Good Morning by Shawn D. Kelley (shawnkjr) - Short, Horror - A seemingly routine Morning goes terribly wrong. 6 pages - pdf, format 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice for what it is, though.

Hey Shawn,

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

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

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

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

Regards,
E.D.

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

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

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


-Shawn

hey Shawn,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Besides that very clean script.

The story:

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

Why?

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

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

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

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


  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the best. RD

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

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

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

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

Huh?  No clue what this is supposed to mean.

How did we get into discussing "bad writing"?

"Poor artistry and craftsmanship"?  WTF?

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

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

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

Col.

Quoted Text Huh?  No clue what this is supposed to mean.

Define weak writing and maybe you won't feel so clueless.

Quoted Text How did we get into discussing "bad writing"?

Follow the transcript.

Quoted Text "Poor artistry and craftsmanship"?  WTF?

Really?

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

You made a claim that "weak writing" is a result of unfilmables that translates into s**t films. I am saying it isn't. Up to speed now?

OK, Eric, now I remember who you are.  I tried to help you on one of your scripts back in May and maybe you didn't take too kindly to my help?  I don't know, but as I said earlier, I am totally confused with what you're saying here...or trying to say, that is, as it's incredibly unclear.  In your last post, you're being a serious douche.

You are actually the one who needs to check the thread and see where you did not address the issues or questions posed to you.  The only thing that I can see that I didn't directly respond to was your question regarding why I had a problem with 1 example I gave and not the other - but at the time, I told you I didn't understand what you were even asking.

But, for the record, using an unfilmable "adverb" in a character description is incorrect.  Period.

EXAMPLE 1 - "MARYBETH (45, Maxine's Mom) teeters over the toilet." - INCORRECT!

EXAMPLE 2 - "MAXINE (20) helps her Mom, MARYBETH (45), stand up. - ACCEPTABLE!

Do you see the difference here?

As to your last 2 posts, I'm still clueless.  Seriously, check this out and try to explain WTF it means…or is supposed to mean, cause as written, it means nothing.

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

Most unfilmables are emotion descriptions, and you can translate that in movies."

I literally can’t comment on the first sentence cause it makes no sense.

Your second sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed in the entire thread!  What are you basing your quote on, here, anyway, about “emotion descriptions”?  I’d love to see that data.  The unfilmables we’re discussing here are not emotion descriptions, which renders your quote completely asinine.

Quoted Text OK, Eric, now I remember who you are. I tried to help you on one of your scripts back in May and maybe you didn't take too kindly to my help?

That's not it at all. I was greatful for your help. So I am not sure why you'd think that.

For the record, if I disagree with you it's not personal.

Quoted Text I don't know, but as I said earlier, I am totally confused with what you're saying here...or trying to say, that is, as it's incredibly unclear.

Point taken. I will do my best to clarify what was confusing about my last post.

Quoted Text In your last post, you're being a serious douche.

It wasn't my attention to come across like that.
  

Quoted Text You are actually the one who needs to check the thread and see where you did not address the issues or questions posed to you.

  I wrote you a longer post but it was accidently deleted. I answered most of your questions.

Quoted Text The only thing that I can see that I didn't directly respond to was your question regarding why I had a problem with 1 example I gave and not the other - but at the time, I told you I didn't understand what you were even asking.

I agreed with your first example, but I didn't see how the second was any different from the first.

Both examples had an "unfilmable" in them. Hence I didn't understand why the first example was correct and the second "incorrect".

Quoted Text But, for the record, using an unfilmable "adverb" in a character description is incorrect.  Period.

Okay, but who decides it's incorrect? A select group of writers adhere to this "guideline while others don't. Thus it's an opinion not a fact. The only way to settle this issue would be to prove it.  

If you said, "unfilmables" are frowned upon by some people in the industry, I would accept that as fact.

Quoted Text EXAMPLE 1 - "MARYBETH (45, Maxine's Mom) teeters over the toilet." - INCORRECT! EXAMPLE 2 - "MAXINE (20) helps her Mom, MARYBETH (45), stand up. - ACCEPTABLE! Do you see the difference here?

No. Example one you sited three "unfilmables", and in example 2 you sited four.

How do you show 45 or 20 years old? People seldon can guess a person's age by looking at him/her. That's why a writer would be wise to aproximate if he/she is concerned over unfilmables.

