These Three in Texas by James Stampp - Short, Western - A man tells the story that led to his father's imprisonment while waiting for him to arrive from the penitentiary. 19 pages - pdf, format 8)

Much obliged, Don.

James,

I really wanted to like this script.  This is a good example of a story that could have been a homerun, but the pacing is all over the place.

As you labeled this a short western, that is what set the tone for me, not the story.  When you have a lot of VO, which are sparingly used in the genre, they don't work when there is nothing going on.  Even if it wasn't a VO, it went on too long.  All Del did was look at the clock a few times in between large chunks of dialogue.  Instead of throwing in beats, why not take the opportunity to throw in some action lines to set the tone?

The fox and the hare dialogue wasn't bad, but it felt misplaced in the story and lacked the punch I think you were looking for.

The Del/Cordell shootout was right out of an Elmore Leonard short story, so good job on that.  The quirky bit at the end with the Old Man started out good, but should have tapered off into a theme.

If you ever rework this one, let me know and I'll check it out.

Johnny

Wow, that's a lot of V.O.....

The biggest problem is, the V.O. goes on for five pages, and nothing else happens. That's five minutes on screen, just watching a guy sitting still while a narrator talks.

It's rare for writers to pull off V.O., but I never like to tell writers not to use it. If you do stick with it, though, you need to shorten it A LOT, and at least give us something interesting to watch on screen.

Not to mention the V.O. is written in dialect, which makes it hard to get through. Just spell everything normal and leave room for the actors to do accents.

"FADE IN on DEL" -- What's this supposed to mean? You already said "FADE IN: EXT. TEXAS DINER", so why are we fading in again?

Sorry, man, not for me.

Will

Hey James,

This might be the first work I’ve read of yours.

The first thing I noticed was your opening slug.

INT. TEXAS DINER (1927) (LATE MORNING)

Should read more like-

INT. TEXAS DINER – DAY

SUPER: 1927

It’s better to establish the time in a super rather than in the slug.

In your first opening dialog, you really might want to think about breaking that up some.

See the (beats)? Use those as opportunities to interject some action lines and break it up.

He take a drag from his smoke, he stares beyond the rolling tumble weeds, anything to break it up.

Otherwise the dialog seems way to long and uninterrupted.

I like the unique voice you gave Del. Very effective.
At page – 4 and this dialog has got to be moved around some. These blocks are           Gi-Normus…


From what I’m reading the whole thing is done as a voice over. That’s a different approach.

Then Cordell and Sam get together and the dialog is pretty good but you need to break some of that up as well. There is no hard and fast rule on amount of dialog line but when they start getting close to a page long in a single line, you might want that to be your guide to determine whether it’s too long or not.


I’m  a firm believer that anytime you have a (beat) you have a missed opportunity for something else. A moment, a action line, hell even a glance would be better then

A beat,

And nothing else.

Then, the dialog levels out and works perfectly. Do yourself a favor. Do what you did in the second half of the script in the first half.

In the second half of the script, your dialog / action ratio is very effective.

Do that for the first half of the script and this story will really come together.

It was a good story. It just needs some love on the first few pages.

Shawn…..><

Notes on These Three in Texas


During VO you could use action lines as a flashback. That way you could cut parts of the VO altogether and show us in pictures.

I don't mind the dialect. I once read an entire novel written in the Scottish dialect. All the way through, both dialogue and prose. I can get used to it. Although I have to admit that this seems heavily dialogue driven and it's a little hard going. It really needs some visuals and I believe the flashback sequences could be the way to go. As it stands I'm going to skip past it and see what the rest of the story has to offer.

Now when you get to the action things are looking good. I've missed out a lot of the conversation, so I'm not exactly sure who has done what... but somebody has definitely done something. Your action lines are well written.

OK, now I get the story. Daddy gets blamed for the crime and does the time, he gets out and wants revenge. I like stories like this and it has potential.

First off, thanks for the reads guys. It's not meant to be everyone's cup of tea; I would be the first to admit it. But I am always curious to see how different people will react to my writing :) And because I know it's not to everyone's taste, it's specially more interesting to me to see "negative" reactions or people who struggle with it.

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo James, I really wanted to like this script.  This is a good example of a story that could have been a homerun, but the pacing is all over the place.

Thanks for the read Johnny. Really appreciate it. I personally don't think there's anything wrong with the pacing. I think it depends on the way you're reading it. I don't know, maybe it feels that way because the "first part" is all V.O. and then it runs into being a conversation, so I could see how it might appear odd, but I don't think that's a pacing issue. It's just unorthodox, I understand.

