday. We were going to
lunch. He called and I went into
the bedroom and he told me. I
remember falling to my knees and
the way the weight felt against my
bare skin. It burned. I was
kneeling on the ground holding the
phone in my right hand and looking
at my knees.


KRISTEN (cont’d)
My dad was talking, telling me
about a plane ticket. I can
remember the sound of his voice,
but not the words. You know? Just
his voice. I just stared down at my
knee. You came in after a few more
seconds and when you put your arms
around me it felt good.
But I didn’t need it the way I
thought I would. I didn’t call for
you. The way I thought should.

*A lot of words, but again: emptiness. It seems actually loveless.

She recognized she didn't feel she needed
comforting.

The question of James' fear of guns:

Kristen says:

KRISTEN
Baby...

JAMES
Don’t call me that!

He may have been called a baby by either his father or kids when he was young.

Who knows why he was afraid of guns. There isn't necessarily a reason for
everything. Why are some people obsessive compulsive? Why are some people lazy?

With this:

JAMES
Fuck this.

JAMES
Fuck you!

JAMES
Just shut up.

His tone is cruel.

This is showing his character, but again, only through the circumstances.

At the hotel:

KRISTEN
Come back to bed.

JAMES
I will. Just a second.

James gazes at the light growing brighter on the horizon.

JAMES
Are you happy?

KRISTEN
Sometimes.

JAMES
That’s not enough.

KRISTEN
I don’t think I can try any harder.

JAMES
I’ll help you.

KRISTEN
You can’t.

JAMES
I will.

KRISTEN
You can’t.

*James can't make Kristen happy. It has to come
from herself.

But maybe Kristen doesn't want to be helped. She
didn't want it from James; she didn't even really
want it from the guy on the radio.

When Strawberry says,

STRAWBERRY (O.S.) (cont’d)
He told me. You said no.

She's either lying, but if she's not... ???

When James is dying and Kristen finally says,

KRISTEN
I need you now. James. I need you.

*You know what rings for me at this point?

Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you've got
'till it's gone. They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Again, maybe it's just me, but I see deliberate bareness in this script.

It's like they're trying to rationalize their relationship- what to do, but
it seems they have some kind of foreknowledge that this is it- the end
of the line. Even before they hear a single knock or see a single stranger.

The characters seem to be built around the context from the very beginning.
Even if it's built as a mystery of what that context is. It's our job to find out.

The characters do recognize their love in the end, but we're still left to
wonder about Kristen.

Sandra

I agree with most of what you said here Jeff except for the background part. Do we need them in horror flicks? No, not that much, but in this case the script started out in such a way that we wanted to know more, wanted to know what had happened and who they are. I thought the script started out good for that reason, but left me feeling disappointed in the end.

Quoted from Dreamscale It is what it is, and we should understand that and discuss what does work and what doesn't work, within what Bertino was trying to accomplish.

Haha, why does that make me chuckle? never mind, thinking about a previous script club, you sound like me now and I remember getting shot down for that.

It is plainly obvious that Bertino very successfully accomplished everything he wanted with this script. He wanted to write a film in a genre where character and strong plot is not important and that is exactly what we have here. As character and plot are two of the most important element of any screenplay then not an awful lot more for us to talk about. Ironically it is one of the worst pro scripts I have ever read and yet one of the best pieces of work I have seen from a first time writer. The mind boggles.

Not to mention first time director...

Pia, you were probably looking for alot more here, and I totally understand that.  It sounds like you enjoyed the slow parts here, the slow build...you wanted to know the backstory so these characters would have a real story.

It's obvious that bertino didn't want that.  This draft does actually have alot more backstory than the final cut had, and for me, I'm glad they were cut out, as they weren't necessary, and really didn't have anything to do with the plotline, which was quite simply, a group of lunatics terrorize a couple in their cottage, and then kill them.

That's really all this was about.

I actually kind of agree with Giles when he suggeted an opening at the wedding with some backstory.  If I remember correctly, the filmed version does have some of that, but we don't get much.  We do meet James' friend though, who shows up at the house, only to die, replacing the old man walking teh streets thing, which was just so obvious, as we've already said.

Quoted from Dreamscale This just isn't a genre where backstory or character arc really comes into play.  I know alot of you shoot these types of projects down because of that, but I definitely don't.  It is what it is, and we should understand that and discuss what does work and what doesn't work, within what Bertino was trying to accomplish.

As I said in my last post, I think that Bertino created the emptiness and lack in the characters on purpose. Their dialogue is conspicuously void.

I think he accomplished what he set out to do. I don't know however whether the things I see and feel from it was intentional, or if it was completely his subconscious that was creating the loveless characters, devoid of life context.

It didn't matter it seemed. They were born. That's all that mattered. It was like they had no life prior.

Conspicuously absent lives, knowledge... even their deaths were absent.

Do you think that Brian was too stupid to see this? I don't.

Sandra

I don't think Bertino is in any way stupid, but I just feel he concentrated on tension and terror, over character development and the like.

Quoted from Dreamscale I don't think Bertino is in any way stupid, but I just feel he concentrated on tension and terror, over character development and the like.

Absolutely. I agree. He made these characters as empty vessels ruled by their circumstances. They're in a relationship that is driven sexually, and it shows by the scene, but something holds Kristen back from wanting to "need" James.

It seems to me like she does/doesn't at the same time.

She let's him make her a fire, go get her cigarettes, ... He wants her to need him. He wants to be the giver. It shows in all of his actions even in helping to unzip her dress and smoking together with her.

Sandra

The thing with the missing character points to me is that to build a character doesn't take much. All you have to do is make them human which can be done by giving them a life outside the plot that could relate to both the plot and to us. We have to know that they had a life before the movie started and would have had a life when it ended. How much would that have added to the length? Almost nothing. Probably a minute with stuff peppered here and there throughout that would have satisfied all of my questions and build them to fuller people than we got.

You don't need new scenes to build a character. You just need some kind of substance in the scenes you already have. Choose their words and actions carefully. Make them real. This is almost always grossly overlooked. It takes less than one thinks to create a rounded character. Or rather, it takes work on a backstory that you never see, but almost no time on screen if you know them well enough because all that work will come through.

Agreed George...and everyone else...but doesn't it change your mindset just a tad, knowing what a complete success this script turned into?  Like, maybe that stuff that you always thought was so important, isn't afterall?  At least in this genre?

Know what I'm saying?

Quoted from George Willson The thing with the missing character points to me is that to build a character doesn't take much. All you have to do is make them human which can be done by giving them a life outside the plot that could relate to both the plot and to us. We have to know that they had a life before the movie started and would have had a life when it ended. How much would that have added to the length? Almost nothing. Probably a minute with stuff peppered here and there throughout that would have satisfied all of my questions and build them to fuller people than we got. You don't need new scenes to build a character. You just need some kind of substance in the scenes you already have. Choose their words and actions carefully. Make them real. This is almost always grossly overlooked. It takes less than one thinks to create a rounded character. Or rather, it takes work on a backstory that you never see, but almost no time on screen if you know them well enough because all that work will come through.