Names themselves are unfilmables because rarely do we see in movies characters enter a scene with name tags that state their names - so that the viwers are up to speed with what the reader already knows about the characters - that is until we hear them refer to their names.


Hence, logically, it should be no different then if I were to refer to Marybeth as a teacher because we will eventually see this characterization about  Marybeth come up in the story.  

Quoted Text As to your last 2 posts, I'm still clueless.  Seriously, check this out and try to explain WTF it means…or is supposed to mean, cause as written, it means nothing.

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

Artistry = Artistic achievement/ability.

Craftsmanship = A set of skills that demonstrates the mastery of a trade.

Good writing is a combination of artistry and craftsmanship, hence poor writing is then a combination of poor artistry and craftsmanship.

Quoted Text Most unfilmables are emotion descriptions, and you can translate that in movies." I literally can’t comment on the first sentence cause it makes no sense.

"The stars shine like the love of God". Aliens

"Love of God" is an adverb because it describes how the stars shine. Is it an unfilmable adverb? It also appeals to our emotions, because love, an emotion is used to describe a verb.  

Yet we could translate love of God to be brilliant, awe inspiring, or cold and remote.  

Another one.

"A bus rushed through traffic like the chariots of fire".

"chariots of fire" is an adverb, it also invokes an emotion to those who've seen the movie."
By your defination it's also an unfilmable. But for me it translates to daring or reckless speed. I can show that in a movie.  

Quoted Text Your second sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything discussed in the entire thread!

I admit I was being a little obtuse. I was thinking on the spot and didn't really think it through. Emotion description like an expression that invokes an emotion. I gave you a couple of examples already.

Quoted Text What are you basing your quote on, here, anyway, about “emotion descriptions”?  I’d love to see that data.

As I said before I conveyed two examples. One I thought up on the spot the other from an actual studio script.

Are they actually unfilmables? Maybe that part is debatable.

Quoted Text The unfilmables we’re discussing here are not emotion descriptions, which renders your quote completely asinine.

Point taken, but to get back to my original point. I disgree that unfilmables make s***t films.

Anyways if you want to continue this discussion with me, send me a private message or something and I would love to chat more about it. I think it's an interesting topic.

Hey Shawn,

This one was short and sweet. Nice writing. Excellent flow. I only had a couple of problems with it.

     She moans at the noise. She slowly opens her eyes. She flips
     over onto her stomach. She reaches out an arm, paws at the
     clock radio.

There’s nothing wrong with this passage, but for me, this description is “she”-heavy. You’ve got four she’s in the span of three sentences. I’d see if you can get it down to two.

Also:

          MICHELLE
     Shut the hell up, Gene Kelly!

This wasn’t the best line to set the tone for your script. I’d remove it.

Other than that, this was very well done.

Chris

This short is OK.  I feel there are some obvious mistakes.

If this is all in her head she would have at least acted out the moments of struggle which would have put blood on her boyfriend.  Therefore he would have been woken up by the action.  

How is it that his eyes snap open 2 hours later and he jumps into action.  If he was hung over and groggy as he woke up then this might be remotely believable.

Or, did she just imagine it all, simply cut herself, and get up and walk into the bathroom.  If so, I think it is unfair to the audience for us to see  . . . .  

"Alex stands up and walks to the bathroom door. He tries to
open it. It’s locked. He presses his palm to the door - then
brings his ear to the door...listening."

I don't believe she can see that.  She could "imagine" the door moving and that it must be Alex, she could "imagine" Alex speaking from the other side.  She could even imagine the tip of the blade coming through the door, but when you use the "trick" of showing something that didn't happen outside of the psycho's realm of possibility I think you cheat the audience.

AlbinoPenguin : 1st of all...your screenname is awesome. Thanks for reading this. I probably should add their ages. I thought I had.

InquiringMinds: I hadn't noticed  anything that was written in the present tense. I'll read it over and look for those again.

The sun is not turning them into killers neither is anything on the radio. That's how it was going in but I changed it. ALso, It's up for your interpretation.

I don't think it's always necessary in shorts to explain everything.

ReefDreamer: Thanks for your comments. I hadn't thought about that. Interesting.

Sham: There are quite an awful lot of "She"s in that section. That section. Thanks for pointing that out.

Colkurtz8: Thanks for reading. Glad you liked it.

I didn't like the font for the title.  
I understood the story just fine.  
It could have been better with a couple tweaks here and there but over all it was decent.