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo As you labeled this a short western, that is what set the tone for me, not the story.  When you have a lot of VO, which are sparingly used in the genre, they don't work when there is nothing going on.  Even if it wasn't a VO, it went on too long.  All Del did was look at the clock a few times in between large chunks of dialogue.  Instead of throwing in beats, why not take the opportunity to throw in some action lines to set the tone?

Excellent question. I think in an earlier draft I had him exchange lines with a waitress but I found this too distracting. So what I settled on was the idea that this guy is telling us a story about his father, like he was maybe telling it to his son or grandson or something like that, and we're listening in. But I wanted to do it in V.O. because I wanted to set the tone for everything that would happen and I wanted to do sort of like a Flannery O'Conner or Charles Portis type of story. Granted, this is a short script, so the V.O. would most likely not have gone on so long for me in a feature script, but that's what I was after. Long V.O. And I know V.O. is not everyone's cup of tea, and I think maybe that's what turned you off from it. V.O. can be dull for some, I understand. But I think can be effective. The guy's southern, drawls, talks a bit slower, so you're hanging on to every word to get the story. Believe me, the first draft V.O. was 8 pages long :)

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo The fox and the hare dialogue wasn't bad, but it felt misplaced in the story and lacked the punch I think you were looking for.

I can actually agree with you here. I think it didn't end that well the way I wanted it to. Actually there was more dialogue that I omitted before that story, because it was becoming a bore, and I guess I didn't really revise this part. That's my mistake. I probably should have sort of smooth-en it out a bit and building more relevance around his "point."

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo The quirky bit at the end with the Old Man started out good, but should have tapered off into a theme.

Not sure what you mean here. I think it does end with a point, the last line of dialogue does. It kind of brings it all together.

Quoted from crookedowl Wow, that's a lot of V.O..... The biggest problem is, the V.O. goes on for five pages, and nothing else happens. That's five minutes on screen, just watching a guy sitting still while a narrator talks. It's rare for writers to pull off V.O., but I never like to tell writers not to use it. If you do stick with it, though, you need to shorten it A LOT, and at least give us something interesting to watch on screen.

I touched on the V.O. thing in my response to Johnny, but with respect to watching what the guy does, yeah, I probably should have indicated that he just does his own thing, you know, acts, improvises, does whatever. And that our attention shouldn't deviate from him too much because then the audience won't be able to focus on what he's saying but on some other action. That was my reasoning for not showing much action because the audience wouldn't pay attention to what he's telling us. Well, anyway, that was the angle I took with it.

Quoted from crookedowl Not to mention the V.O. is written in dialect, which makes it hard to get through. Just spell everything normal and leave room for the actors to do accents.

It can be, yes. I had trouble with Flannery O'Conner when I started reading her. But after a while, you get used to it. I think it's an effective way for me to imagine the character. That's why I write it that way. And peculiar inflections the actors make on the words is an added bonus in my book :)

Quoted from crookedowl "FADE IN on DEL" -- What's this supposed to mean? You already said "FADE IN: EXT. TEXAS DINER", so why are we fading in again?

No, it's one fade in. The second fade in is the indication that we're fading in on the character himself and not sort of generally on the diner as I was describing it in the action line previous.

Quoted from crookedowl Sorry, man, not for me.

Appreciate the honesty, Will :)

Quoted from Ledbetter Hey James, This might be the first work I've read of yours. The first thing I noticed was your opening slug. INT. TEXAS DINER (1927) (LATE MORNING)

Thanks for the read, Shawn.
That was meant to establish the year in terms of the diner, its occupants (guests, cook, waitress, etc.), set design, etc. I guess I could have used an action line, but I believe in brevity in a script, so I just put it in the slug. No harm done in raising this though. :)

Quoted from Ledbetter I like the unique voice you gave Del. Very effective. At page � 4 and this dialog has got to be moved around some. These blocks are           Gi-Normus

Since I addressed most of this above, I don't think that I have more to say on it, but yeah, I figured the V.O. would be VERY off-putting for a lot of folks :)

Quoted from Ledbetter From what I'm reading the whole thing is done as a voice over. That's a different approach.

:) You're right. That's the approach, alright. Haha

Quoted from Ledbetter There is no hard and fast rule on amount of dialog line but when they start getting close to a page long in a single line, you might want that to be your guide to determine whether it's too long or not.