I know George, I understand exactly what you and everyone is saying, but I don't think people are "getting it".

Brian, (probably unconsciously or as his little secret) created characters WITHOUT CHARACTER.

They live in a void. They feel empty. They are empty.

It's art. It's not life. It's a commentary on life's emptiness. The void that people experience despite every fulfillment--

You've got your ice cream.

You've got your champagne.

You've got your romance.

You've got your good sex.

You've got your cigarettes.

You've got the prettiness.

BUT STILL YOU'VE GOT NOTHING!!! (Unless... )

That's the point. The hollowness in this is the point.

Sandra

It is a hollow film, and hollow characters, but I don' think that Bertino consciously did that.   It's just what it is, and in this genre, that's more than acceptable.

Quoted from Dreamscale Agreed George...and everyone else...but doesn't it change your mindset just a tad, knowing what a complete success this script turned into?  Like, maybe that stuff that you always thought was so important, isn't afterall?  At least in this genre? Know what I'm saying?

I know what you're saying, but I think the people you're directing it at won't.  It's always going to be two sides of the fence on that one.

As far as the characters, we learn a little about them.  Obviously, there's tension due to the refused proposal, yet they still love each other.  They say it, and they express it physically (well, until the knock on the door).  

Do we learn all we'd care to know about them and why things are the way they are.  Not really.  But, has anyone given any thought to what we know about the characters and the way the script ended?  I mean, could we not have been allowed to identify with the characters so that when what ultimately happens, happens, it's not so much of a downer?

I know it seems silly, but sometimes a writer will intend to kill off a certain character, but then avoid because they like them too much.  Could be a similar scenario here, and he avoided the aggravation by making them hollow.

Quoted from Dreamscale It is a hollow film, and hollow characters, but I don' think that Bertino consciously did that.   It's just what it is, and in this genre, that's more than acceptable.

We just don't know if it was conscious or not on his part.

I completely agree. It is what it is. That's what fascinates me so much.

If it weren't for you and "The Rented Shoes", I wouldn't have went back and read the script over another two times!!!!

It's your fault Jeff!!!!!

Sandra

Maybe I should throw up my other notes, and see what you guys say to that?  There were so many things that just weren't "right" with this draft.  No way did this thing get him the Nicholls nod.  No way...

You want to see them?  The rented shoes was just 1 of many things that I found amazingly not right...

Quoted from Dreamscale Maybe I should throw up my other notes, and see what you guys say to that?  There were so many things that just weren't "right" with this draft.  No way did this thing get him the Nicholls nod.  No way... You want to see them?  The rented shoes was just 1 of many things that I found amazingly not right...

Yes!

Sandra

OK, here we go...

Odd use of V.O from a character not introduced.

Basketball “goal” – strange wording here, and it’s used a 2nd time as well.

2 passages that run 5 lines in the first 2 pages.

Page 2 – lots of stuff in here that was never intended to be “onscreen”.

Weak intro – 4 pages of nothingness.  Poor scene headings, 2 unnamed characters, no action.

Page 4 – Is this supposed to be “Super”?  Is it a V.O.?  Again, terrible scene heading used here – what is “Entry Way” supposed to mean?  Weak!

We get absolutely no introduction at all of James and Kristen, other than the Super/V.O.

“They are tired and angry.” – show us, don’t tell us this kind of info.

Page 8 – “grabbing a 12 pack…” – interesting…

Page 9 – “He can hear the clinking of the wind chimes…” – poorly written

A 6 line passage!!!!

2 more passages with passive verbiage.

Page 12 – “…rented shoes…” – like how do we know they’re rented?

“…shiny rented shoes…” – again?  C’mon!

Page 13 – Another 5 liner!!!!

Shouldn’t “knock” be all capped, as it’s a sound that we definitely want to draw attention to?

Page 21 – a 7 line passage!!!!  WTF???

Lots of examples of scenes opening up, repeating the exact scene heading.

Page 26 – first time we’ve seen the scene heading, “INT. House”

Page 27 – “WOMEN” used as a character name – should be “WOMAN”

6 line passage!!!

Page 34

Another 6 line passage that ends with …”…is swinging in the wind.”  Unreal!

Page 38

“James reaches the driver’s side and Kristen the passenger.” – poorly written sentence

Page 40, 41 – Poorly written here…all of it…weak dialogue, lots of telling, not showing, etc.  Sentences on their own that should be combined with a comma…just weak all around.

Page 44 – Flashback scene – 3 pages of almost nothing going on…way too detailed, dull, and uneventful.

Page 47-50 – 3 more pages of basically nothing but boring, unnecessary dialogue.

Page 54 – those damned “rented shoes” again…ARGH!!!!

This stuff about the gun makes no sense – first, James said his Dad definitely did not have a gun.  Then, he says, maybe he does.  Then, he finds the gun, and says, “It’s still here.  He was going to sell it.”  This is all poorly done,, and makes no sense.

Page 57 – axe is spelled 2 ways…”axe” and ax”.  Pick one, and stay with it!

Page 69-74 – Another 5 page flashback that doesn’t go anywhere and doesn’t do anything, IMO.

Page 77-81 – 4 pages of meaningless banter with the radio that goes nowhere.  Why would she turn it off and not at least tell the guy what state she was in, where she was earlier, etc.  Stupid and senseless!!!

Page 84 – “EXT. HOUSE” – This is not an EXT. shot, as Kristen is pushing the curtain open – she’s inside!

Page 97 – return of those damned “rental shoes”!!!!

Ending – lots and lots of identical passages from the beginning, which is totally not necessary.  We get the V.O. again from the Detective that we never see or meet, so how do we know he’s a Detective and who is he talking to/with?

Quoted from Dreamscale Basketball “goal” – strange wording here, and it’s used a 2nd time as well.

I agree, but just because it seems odd to us, it doesn't mean it doesn't belong.

Quoted from Dreamscale 2 passages that run 5 lines in the first 2 pages.

Agreed again. Chunky text. But how much do the rules mean to you? Are you willing to break them if you bloody well feel? Does it make you a sinner? Maybe.

Quoted from Dreamscale Page 2 – lots of stuff in here that was never intended to be “onscreen”.

When a book gets adapted, there is plenty that never goes on screen. In scripts too, there are things that don't go on the screen but mean something to the author in order to get some things across. Even if it means telling by virtue of its directness. (Telling).

In the hands of a skilled writer, it can be most effective. Of course if someone's just "trying" to break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules, that's another story.

[/quote]

Quoted from Dreamscale Weak intro – 4 pages of nothingness.  Poor scene headings, 2 unnamed characters, no action.

The nothingness you describe feels like a lot to me.

I've already explained that in previous posts.

I'm skipping down in your post because it's getting late, but I'll look at your other good points tomorrow. And I do think they're good-- don't get me wrong. It's just that I feel reason in it and not mistakes. There are some actual mistakes I know, but a lot of the points you are making I feel are good things. I'm thinking from a completely different angle I know.