I think that's a good point, and I try to stick to that generally. Dialogue between too people is generally more entertaining than when you have soliloquies. But when I am writing and I am into the whole thing, I'm not really checking how long it is. And even after I go back and say, yeah, that line can go because it's getting dull there, I'll cut it. But, I think, as long as it's done right, as long as I'm getting the soliloquy to work, and it's not dull, then I think I'm sold &#61514; Again, it might just be a taste thing, so that's why it's not striking the right chord with every single person. And as I said before, I didn�t really foresee it to.
Again, thanks so much for read, buddy.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Although I have to admit that this seems heavily dialogue driven and it's a little hard going.

Dustin, thanks for the read. Much appreciated.
I guess, because it�s difficult for me to see exactly where the problem lies from your perspective of the story, that is, if there�s a specific line or point at which it becomes �hard going�, it would be helpful if you were a bit more specific. Otherwise, I�m not sure how else I can address this now.

Quoted from DustinBowcot [S]o I'm not exactly sure who has done what... but somebody has definitely done something.

That my friend, just might make it into the rewrite :) I could picture Del saying this...in voice-over obviously :)

Quoted from DustinBowcot Your action lines are well written. OK, now I get the story. Daddy gets blamed for the crime and does the time, he gets out and wants revenge. I like stories like this and it has potential.

Thanks, Dustin.

You're taking this piss surely? co-incidentally, I just got a job that's almost all vo, but it doesn't mean I'm just going to stick vo all over the page - you just have to break this up some - anything dialogue-heavy vo or other-wise has to be addressed to the visual. The simple question here is what's happening on-screen while he's chit-chattin' away? You already got some references, like the cigarette and the location, so I'd check out pulp fiction maybe and see how that's done, as even though its dialogue heavy it still gets broken up now and again with the waitress and coffee and stuff.

Quoted from Forgive You're taking this piss surely? co-incidentally, I just got a job that's almost all vo, but it doesn't mean I'm just going to stick vo all over the page - you just have to break this up some - anything dialogue-heavy vo or other-wise has to be addressed to the visual. The simple question here is what's happening on-screen while he's chit-chattin' away? You already got some references, like the cigarette and the location, so I'd check out pulp fiction maybe and see how that's done, as even though its dialogue heavy it still gets broken up now and again with the waitress and coffee and stuff.

Thanks.

In regards to the specific point that it gets hard going JS, it's more psychological when I see the amount of of dialogue I have to read right from the beginning. But I tried to read it, got to around page 3 and saw that it just continued and continued. If you hadn't have responded to mine I would have given up and left this one without a response.

However, I'm glad that I did have a look at what comes past the VO because it was well done. I feel that you have missed with this one as a whole... but the concept is still a good one and just needs a bit of work.

Thanks Dustin. I've worked on it some.

I've mulled it over, and while I do think there does lie an issue with the V.O., I don't think its the length per se. I don't think there's excitement in it. That's the real issue I see with it now. And while it won't be a walk in the park to fix that, I have some ideas for it. Also, the "second act", the exchange between Sam and Cordell is not satisfying me, including the story about the fox and the hare, so a good majority of that will need to be rewritten. There's something about it that falls flat, and I'm not even sure if I could fix that. It might take me a while to rework that.

But thanks for the feedback. It gives me more perspective on where the real issue is, which wasn't quite apparent to me.

Hey James, not sure if I've eve read anything of yours before, but I know I see you on the boards often, so I figured why not give you some feedback as well.

I didn't read the comments until I stopped reading.

James, these are my opinions and if you disagree, that's fine.  My words are not meant to hurt, only to help.

Right out of the gate, you have immediate issues on display and that's just not the way you ever want to start things out.

Your opening Slug is a mess, sorry to say.  You don't want a date in your Slugs.  You don't want parentheses in your Slugs.  Even the Slug itself - TEXAS DINER - has issues.  I'm sure the diner is not actually called "Texas Diner", but that you're telling us it looks like a diner in Texas, but I don't know what that really is supposed to look like, as diners all over the country don't look all that different inside.

Your opening action/description line is also very "odd", especially the way it begins.  I've never read a script that opens like this...and honestly, I hope I never do again.  Th wording, phrasing, even the assumed visual about the darkness compared to outside - all does not work as written.

Your next passage is also riddled with errors, which makes me wonder about reading any further, actually.  You've already had a FADE IN, so why you'd want to add one here is beyond me.  Your description of Del is overwritten.  Too much detail.    I always advise to never use semi colons in screenwriting, as they just aren't necessary.  This is a 5 line passage and there's absolutely no reason for it. You have incomplete thoughts, subbing as sentences. You have detailed visual descriptions that no one cares about.  And finally, you end with 2 separate fragments that have nothing to do with what you faded in on in the whole passage.  The center of your passage is Del.  "Light guest count." has nothing to do with this and if anything, should be a separate passage.  Then, for some reason that I don't understand,  you end the passage with, "With a strong voice:", which obviously is in reference to the V.O. that hasn't started yet.  You never want to do this type of thing is a screenplay, as it's a novelistic way to write.  If anything, you'd want a wrylie, but it's not important enough to waste a line, really.

OK, so then we go into what appears to be a 3 or 4 page V.O. while Del sits in this diner, smoking a cig.  No other visuals going on for 3+ minutes?  Seriously?  This is supposed to be a screenplay, not a novel.  Screenplays are visual, this is not.

To make matters worse, you decided to write the V.O. in a strange, hard to read dialect, but before I even go there, I see what seems to me to be a very big mistake on the very first line of the V.O.  According to the incorrectly formatted opening Slug, it's the year 1927, right?  Del gives us the V.O. and he says in the year 1949, 22 years later than where we now are, his Dad got arrested.  Huh?  Am I missing something here?  That makes zero sense.

This V.O. just seems to go on and on, with nothing more than the occasional "(beat)", and zero visuals.  On Page 2 and Page 3, the only action/description line you use (a total of twice) is Del looking at "the" (what clock is that, again?) clock, showing that times is definitely passing.  On Page 4, he grabs another smoke and lights it.  So, through 4 pages, or 4 minutes of film, all we see is this guy sitting in a diner, smoking 2 cigs!  Seriously?  For reals?

So, at this point, after just skimming the actual V.O., I'm out for good.  IMO, it doesn't matter what happens from here on out, because you've given me 4+ pages with absolutely nothing happening.  Not the way a screenplay is supposed to work, IMO.

I hope this doesn't come off as harsh and I also hope it helps and makes sense.

Take care, James.

Thanks for your thoughts Dreasmscale,

No, it doesn't come off as harsh :) But I do think a good portion of what you said is an underestimation of the script.

Quoted from Dreamscale Right out of the gate, you have immediate issues on display and that's just not the way you ever want to start things out. Your opening Slug is a mess, sorry to say.  You don't want a date in your Slugs.  You don't want parentheses in your Slugs.

Well, first off, I'm going to disagree with you on the year based on the evidence, not on opinion. There are numerous scripts I've read and have encountered that use a date as a point of reference not just for the reader but also for how things ought to look on screen. E.g. The King's Speech, Prometheus, Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. I'm sure there are a couple others, it's been a long time since I've seen it in a script, and I can't remember for the life of me where I've seen it, but those are a few. It is used and with parentheses.

Quoted from Dreamscale Even the Slug itself - TEXAS DINER - has issues.  I'm sure the diner is not actually called "Texas Diner", but that you're telling us it looks like a diner in Texas, but I don't know what that really is supposed to look like, as diners all over the country don't look all that different inside.

It's just a general diner in Texas. There's no specific location, that's sort of free for others to decide. And then there's a bit of contradiction in what you said. First you said you don't know what it's suppose to look like, and then you said diners all over the country don't look all that different. So, I mean, come on. Give me a break :) It's just a diner that's situated in Texas. I'm sure the art department can get creative with that. I'm sure I have the option of indicating that in the voice-over. But in terms of this being a slug issue, I'm not buying it. I'm fairly liberal to criticism as obviously I want to improve myself. But I just think you're wrong about this. And above all, it's in the TITLE! So no, I'm not buying it.

Quoted from Dreamscale Your opening action/description line is also very "odd", especially the way it begins.  I've never read a script that opens like this...and honestly, I hope I never do again.  Th wording, phrasing, even the assumed visual about the darkness compared to outside - all does not work as written.

I don't see the issue with it. It's pretty straight forward. I don't think others who read it had issue with it.

Quoted from Dreamscale Your next passage is also riddled with errors, which makes me wonder about reading any further, actually.  You've already had a FADE IN, so why you'd want to add one here is beyond me.

The FADE IN happens on the character himself. It means, don't FADE IN on the general atmosphere of the diner first, FADE IN on Del himself.

Quoted from Dreamscale Your description of Del is overwritten.  Too much detail.    I always advise to never use semi colons in screenwriting, as they just aren't necessary.  This is a 5 line passage and there's absolutely no reason for it. You have incomplete thoughts, subbing as sentences. You have detailed visual descriptions that no one cares about.