Here:

Quoted from Dreamscale Ending – lots and lots of identical passages from the beginning, which is totally not necessary.  We get the V.O. again from the Detective that we never see or meet, so how do we know he’s a Detective and who is he talking to/with?

Again Jeff, I think you're missing the point on this.

The Detective is just a device. You and I know that. We are subtly brought into this "flashback" because that's what it is... and you know what? The first thing I had thought is:

Who is the one that's telling this story? Not the characters-- they're dead.

We are in complete omniscient. I'm going to harp back on the fact that "The car is running". It's running in the beginning and it's running in the end even though James set it on fire.

Also, that these people's deaths are NOT mentioned. Only their births. TWICE.

The repeat of the beginning in the end is entirely right and perfect for this story.

The beginning is the ending.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. The repeat of the beginning in the end is entirely right and perfect for this story. The beginning is the ending. Sandra

Your comments here are giving me a Funny Games vibe.

Does Bertino include the aftermath of the attacks first just to prove a point about the American audience? Obviously, something horrible has happened to the people in this house, and we as an audience stick around anyway to find out what.

Or does he drag on all of this psychological torture and mind play on purpose just to prove how prosaic the experience really is? After all, nothing happens to these characters for quite some time, but their paranoia over the presence of strangers instantly brings out their survival instincts without calling for it.

It seems to me that the strangers only attacked because that's what the protagonists expected of them. Kristen picked up a knife long before the strangers ever did.

Quoted from Sham Your comments here are giving me a Funny Games vibe. Does Bertino include the aftermath of the attacks first just to prove a point about the American audience? Obviously, something horrible has happened to the people in this house, and we as an audience stick around anyway to find out what. Or does he drag on all of this psychological torture and mind play on purpose just to prove how prosaic the experience really is? After all, nothing happens to these characters for quite some time, but their paranoia over the presence of strangers instantly brings out their survival instincts without calling for it. It seems to me that the strangers only attacked because that's what the protagonists expected of them. Kristen picked up a knife long before the strangers ever did.

I think you might really have something here and I think I've been having a hard time articulating it.

I'm going to ramble for a moment-- well, more than a moment because I just finished watching it on film. Oh God!!!!! Oh God!!! Oh God!!!! Oh God!!!!

All I can think of saying first is thanks everyone for giving your insight on the script. No matter how much we disagree!!! It's helped me to learn that:

If you are serious about what you want to intend in your work, then write it as a short story or a novel first. Then Hollywood can't mess with it.

In this case, it was Bertino's decision to mess up his work, but that's ok. You've got to give if you're working to get your work filmed.

I should add, that cinematically, some parts were definitely improved upon. But having said that--

The story wasn't.

The story was ruined.

There was the good replacement of Mike with the old man, and even scenes with them pushing the piano against the door seemed much more realistic than in the script, but all of the depth that I saw despite the scripts barren character scape went missing.

This is not the film I read.

If I were working with a talented director, it's not even the same movie at all that I'd create.

These questions plague me:

What happened to Strawberry Shortcake????

If you look up a Halloween Costume for this character or happened to have kids in the time that this was popular, you'll know she's not here in the film.

Where is the happy face mask???

Again, not here.

Where is The Pin-Up Girl?

Ditto.

Why is it 4:00 o'clock and not almost 3:00 in the morning?

Guess they weren't on Mountain Time in the Spring or something like that.

How come Kristen was Jordon in the beginning???

Why wasn't she wine stained???

She looked very glamorous.

And why wasn't James' hand shown as being injured?

What happened to the hotel scenes?

What happened to the contradictory dialougue that I displayed in my posts???

I guess they just didn't want to deal with it.

Who the Hell needs literary crap? Just give'm what they want...

Yes, I think there was some literary crap in Brian's work.

Too bad it wasn't in the film.

The masked people????

Hah!!!

Pleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaase!!!!!

Give me Strawberry Shortcake any day. These masked people were not the interesting masked individuals I saw in the script.

And regarding character:

James neve gave Kristen the shit she deserved in the movie... Unless that was when I was pouring myself a drink.

**

I had the feeling I'd say this:

The script was better than the movie.

But the movie... if you'd seen it first and you were young (I don't know how young that is but young enough not to ask all the questions we're asking) then I think you'd enjoy it.

It definitely is a thriller more than a horror.

If I were to work on it and put in my 2 cents, I'd certainly work in that "artsy element" that is probably more fringe than anything.

The relationship and the characters would be portrayed, (in all their emptiness) to the hilt. But at least that would be something. A nothing that is something.

My criticisms don't lie with the film itself. Here we go again:

It is what it is.

But:

My criticisms lie with the discrepancies between the script and the movie.

They are completely different to me and it's sad because I felt it was more than what we wound up seeing in the film. That's always the way though.

My advice: Read the book/script first.

Sandra

Ah, but Sandra, the time will come when we will discuss the script's transition to the movie and now is not the time yet. We need to get into the dialogue portion of our discussion. Dialogue is always a weak point of mine, so I can't exactly throw stones here. The weak lines have been touched on here and there throughout the discussion, but what are some specific thoughts on how the dialogue ran in the script?

There was very little dialogue, first of all.  And secondly, what dialogue there was, didn't say much, and was rather weak.

This wasn't a script or movie that required heavy or impressive dialogue though.  It's power and intensity came from its silence, and that's what really made it work overall.

Quoted from Dreamscale There was very little dialogue, first of all.  And secondly, what dialogue there was, didn't say much, and was rather weak. This wasn't a script or movie that required heavy or impressive dialogue though.  It's power and intensity came from its silence, and that's what really made it work overall.

I agree with this. The power of "not" saying something means a lot more here.

It's a story about the interior world as much as it is the exterior. The sparse and meaningless dialogue has meaning.

Sandra

I agree that this script does not need a lot of dialogue. However the dialogue that is there needs to be better than this. I thought it was atrocious. (I think that's the word I mean)

GIRL
My feet are sore.

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
I'm going for a piss.

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
I'm putting the kettle on.

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
Someone's at the door.

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
I'm walking to do the door.

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
I'm opening the door

MAN
Screw You.

GIRL
There is a killer with a mask on.

MAN
Screw You, I'm out of here.

Yeah, that pretty much sums up the dialogue!  ;D

Oh c'mon now.  It's not that bad at all.  You guys are being overly critical now.

No, it wasn't that bad, but if you want to assign a rule to dialogue, it's this: every word has to say something. We are in a visual medium. The first movies had no dialogue and the better ones told a very complete story. Sure, they had intertitles, but those words were few and far between and they always said something necessary that couldn't be just shown.

So with every line, you have to ensure that a) you aren't saying something you're showing, and b) it conveys something of the plot, character, or provides a laugh. Same basic reasons for a scene. Does every line of dialogue do this?

And what complicates dialogue is that you have to do it in a natural way. Some way that doesn't seem forced. I don't think every line was necessary, but most of them conveyed something. What I think killed the dialogue was that it sounded clunky a lot of the time.