I wish I could agree with you, especially how I have written it in the first draft, but I just can't. The description of him is one line. That's it. Then there's action of what he's doing as we FADE IN, but that's not description of the character.

Quoted from Dreamscale And finally, you end with 2 separate fragments that have nothing to do with what you faded in on in the whole passage.  The center of your passage is Del.  "Light guest count." has nothing to do with this and if anything, should be a separate passage.

This is true, yes. I don't know why I hadn't caught that. That should go in the previous action paragraph. That's a good catch.

Quoted from Dreamscale Then, for some reason that I don't understand,  you end the passage with, "With a strong voice:", which obviously is in reference to the V.O. that hasn't started yet.  You never want to do this type of thing is a screenplay, as it's a novelistic way to write.  If anything, you'd want a wrylie, but it's not important enough to waste a line, really.

I'm not going to start quoting screenplays where this has happened, but believe me, it happens, a lot. Now, in terms of whether its important or not, that's a different issue. Actually I decided to add "slowly" to control the pacing a bit more. I think it's important.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, so then we go into what appears to be a 3 or 4 page V.O. while Del sits in this diner, smoking a cig.  No other visuals going on for 3+ minutes?  Seriously?  This is supposed to be a screenplay, not a novel.  Screenplays are visual, this is not.

The idea was to write a story in one location. Even in a feature script I wouldn't have gone on so long with the voice over. I guess I could have started on landscapes and done something like that, eventually leading to the diner, which might also be possible under a budget. But I think so long as the audience is focused only on the character, they can pay attention to the dialogue. Otherwise, they'll be distracted by visuals. That was my reasoning behind it, and not sort of interrupting with action, as I could have. Also, another thing I should have mentioned. This is written in the Courier New font and not the Courier New Final Draft font which arguably shortens the page length. I think it comes out as 3.5 pages in that font. It is long, yes. Do I have to rework it so it's more interesting, yes. Is it unorthodox, yes. But after all, this is a short, and it's hard to establish the story of what is going to happen next without setting it up with a voice over. It's like taking 40 pages worth of feature film voice over and packing it into 3.5 pages. It's difficult to do without loosing the important stuff, and the characterization and all. But I'm working on putting more excitement in it. It's a short, so in order to get the most out of it, there needs to be long voice over. I will probably shorten it some, in the course of trying to make it exciting, but not by much.

Quoted from Dreamscale To make matters worse, you decided to write the V.O. in a strange, hard to read dialect,

Haha, I can already tell this isn't your type of story.

Quoted from Dreamscale but before I even go there, I see what seems to me to be a very big mistake on the very first line of the V.O.  According to the incorrectly formatted opening Slug, it's the year 1927, right?  Del gives us the V.O. and he says in the year 1949, 22 years later than where we now are, his Dad got arrested.  Huh?  Am I missing something here?  That makes zero sense.

Yeah, you're right. And I noticed this last night. I don't know why the hell I didn't realize this before. There are a lot of issues with that in general. The car thing, the whole high speed pursuit thing, so I'm working on that. But that's an easy fix.

Quoted from Dreamscale This V.O. just seems to go on and on, with nothing more than the occasional "(beat)", and zero visuals.  On Page 2 and Page 3, the only action/description line you use (a total of twice) is Del looking at "the" (what clock is that, again?) clock, showing that times is definitely passing.  On Page 4, he grabs another smoke and lights it.  So, through 4 pages, or 4 minutes of film, all we see is this guy sitting in a diner, smoking 2 cigs!  Seriously?  For reals?

V.O.'s are not everyone's cup of tea, I understand. I could understand if it started to sag and meander, which I don't think it does. It's just that it's not nearly as exciting as it needs to be. But givent the nature of the story, it's imparitive that I have in there. If you don't like Flannery O'Conner, Charles Portis, William Faulkner, Cormac McCarthy, Southern Gothic type of stories, I don't think it's the story for you. Granted, their writing is better than mine :) It's a short, so different rules apply, because the intention is to set-up what happens next, and its extremly, extremly difficult to do all that without giving a long voice over. It's a short and not a feature script where you can flesh all that out.

The clock bit, that's a mistake due to what happened from an earlier draft. Good catch.

Quoted from Dreamscale So, at this point, after just skimming the actual V.O., I'm out for good.  IMO, it doesn't matter what happens from here on out, because you've given me 4+ pages with absolutely nothing happening.  Not the way a screenplay is supposed to work, IMO.