Quoted from Murphy GIRL My feet are sore. MAN Screw You. GIRL I'm going for a piss. MAN Screw You. GIRL I'm putting the kettle on. MAN Screw You. GIRL Someone's at the door. MAN Screw You. GIRL I'm walking to do the door. MAN Screw You. GIRL I'm opening the door MAN Screw You. GIRL There is a killer with a mask on. MAN Screw You, I'm out of here.

Giles, that wasn't the dialogue in the script. You're just making that up correct? Or did I miss this entirely?

Sandra

Quoted from George Willson No, it wasn't that bad, but if you want to assign a rule to dialogue, it's this: every word has to say something. We are in a visual medium. The first movies had no dialogue and the better ones told a very complete story. Sure, they had intertitles, but those words were few and far between and they always said something necessary that couldn't be just shown. So with every line, you have to ensure that a) you aren't saying something you're showing, and b) it conveys something of the plot, character, or provides a laugh. Same basic reasons for a scene. Does every line of dialogue do this? And what complicates dialogue is that you have to do it in a natural way. Some way that doesn't seem forced. I don't think every line was necessary, but most of them conveyed something. What I think killed the dialogue was that it sounded clunky a lot of the time.

I agree that every word has to say something.

Because we're dealing with art and not reality, we're walking a tightrope. Dialogue is spontaneous. It doesn't always come out respectfully or with thoughtfulness.

It just happens.

In this script-- the spontaneity is clearly shown.

I notice that James never has any anger in the film version. None of that dialogue shows up.

*** Note *** I'm sorry George that I went off ahead of the game in my post regarding the script versus film-- it was fresh in my mind at that point, but next time,  I'll write down my notes and save them for posting later.

The lack of meaningful dialogue is part of what makes The Strangers a success. (Remember it's a viewpoint. An interpretation. Just one.)

Sandra

I completely disagree that every word in dialogue has to, or is supposed to say soemthing, or mean something.  It's dialogue, pure and simple.  It is what it is.

Dialogue should be real.  It should give us an idea of who a person is.  Some people are funny, some are cool.  Some are dull though, and if that's who the person is, tehn so be it.

The dialogue on display here is far from great, but again, the dialogue is not the star here, so I say lets' stop reading more into it than we need to.

Quoted from Dreamscale I completely disagree that every word in dialogue has to, or is supposed to say soemthing, or mean something.  It's dialogue, pure and simple.  It is what it is. Dialogue should be real.  It should give us an idea of who a person is.  Some people are funny, some are cool.  Some are dull though, and if that's who the person is, tehn so be it. The dialogue on display here is far from great, but again, the dialogue is not the star here, so I say lets' stop reading more into it than we need to.

Ah, Jeff... You just said what I said and said you disagree.

Sandra

Quoted from Sandra Elstree. I agree that every word has to say something. Sandra

It seems we need to clarify a point that George made.

I agree that every word has to say something. Also, every word is not always going to contain its "supposed" meaning. Subtext is a good example of that.

My point here is that even "nothing dialogue" is "something dialogue".

We need to be careful here what we label as meaningless.

A skilled writer/editor can discern very easily meaningless banter and chattiness that isn't necessary.  What seems as meaningless in one script/story might be completely meaningful in another. It's not the words themselves, but the context surrounding them.

I wanted to make that clear here so that people-- other people (strangers LOL) who might be confused, recognize the difference.

Sandra

**Note to Mike: I've just clicked modify and it's showing up as "Modify Message" in my browser. It's 8:53 pm Mountain Time. If this shows up as a double post, then something's wrong.

Quoted from Dreamscale I completely disagree that every word in dialogue has to, or is supposed to say soemthing, or mean something.  It's dialogue, pure and simple.  It is what it is. Dialogue should be real.  It should give us an idea of who a person is.  Some people are funny, some are cool.  Some are dull though, and if that's who the person is, tehn so be it. The dialogue on display here is far from great, but again, the dialogue is not the star here, so I say lets' stop reading more into it than we need to.

Dreamscale, you just agreed with me. Dialogue should give us an idea of who a person is. That's character. Sure, some people can be dull, but not everyone is that way, so when every character is a script comes off the same way because of the dialogue, there's a problem. It's fine if one character is an idiot, but everyone all at once?

Dialogue should NEVER be the star. Movies are a visual medium. The picture is the star, and yes, they did that well.

Quoted from George Willson Dreamscale, you just agreed with me. Dialogue should give us an idea of who a person is. That's character. Sure, some people can be dull, but not everyone is that way, so when every character is a script comes off the same way because of the dialogue, there's a problem. It's fine if one character is an idiot, but everyone all at once? Dialogue should NEVER be the star. Movies are a visual medium. The picture is the star, and yes, they did that well.

George said something.

Jeff said something.

You just said what I said and I've said what you said and Jeff said that again.

That means we agree.

And I know we do.

We just need to apply the strategies and implement the knowledge-- another hockey game.

Sandra

Quoted from Dreamscale I completely disagree that every word in dialogue has to, or is supposed to say soemthing, or mean something.  It's dialogue, pure and simple.  It is what it is. Dialogue should be real.  It should give us an idea of who a person is.  Some people are funny, some are cool.  Some are dull though, and if that's who the person is, tehn so be it. The dialogue on display here is far from great, but again, the dialogue is not the star here, so I say lets' stop reading more into it than we need to.

Right!  Dialogue doesn't matter!  Let's get back to discussing whether his shoes were rented or not!  Let's focus on what's really important!

Quoted from Dreamscale Oh c'mon now.  It's not that bad at all.  You guys are being overly critical now.

Jeff, I thought the movie was okay. Had some scares in it and was well made, but when discussing this script and now focusing on the dialogue, stuff like this

KRISTEN
James?
JAMES
It’s a gun.
KRISTEN
What?
JAMES
It’s a gun.
KRISTEN
James.
JAMES
Nothing.  Nothing.  I’m just tired.

Reads extremely bad in my opinion. This script is like that all the way. Dialogue that doesn't do anything for the characters or plot. Very fracture and disjointed to me at least.

Well, I hope this has been a source of encouragement so far in showing how to sell a script. It looks like you write something safe that follows all the rules of the Hollywood genre and not necessarily the "rules" touted oh so often in our screenwriting world. I would only guess that following genre rules and writing a solid script would do you that much better.

Anyway, we're onto the overall writing on this one getting into how the writer actually put the words down on the page. We've established the shoddy plot, hollow character, and shady dialogue, but did he at least put all those down in a solid fashion?

Some things in this category that we've hit on already are the overuse of rented shoes (a literary rather than screen device), unnamed Mormon boys (who were written badly since we have an overabundance of Mormons in my area who have stopped by, and I've spoken with for my own amusement, so I actually know a thing or two about them), and over-long descriptions as pointed out by Dreamscale.

Just to comment on the Mormon boys, since I don't know what other category they would go in. Maybe character? I dunno. When I saw these two in the movie, I suspected that Mormons might be what he was going for, but they didn't look or act like Mormons. The door knocking Mormons are generally just out of high school, and they do this form of evangelizing as part of their "growing up" process (there's a name for it, but I've forgotten it) only during that time of their lives. They wear black pants and a white shirt, usually with a tie, and travel only on bicycles or by foot wherever they go. They wouldn't give out pamphlets about sin, but they'd be more than happy to give you a Book of Mormon, which they tend to carry in abundance for anyone who wants one. This means that he not only wrote the script with the vaguest idea of what these people do, but no one on the production team knew either creating a random, incorrect depiction of these people.

The ones who came by my house were surprised to learn that I not only had a Book of Mormon already (that I'd found in an empty apartment once), but that I'd also read it in its entirety along with most of the other Mormon writings and knew their material better than they did. I hit them with some hard questions (related to some weirdness they have in their religious sect), and they never came back. Hm...

Have I mentioned how literary I can be at times? Yes, I have read the Bible as well...more than once.

Quoted from George Willson Well, I hope this has been a source of encouragement so far in showing how to sell a script. It looks like you write something safe that follows all the rules of the Hollywood genre and not necessarily the "rules" touted oh so often in our screenwriting world. I would only guess that following genre rules and writing a solid script would do you that much better. Anyway, we're onto the overall writing on this one getting into how the writer actually put the words down on the page. We've established the shoddy plot, hollow character, and shady dialogue, but did he at least put all those down in a solid fashion? Some things in this category that we've hit on already are the overuse of rented shoes (a literary rather than screen device), unnamed Mormon boys (who were written badly since we have an overabundance of Mormons in my area who have stopped by, and I've spoken with for my own amusement, so I actually know a thing or two about them), and over-long descriptions as pointed out by Dreamscale. Just to comment on the Mormon boys, since I don't know what other category they would go in. Maybe character? I dunno. When I saw these two in the movie, I suspected that Mormons might be what he was going for, but they didn't look or act like Mormons. The door knocking Mormons are generally just out of high school, and they do this form of evangelizing as part of their "growing up" process (there's a name for it, but I've forgotten it) only during that time of their lives. They wear black pants and a white shirt, usually with a tie, and travel only on bicycles or by foot wherever they go. They wouldn't give out pamphlets about sin, but they'd be more than happy to give you a Book of Mormon, which they tend to carry in abundance for anyone who wants one. This means that he not only wrote the script with the vaguest idea of what these people do, but no one on the production team knew either creating a random, incorrect depiction of these people. The ones who came by my house were surprised to learn that I not only had a Book of Mormon already (that I'd found in an empty apartment once), but that I'd also read it in its entirety along with most of the other Mormon writings and knew their material better than they did. I hit them with some hard questions (related to some weirdness they have in their religious sect), and they never came back. Hm... Have I mentioned how literary I can be at times? Yes, I have read the Bible as well...more than once.

You remind me of my husband. He too has read the entire Mormon book and they were surprised to hear that. He's also has read the entire bible.

I don't know... Regarding this particular script, I think I've said all I'm going to say.

I have a completely positive attitude towards both the script and the film for the reasons I've already stated although the film was very different, but it had some good points as well.

The writing itself applies the "less is more" rule.

Sandra

I just want to go back to the dialogue thing for a moment, and make sure we understand each other, because I don't think we do.

I disagreed with George and Sandra in that dialogue needs to continually move things forward, and mean something.  And I'm not just talking about this script, I'm talking in general.  Some genres require strong dialogue, others don't.  The horror genre, for the most part,  is one fo these that doesn't.

We can all say whether or not we think dialogue works in a script or movie, but many times, it really doesn't matter, cause it is truly not what that movie or script is all about.  This is a perfect example of that.

I think some are reading way too much into the dialogue, and others are placing way too much importance on it.  This is not a chatty script, and isn't intended to be.  In reality, the only real conversation and interaction is between 2 people, our protags.  I completely agree that the interaction between James and Kristen is weak and could have/should have been much better, but when it's all said and done, it really doesn't matter...at least to me.

Good work guys keeping this going, and George you are doing a top job of trying to keep it all on track. I have not got anything insightful to say yet but just wanted to say that.

I was in the middle of a post a couple of hours ago but fell asleep on the couch, woke up with my laptop on the floor but thankfully still alive and a just half written post about rented shoes, George's great job and the bible???. I think I did very well to only get one post up before I passed out - could have been much worse.

I could ramble on all day, think i need food. Good show.

"Anyway, we're onto the overall writing on this one getting into how the writer actually put the words down on the page. We've established the shoddy plot, hollow character, and shady dialogue, but did he at least put all those down in a solid fashion?"

I think he did okay. I'm not so sure if he was a regular here that he would receive tons of praise though. The writing wasn't entertaining in itself, nor was it lean so it was just something similar to what we might encounter here by our members. That's actually a good thing I think. Should give us all hope.

I know this script was in the top 300 hundred out of 7000 submissions to Nicholls, but what does that mean? To me it means REALLY GOOD scripts are not that many... and maybe that's a good thing too, because if this was easy, everyone would be doing it. Writing a feature is hard. Writing a damn good feature is really really hard. On the other hand, we see less than stellar scripts become film. There is hope in other words, but it takes more than average to even get a chance.

Pia, my thoughts exactly - a wonderful way to look at it.

When I read scripts like this it makes me feel that I am not wasting my time, i actually know I am capable of doing better than this. And that definitely gives me the motivation I need to work harder at it.

So thank you Mr Bertoni for the inspiration, though probably not in the way you would like! ;-)

Quoted from Murphy Pia, my thoughts exactly - a wonderful way to look at it. When I read scripts like this it makes me feel that I am not wasting my time, i actually know I am capable of doing better than this. And that definitely gives me the motivation I need to work harder at it. So thank you Mr Bertoni for the inspiration, though probably not in the way you would like! ;-)

Amen to both of you on that. Scripts that suck give those of us that do try some hope that maybe we can make it in that world (if those people would ever bother to write me back and ask to actually read my script).

And thanks for the compliment on keeping it on track. I am trying really hard to keep it so. The last topic before we get into really comparing the script to the movie is commercial appeal. Obviously, despite its shortcomings, this had commercial appeal. It was made and got a return on its investment. This is where everything Dreamscale said throughout comes into play. We can talk about the scripts weaknesses all we want, but at the end of the day, Mr. Bertoni is laughing his way to the bank as we wallow and complain about his shoddy script because he wrote something marketable.

BTW, if there are more writing comments, that topic isn't closed... I just wanted to be sure and open the next one.

And Jeff, I still say dialogue is important in evey genre. :P

Dialogue means something. When it's nothing it means something. It's the context framing the dialogue and not the dialogue itself that reveals whether it's in fact poorly done.

Like this:

Julie
No.

Brad
Yes.

Julie
No.

Brad
Yes.

Julie
No.

Looks weak. But:

Put that inside of this:

Brad runs two fingers down Julie's thigh.

Brad
Open your legs.

Julie
No.

Brad
Yes.

Julie
No.

Brad
Yes.

Julie
No.

Julie turns to run.

Brad grabs her and spins her around.

Her face his beaming, a wicked laugh upon her face.

Julie
No.

As has been said this script has got bags of commercial appeal, even if we didn't already know that I would say no different based on the script alone.