A lot has happened. You just didn't read it.

Quoted from Dreamscale I hope this doesn't come off as harsh and I also hope it helps and makes sense. Take care, James.

Thanks for the feedback. I appreciate that you gave it a go, even though I can see you're just not a fan of the genre I'm going for. So that's understandable.

All the best,
-J.S.

I enjoy a western as much as the next guy.  But, James, you're gonna hafta kill off some of your babies.  I.E. the V.O.

It's just too much.   Bottom line.

On a positive note, you do have a knack for writing dialogue.  

OK, James.  I don't want to get in anymore arguments with peeps about this or that, as I'm just tired of i and it never goes anywhere.

I will say just a few things and we can leave it at that, or you can respond back again.

We've all seen pretty much anything anyone can bring up in scripts, be they high level Pro, or low level amateur.  Just because a Pro does something, it doesn't mean it's right or the way everyone should write.

If a date, time, year, whatever is important to your story, you need to use a SUPER.  The reason for writing a script is to have it turned into a film.  Anyone watching a filmed version of this will not know what year it is, as they will not be able to read your Slug.  There's just no reason to do this and the more complicated your scripts become, the more issues you'll have if you continue this.

Having a V.O. take place for minutes on end with absolutely nothing going on onscreen is never, ever going to fly.  Films are visual experiences.  I just can't imagine sitting somewhere watching a a guy smoke a cig or 2 for 4 or 5 minutes while a V.O. takes place.  Just is not the way to go at all and never will be.

You say tat you had to do it this way, based on the backstory you have to tell, but what you're really saying is that this story, told this way, is not meant to be a visual or filmed entity.  It's just not.  It sounds more like a short story, and there's quite a huge difference.

I wish you the best with this and only intend on helping out where I think I can.  Take care.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, James.  I don't want to get in anymore arguments with peeps about this or that, as I'm just tired of i.

Really?

Quoted from Dreamscale I will say just a few things and we can leave it at that, or you can respond back again.

Ah  ::)

Quoted from M.Alexander I enjoy a western as much as the next guy.  But, James, you're gonna hafta kill off some of your babies.  I.E. the V.O. It's just too much.   Bottom line. On a positive note, you do have a knack for writing dialogue.

Thankee :)

Yer welcome.  I just took another look at it trying to figure out how you could break up that V.O.  it's almost like you need another character sitting at the table with him.   First thing that comes to mind is the Carl's monologue to "Slingblade" when he's talking to the Reporter.

If it was me I'd have him talking to a figment of his magination.  But, alas, it's your story, not mine.  

Good luck with it.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Really? Ah  ::)

Thanks, Dustin.  Good to see you trying to keep the peace.  We all appreciate your comments, bud.  Keep it up.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, James.  I don't want to get in anymore arguments with peeps about this or that, as I'm just tired of i and it never goes anywhere.

I didn't realize there was really argument. After all, your criticism had points that I'm rejecting based on evidence. I never initiated nor desired to initiate an argument. I'm just saying the evidence is proving your point wrong. That's all.

Quoted from Dreamscale I will say just a few things and we can leave it at that, or you can respond back again. We've all seen pretty much anything anyone can bring up in scripts, be they high level Pro, or low level amateur.  Just because a Pro does something, it doesn't mean it's right or the way everyone should write. If a date, time, year, whatever is important to your story, you need to use a SUPER.  The reason for writing a script is to have it turned into a film.  Anyone watching a filmed version of this will not know what year it is, as they will not be able to read your Slug.  There's just no reason to do this and the more complicated your scripts become, the more issues you'll have if you continue this.

So I'm curious, if I'm not suppose to be looking to the Pro's scripts because they could be wrong, who am I suppose to be looking to? The rules? Where are those rules? Who created them? Who gave the person authority to create them? That's a highly unsubstantiated claim you're making. But I'm not going to argue with you on it.

Quoted from Dreamscale Having a V.O. take place for minutes on end with absolutely nothing going on onscreen is never, ever going to fly.

That's an opinion, and I respect that. I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just not buying the confidence you have that it wouldn't work. Variation, breaking the rules, stretching the bounds, is what the great screenwriters, or at least I consider them great, have done. Should we be wary, absolutely.

Quoted from Dreamscale Films are visual experiences.  I just can't imagine sitting somewhere watching a a guy smoke a cig or 2 for 4 or 5 minutes while a V.O. takes place.  Just is not the way to go at all and never will be.