I took issue last time we did a script that had already been optioned when people were discussing what was wrong with it and how it could be better for this very reason. I really disliked 'National Treasure' for instance but I could make it better for me by changing the dialogue, story and writing a nude role for Angelina Jolie. Much better movie for me but not what the writer had in mind. For what the team behind National Treasure wanted to get out of it then they wrote a great script, it made them money. It was never written for me.

Same as this script, no matter how much I dislike it I cannot say it is not a great script. It has real commercial appeal and I think that anybody on these boards who wants to be a professional screenwriter needs to understand the commercials behind movie making and write a product that is to be sold rather than a work or art to be loved. The former will have a far higher chance of success and the latter is almost guaranteed to never make it. Who here can really say they would not like to be in Bertoni's position now?

We talk a lot here about structure, character, plot, story, dialogue and formatting. But rarely do we discuss exactly which combination of all these ingredients the recipe for success needs.

The US Box Office Top 20 for 2008...

1     The Dark Knight     
2     Iron Man     
3     Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4     Hancock
5     WALL-E
6     Kung Fu Panda
7     Twilight
8     Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
9     Quantum of Solace
10     Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!
11     Sex and the City
12     Mamma Mia!
13     The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
14     Marley and Me
15     The Incredible Hulk
16     Wanted
17     Get Smart
18     Four Christmases
19     The Curious Case of Benjamin Button     
20     Bolt

Um, GM? Angelina Joile wasn't in National Treasure. I suspect you're thinking of Tomb Raider.

And yeah, with commercial appeal, writing something that appeals to the masses should be foremost on our "unproduced screenwriters'" minds. Once we get in the gate then we can write whatever the hell we want (like M. Night Shyamalan), but to get in that gate, we have to let ourselves go, and write what THEY want.

I recently watched two more spoof movies: Disaster Movie and Epic Movie. These movies were complete tripe in my opinion, but they were sold and made, weren't they? They had commercial appeal, despite the fact that the final product sucked. Some people will still find them funny (I know I'm not their target audience).

Here's what I'd like us to get from this before we move onto the next topic. We know that this movie has commercial appeal, and I'm sure we can pick out what worked for the execs. But consider what I said elsewhere: this movie can be taken up a notch with less than a page added (actually with pages removed). There were only a few things that some of us would have liked to have seen, and if those little things were there, I think it would have been a load better.

So why can't we write a movie with commercial appeal that is better than this? I don't see why we can't.

I think we did real well this time with the SC. I realized that scripts, if we want to sell them, has to have more commercial appeal. I have tried this myself with my shorts and seen a big change. I used to complain that no one ever produced any of my shorts so I started writing more with indie filmmakers in mind and voila, all of a sudden I'm getting asked all the time for permission to film them. Great, right? Well, now I've started to hear some people complain that my stories are bland. No one EVER used to tell me that before. So, there's a similarity here in my mind at least. Write to please filmmakers or write what pleases you the writer.

"1     The Dark Knight    
2     Iron Man    
3     Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
4     Hancock
5     WALL-E
6     Kung Fu Panda
7     Twilight
8     Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa
9     Quantum of Solace
10     Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!
11     Sex and the City
12     Mamma Mia!
13     The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
14     Marley and Me
15     The Incredible Hulk
16     Wanted
17     Get Smart
18     Four Christmases
19     The Curious Case of Benjamin Button    
20     Bolt"


IMHO it won't help you much looking at scripts like that. In most of those cases it's not the script that is selling the film. The majority are based on extremely famous material. Plus their success is largely based on having vast sums to use for marketing.

I think it would make more sense to look at people who wrote smaller films to begin with and then gravitated to these large projects on the back of their moderate success.

Mamma Mia is perhaps the best one to look at out of those. It's done unbelievably well, better than Titanic in the UK. It's success was largely based on the knowledge that women of a certain age still visit the cinema. Younger crowds are tending to stay at home more and more and download stuff.

Critics think it's mediocre, audiences have watched it four or five times.

Also it's about getting out there and getting the scripts into the right hands. If you want to work on that scale, you need to move to L.A. and start networking. You've got to get your stuff seen, otherwise it's pointless. Get to the film markets, get to Sundance and mingle, arrange appointments with Producers and speak to Directors who make the kind of stuff you write.

95% of deals are made in bars. In the Uk pretty much every deal is made in one particular bar, the Groucho Club in London.

I've been sent scripts from writers who finished in the finals/semi finals of Nicholls in the same year as the Strangers. He got it made because he had the wherewithal to get it in front of the right people.

"And yeah, with commercial appeal, writing something that appeals to the masses should be foremost on our "unproduced screenwriters'" minds. Once we get in the gate then we can write whatever the hell we want (like M. Night Shyamalan), but to get in that gate, we have to let ourselves go, and write what THEY want. "

I think this is wishful thinking. If you can establish a persona that people buy into (Shyamalan, Tarantino, Paul Figgis) You might be lucky. Only if your film is an enormous success. I don't think screenwriters ever really "make it" to be honest. you're always back to square one, pitching your next script. Just because one script was good and had commefcial success doesn't mean your next project will get the greenlight. It opens the door and means it will be easier to actually get to pitch it, but you're always in the pack.

That's one of the hardest things about screenwriting, because its rare that you get wide acknowledgement. Write a novel and it's all yours, but most people couldn't name you many screenwriters.

It's swings and roundabouts though. A nobody with a commercial script will get the nod ahead of a guy who's written lots of pro scripts, if they think the film has more chance of success. However it's hard to build a fan base as a screenwriter. Who looks out for the next film from a certain screenwriter? Very, very few. Actors and Directors tend to have loyal fans.

For instance George, I reckon you'dhave more chance of getting Fempiror Chronicles made into a film by first getting the novel published. Would Harry Potter have been made from a screenplay? I doubt it, would it have been such a success? Almost certainly not.

Look at how many films are adaptations of books. You've probably more chance of getting a novel converted into a film than you have a screenplay.

"So why can't we write a movie with commercial appeal that is better than this? I don't see why we can't."

You can. The difficulty is getting it past Producers. It's fear that stops them taking chances. Anything that they think the audience won't get, they'll start to pull out. Their heads are on the line. One flop and they could be out of a job and lose their fancy mansion. I've no doubt you've read interesting scripts that were turned into mediocre films, it's not the writers that change them, it's the Producers.

The thing you mention, character development, is usually the first thing they start to pull out. Read what Mike France said on Artful Writer about Cliffhanger. They pulled a lot of the character development out of it, something that annoys writers the most because the film suffers and it doesn't cost anything to make. The Producers fear is that it moves too slowly and will bore the audience.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films For instance George, I reckon you'd have more chance of getting Fempiror Chronicles made into a film by first getting the novel published. Would Harry Potter have been made from a screenplay? I doubt it, would it have been such a success? Almost certainly not. Look at how many films are adaptations of books. You've probably more chance of getting a novel converted into a film than you have a screenplay.