I like listening to people telling stories. If the story is interesting, I will listen to that person talk for 5 minutes. That's just me. That's how I see things.

Quoted from Dreamscale You say tat you had to do it this way, based on the backstory you have to tell, but what you're really saying is that this story, told this way, is not meant to be a visual or filmed entity.  It's just not.  It sounds more like a short story, and there's quite a huge difference.

I think it would be lacking without the back story. The V.O. is visual in the mind of the audience not on screen, yes.

Quoted from Dreamscale I wish you the best with this and only intend on helping out where I think I can.  Take care.

I know you do, and I appreciate the feedback. I really do. Some of it has been helpful, certainly.

Quoted from M.Alexander Yer welcome.  I just took another look at it trying to figure out how you could break up that V.O.  it's almost like you need another character sitting at the table with him.   First thing that comes to mind is the Carl's monologue to "Slingblade" when he's talking to the Reporter. If it was me I'd have him talking to a figment of his magination.  But, alas, it's your story, not mine.   Good luck with it.

Thanks. Yeah, I was thinking of doing that. Like he's actually doing a soliloquy, not a voice over, but I thought it might appear odd. Who knows, I might have to mull it over and try that angle :)

Thanks again.

Quoted from J.S. I didn't realize there was really argument. After all, your criticism had points that I'm rejecting based on evidence. I never initiated nor desired to initiate an argument. I'm just saying the evidence is proving your point wrong. That's all. So I'm curious, if I'm not suppose to be looking to the Pro's scripts because they could be wrong, who am I suppose to be looking to? The rules? Where are those rules? Who created them? Who gave the person authority to create them? That's a highly unsubstantiated claim you're making. But I'm not going to argue with you on it.

No, we're not arguing, and there's no reason we should.  If Dustin wants to argue, that can be arranged, however.

My point about "just because a Pro does it, doesn't make it right" should really be taken exactly as that.  Thinking that because someone else does something makes it OK, is not a good way of thinking.

Rick Barry was arguably the best freethrow shooter in history, but that doesn't mean that kids should practice their freethrows underhand.

Tim Tebow was very successful in college, scored a big NFL contract and even had success his first season, but no one is gong to argue that his throwing mechanics are anything anyone should try and emulate.

Most Pro writers do not write Spec scripts.  Pro writers do not go through reading gatekeepers.

Quentin Tarantino is easily one of the most loved screenwriters out there, but young, inexperienced writers should not read his scripts and try to emulate his style, or say that because QT did it, I can get away with it as well.

I will agree with you that it's not a conventional spec script, and it probably doesn't succeed at that.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the QT part. I know I certainly wasn't going for his style. The inspiration for the style is Southern Gothic.

EDIT: Tennessee Williams's style is kinda similar to this, I think. I'll have to get back to reading his work.

Quoted from Dreamscale Most Pro writers do not write Spec scripts.  Pro writers do not go through reading gatekeepers.

One is a pro writer once they write for a living. You can be a pro and sell spec' scripts. Look at Blake Snyder. He sold 13 spec scripts. It's called being freelance. zzzzzz

Quoted from Dreamscale Quentin Tarantino is easily one of the most loved screenwriters out there, but young, inexperienced writers should not read his scripts and try to emulate his style, or say that because QT did it, I can get away with it as well.

Of course they can. It is the story and your talent that stands out the most. There are certain rules we should follow but there are are also many that we don't have to. For example. You told me in my thread to never go over 4 lines of action. LOL. If a shot takes 5 or 6 lines of action then so be it. It is also fine to use flowery prose to help set the tone. Indeed it is imperative. It is part of the skill... knowing when to do it and when not to.

The reason pro scripts break all the rules is because there are only really a few basic rules to writing a screenplay. Pro's know that it is the story that stands out the most and they use the tools available to make that story read well. Amateurs over think things... why aren't I selling?
You know what though, it may not even be that you're a bad writer, it could just be that you don't know how to network. You've got to get yourself out there or even great writers can be left languishing.


I know why you are the way you are, DS. Because you don't know any different. You have no real experience, only that which you have gleaned from posting on the internet. So you repeat what you have read just like the rest of us. You can't know though, because you're not a pro. Go over to the Done Deal forums where the pro's do post and you'll see that they argue all the time. The reason for that is because they all have different experiences. Some will say it is fine to use camera angles and others will say it isn't. Some will say it is fine to use flowery prose and others will say it isn't.

What other qualifications do you have aside from posting shite on the internet?