Exactly, and that's why I work on Novel form in conjunction with script form-- because I love the depth that a novel can provide, but the uniqueness and completely different forms of artistic bent that a story takes through the medium of film. [/quote]

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films "So why can't we write a movie with commercial appeal that is better than this? I don't see why we can't." You can. The difficulty is getting it past Producers. It's fear that stops them taking chances. Anything that they think the audience won't get, they'll start to pull out. Their heads are on the line. One flop and they could be out of a job and lose their fancy mansion. I've no doubt you've read interesting scripts that were turned into mediocre films, it's not the writers that change them, it's the Producers.

Exactly. That's why you don't see films with that literary style floating around typically. People are stupid. Not due to their own faults. They're not inherently stupid, but if you grow up on Sponge Bob (what is it?) Square Pants? It doesn't help.

As Pia had said-- to write with commercial appeal, and also what you like. We need to keep both in mind.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The thing you mention, character development, is usually the first thing they start to pull out. Read what Mike France said on Artful Writer about Cliffhanger. They pulled a lot of the character development out of it, something that annoys writers the most because the film suffers and it doesn't cost anything to make. The Producers fear is that it moves too slowly and will bore the audience.

I'd hate to say they're right, but they might be and that's scary in some ways, but if you've been raised on the fast action of RPG's, are you going to go back to Pong?

Today's audience is at the same time and in some ways more sophisticated, but also more stupid. I guess it's a kind of paradox.

Sandra

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films IMHO it won't help you much looking at scripts like that. In most of those cases it's not the script that is selling the film. The majority are based on extremely famous material. Plus their success is largely based on having vast sums to use for marketing.

I did think after I posted the list, I knew I had a point but can't remember what it was. I think it was just highlighting what a bunch of crap filmgoers are prepared to go and watch. Four Christmases was a spec script, Blake Snyder has been banging on about it for years.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The thing you mention, character development, is usually the first thing they start to pull out. Read what Mike France said on Artful Writer about Cliffhanger. They pulled a lot of the character development out of it, something that annoys writers the most because the film suffers and it doesn't cost anything to make. The Producers fear is that it moves too slowly and will bore the audience.

There is a great book called "Screenplays" by David S Cohen, well worth a read. It goes into the story of 25 recent movies, a bit like script to screen. It is a bit of a scary read to be honest. EVen once you have made it and sold a script prepare for someone to rip your baby apart and then give it to someone else to put it back together. Before you know it somebody else has their name above yours in the credits. You do get to keep the money however, that is what it is all about.

Quoted from George Willson Um, GM? Angelina Joile wasn't in National Treasure. I suspect you're thinking of Tomb Raider.

Sorry George, I meant it would be a better movie for me if she was in it.... and nude!

But, like winning a lottery, or the like, we all have a chance, and that chance is actually so much better than we all seem to realize, because it really comes down to this...having the right person read your script at the right time...and then...well, anything can happen...it really can.

Dream big and believe, positive thinking has a way of making positive things happen.  Positive energy can actually bring positive things to you.

As Journey just sang at the Super Bowl, "Don't stop Believing"!  You never know, and stranger things have happened to far less talented people.

Best to all!!!

Quoted from Dreamscale But, like winning a lottery, or the like, we all have a chance, and that chance is actually so much better than we all seem to realize, because it really comes down to this...having the right person read your script at the right time...and then...well, anything can happen...it really can. Dream big and believe, positive thinking has a way of making positive things happen.  Positive energy can actually bring positive things to you.

mmm... As nice as it sounds, not really the attitude that it takes to make it at anything if I was to be honest with you.

You know that even if you do manage to "break-in" and become a screenwriter the chances are that you will do it without ever having one of your specs produced?. Hollywood is full of writers who have plenty of options under their belt yet not a single credit for any of their specs.

When you are submitting a script to hollywood you are effectively applying for a job, a job as a screenwriter. You may get optioned and have enough money to live on for a year while you write something else, or if you really get somewhere somebody will like your writing and give you an assignment - usually to start with a re-write of somebody elses script.

But like any job, you are only going get this one by demonstrating a skill at writing scripts, and by that I mean not just putting together a good story but possessing real knowledge of the craft, having the commercial acumen to fully understand what scenes work and why, how to structure a $300m hit, what people watch films for etc.. These are the things you are being measured on when you submit scripts.  Of course if you write something completely brilliant you will get a movie made and make it to the A list, but you don't stay there unless you can do it again and quickly. This will happen to 0.0001% of the specs sent to Hollywood each year.

Nowhere in this do I mention luck. I am sorry but I do not believe in luck the way you speak of it. I would never hire anyone who thought they would be lucky to get the job, no matter what that job was. I would look for people who firmly believe they deserve that job because they are hardworking and posses the skills and experience to do that job better than anyone else.

You speak to anybody who has reached the top of their game, no matter what field it is in and tell me how many of them talk about luck?

Now speak to all the failures and see how many of them believe that the guys on top just got lucky and that the same could happen to them.

I am not saying some people do not sometimes benefit from a little luck, we all do from time to time. Being born in a 1st world country is more than a little lucky. But there is a huge difference between knowing you caught a lucky break and sitting around waiting for luck to come and find you.

I am going to be a professional screenwriter within the next 3 years and when it happens luck will not have played a part in that. I am going to deserve whatever success comes my way.

That is positive thinking.

Quoted from Murphy I am going to be a professional screenwriter within the next 3 years and when it happens luck will not have played a part in that. I am going to deserve whatever success comes my way. That is positive thinking.

GM, I understand what you're saying here, but I also understand what Jeff is saying.

I don't want to burst your bubble in believing that when/if you get there, you "deserve" it. First, let me say: I'm a firm believer in a strong work ethic. I'm a workaholic and maybe that's part of the reason why I became ill.

The thing is: Be very careful when you proclaim: "I AM blah-blah-blah... anything...

Destiny is a tricky thing. I believe we can make it like you say, but sometimes, things happen that are not on our "to do list" and no matter how hard we fight it, we can't change it.

My neighbor was in two car accidents in the span of less than 6 months. The first one just about killed him.

A grown friend of my son's (in her 40's) died for no apparent reason and I said, "I should be the one dead, (and many times I wanted relief from suffering) but here I still am. It's obviously not my time yet.

In my life, there were things that I thought I wanted and didn't get them, but I'm not sorry, I've actually gotten a lot more in some respects than I myself could have personally dreamed of.

Anyways, I just want to caution you. Yes, keep on working hard. Say, "Yes, this is what I plan on doing." But keep an open mind about things so that you can always feel good no matter what happens.

Sandra

God Bless you, Sandra!   You're right.  Giles, you may be right when it all comes down to it, but you have to understand that there is a very thjin line between what gets the green and what doesn't quite make it...and let's also understand that the powers that be aren't always right.

Giles...for being an optimist, you come off as a serious pessimist.  C'mon, brother...stay real!!!  

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films For instance George, I reckon you'dhave more chance of getting Fempiror Chronicles made into a film by first getting the novel published. Would Harry Potter have been made from a screenplay? I doubt it, would it have been such a success? Almost certainly not.

And that's exactly why I'm turning that script into a novel. I have enough material for several books, so I'm going that route to begin with. Figured that one out myself... ;D

Ok, the time is come for the final part of our discussion: the script to movie comparison. We've touched on this here and there like we do with most topics, but now we can really get into some opinions on how the script really translated to the screen. What changed? What didn't? What should have? What shouldn't have?

I know this is what a lot of you have been really waiting for, so let's roll.

Quoted from George Willson And that's exactly why I'm turning that script into a novel. I have enough material for several books, so I'm going that route to begin with. Figured that one out myself... ;D

Absolutely and 100% this has to be the way to go for anyone who desires to write seriously at length. I'm included with you here in in this desire.

I don't have a problem writing something for the screen that would be picked up and ripped apart if I were paid. We can all use money. I don't have a desire for anything grand because I like a simple lifestyle, but I could think of a lot of good things to do with extra dollars and that's appealing.

Regarding full length novels, short stories and articles though:

There's a lot of information that people can pass on through the written word-- no matter the form and it's that and the essence of that that I wouldn't want ripped apart for the sake of money.

In this respect, it's important to me to go the hard slow route in what matters. It's the effort; not the outcome. It's the journey; not the destination.

So after reading and watching "The Strangers," no matter what we think of it, I think we've learned something. What? It's different for everyone, but one thing I know: is that things that look easy never are.

I remember spending three months, (not solid) but three months writing and editing what amounted to a mere 1,000 words, but when it was accepted, I knew that what was inside of those 1,000 words was enough to give someone the experience I had years and years ago and that's special. To share with other people.

So keep writing. Even if you think it's junk-- keep writing. You can edit junk, but you can't edit a blank page.

Really good Script club this go around I think. At least for me, I really did enjoy it and thank you all for your participation.

Sandra

I liked this SC too. It was sort of an eyeopener in some respect.

Loved this comment Sandra "You can edit junk, but you can't edit a blank page."

As far as the movie/script comparison goes I think I have already said pretty much what I thought of it. I thought the movie was okay to good. Some nice scare moments that just didn't read scary in the script. So to me, the script was not as good as the film which is unusual to me. I usually find the scripts more entertaining the films themselves.

Good job running this one too George. it's not easy to keep the discussions on track. Maybe we're getting better at it too since it seems we are the same people for the most part in this.

I think I'm with the rest of you when it comes to movie comments, since the stupidity in the script carried over to the movie. The film did do the atmosphere very well, and I did like that it gave a better reason for a new character to randomly wander into the house.

However, changing that shooting gallery from the living room to a room out of the way did hurt one aspect. You see, if I were in a room with only one entrance and a shotgun in my hand, I would NEVER leave. I would sit there and blast whatever dared to show its face. The friend showing up was telegraphed as soon as they planted themselves in the room. You KNEW the bad guys weren't going to go there, and then the friend drove up. I wasn't scared for anyone, because I knew what would happen. It was inevitable. I was hoping he'd take a different path, and surprise me, but no, BANG! Friend = dead.

And then, our stupid couple leaves the safety of the inside room and the well-guarded entrance to get themselves killed. And why didn't the friend speak? If you walked into that chaos, wouldn't you call out to your friends? Sure, you might be afraid of what got to them, and if that's the case, you wouldn't go in at all. You'd call the police.

I think that sequence was improved by relating it to them, and giving the person a  reason to be there, but ultimately ruined by contrivances again.

I also noticed that in the script, the girl just stayed as the guy ran off to the barn, but in the movie, he said "stay here, you'll be safer." WHAT! Did I just hear you say something incredibly stupid? Let's go over the facts relevant to this, shall we? They have gotten into the house multiple times without anyone knowing they were there. Remember the cell phones? Both of them? How the heck is she safe in a place where the bad guys can get her? Oh wait, she's standing outside. That's much safer.

I would like to see an intelligent horror flick. One where the characters are intelligent that forces the writer to be at least a little imaginative with their story. In the end, we've learned that genre movie that follow genre rules are marketable, no matter how bad they are.

To me, it started good with the atmosphere, but too much stupidity just ruins a movie for me, and this one had it in droves. And it's really a shame because it was really creepy in some places.

It's pretty easy to pick movies apart...especially horroro movies.  They rarely even try to get things right, and it never seesm to matter, which amazes me.

The Strangers wasn't horrible in any way.  For the most part it did work, and I think that's due to teh production of the final product.  It was polished, professional, and delivered what it set out to deliver.

If you want intelligent horror, I think you better read my final version of Fade to White.  Funny, aren't I???

Good job everyone.  This was interesting.

Amazing how I had completely forgotten about this. Well since I've missed everything else, might as well give my two cents on the last item.

I truly enjoyed the movie, and I'm not really into horror or slasher films, but I do love me a good thriller. The stupidity didn't bother me, never does actually, i usually don't pay attention to it. I think if you sit back and cow gaze at the screen, not try to analyze the screen or anticipate the next scene or even care that James didn't go all first person shooter on the stranger asses with the shotgun, you'll find movies like this much more enjoyable. I think horror movies in general need to be seen with a blank mind anyway to truly enjoy them. Best time to see a horror film would be friday after work when you're two points away from brain dead.

As far as script vs screen goes, admittedly I haven't seen this movie since it's release date so I can't give too fair of a comparison. However I believe the finished product was better which of course it should have been. I didn't notice too many
dissimilarities between the two. But what did change, I think, polished what we were given, as subtle as the changes may have been. In fact I think the only change that could be significant would be James' friend getting shot instead of an anonymous old man. Certainly gave more impact to the character and the audience could sympathize better over shooting your best friend instead of a neighbor you haven't seen since you were a kid.

Personally what I think makes this movie better over other horror films is the situation. I honestly don't see this movie as a horror, I'll always believe it's more on the thriller side. Horrors are usually associated with ghosts, zombies, demons or something otherworldly surreal and filled with buckets of gore and sex. Some may call it a slasher film but even that can be debated as there was no slashing involved and very little stabbing. 'The Strangers' in this film weren't nightmare monsters, revenge seeking campers or demon possessed children, there were real people and that's the scariest thing of all. At the end of the day what did they do? Nothing.

The scariest moment in the movie for me was the simplest thing of all. The man in the mask stands just outside the foyer in silence watching over the woman smoke her cigarette and then leaves just as easy. Imagine you're doing something mundane like washing dishes. You think you're secure in your home but with much ease some stranger is able to enter your home. He may not do anything but watch you before he leaves. You go into the room the stranger was just in and notice something had moved. You know you didn't move it and no one has been in your house. How secure do you feel now? Now as you stared at the moved object trying to wrap your head around the possibilities of what moved it and someone just happened to knock on your door, you know you'd pee a little.

The people in the movie were worse off being in a secluded area since the strangers were able to cut off all lines of communication. They could now terrorize without interruption.

Granted this movie isn't the smartest film out there, but in all honesty who of us in a situation like this would act in hindsight? I think if you just sit back and watch the movie to enjoy it instead of analyze you'll realize something scarier than any other horror film could produce, things like this and worse happen in real life and could happen to you.