Quoted from DustinBowcot One is a pro writer once they write for a living. You can be a pro and sell spec' scripts. Look at Blake Snyder. He sold 13 spec scripts. It's called being freelance. zzzzzz Of course they can. It is the story and your talent that stands out the most. There are certain rules we should follow but there are are also many that we don't have to. For example. You told me in my thread to never go over 4 lines of action. LOL. If a shot takes 5 or 6 lines of action then so be it. It is also fine to use flowery prose to help set the tone. Indeed it is imperative. It is part of the skill... knowing when to do it and when not to. The reason pro scripts break all the rules is because there are only really a few basic rules to writing a screenplay. Pro's know that it is the story that stands out the most and they use the tools available to make that story read well. Amateurs over think things... why aren't I selling? You know what though, it may not even be that you're a bad writer, it could just be that you don't know how to network. You've got to get yourself out there or even great writers can be left languishing. I know why you are the way you are, DS. Because you don't know any different. You have no real experience, only that which you have gleaned from posting on the internet. So you repeat what you have read just like the rest of us. You can't know though, because you're not a pro. Go over to the Done Deal forums where the pro's do post and you'll see that they argue all the time. The reason for that is because they all have different experiences. Some will say it is fine to use camera angles and others will say it isn't. Some will say it is fine to use flowery prose and others will say it isn't. What other qualifications do you have aside from posting shite on the internet?

Dustin, as I said, I don't want to get into any more arguments with completely insignificant little fuckwads like you.

You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and the more you talk, the more obvious it is.

You have no idea who I am, what I know, why I know it, or what I've gone through in life.  You really think I parrot what I've heard over the years over and over because I don't know anything better or worse?  Wrong, shithead...wrong.

You squawk out the same crap so many other untalented hacks do about story being king and nothing else matters...as if these gilded Pro writers write all these amazing stories.  You obviously have little knowledge of actual movies if you think story is actually king.  And not that it shouldn't be, but just take a look in any cineplex, TV, or DVD.

You've shown your hand early, Dustin and it's clear you hold no aces.  I highly doubt you even hold a single face card.

Please crawl back into that little shit hole, you call a home and quit trying to piss peeps off.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dustin, as I said, I don't want to get into any more arguments with completely insignificant little fuckwads like you.

You're such a tease.

Quoted from Dreamscale You have no idea who I am, what I know, why I know it, or what I've gone through in life.  You really think I parrot what I've heard over the years over and over because I don't know anything better or worse?  Wrong, shithead...wrong.

I couldn't care less what you have gone through in life... What does that have to do with the opinion I've gathered from your posts at this forum?

Quoted from Dreamscale You squawk out the same crap so many other untalented hacks do about story being king and nothing else matters...as if these gilded Pro writers write all these amazing stories.  You obviously have little knowledge of actual movies if you think story is actually king.  And not that it shouldn't be, but just take a look in any cineplex, TV, or DVD.

Story is King... along with talent to execute the story well. I have no idea what you mean by gilded writers. You should learn to handle the weed before posting here stoned. Do a second draft on that paragraph and maybe I'll understand wtf it means.

Quoted from Dreamscale You've shown your hand early, Dustin and it's clear you hold no aces.  I highly doubt you even hold a single face card. Please crawl back into that little shit hole, you call a home and quit trying to piss peeps off.

Well, I seriously expected more fight, Dreamscale. I'm sorely disappointed in you.

Hey Dustin. This all seems to be getting very personal toward Jeff - you appear to have an agenda against him for some reason? I don't know how this is helping your writing, and I don't know what you, personally, are gaining from it.

Jeff gives a lot of good advice, and as you well know, anyone's experience will not necessarily be the route-path for everyone else to follow.

As far as I know many pro-writers do not tend toward spec-scripts, and I have only come to that conclusion as other media has found it note-worthy when an established writer sells a spec-script - so by default implying it doesn't happen so often. Doctoring and commissions yes, and specs sometimes yes, but if there is an alternative to specs (and people are coming to you), then why would you do that? The other outlet of course, is production of your own work which circumvents the whole spec angle, even if it's via a company you are pushing to.

The so-called breakin' all the rules bit. Well, you have to know the rules first before you can play with them to enhance your work. This is different to breaking them, as I'm sure that you are aware.

As I'm also sure you've sent work to the Writers Room, I think that you must understand that there are a limited number of people who act as gate-keepers when it comes to reading peoples' scripts, and these people are going to have rules, standards, and principles, which writers have to be aware of. Sending off to readers/dir./prods on spec is an entirely different market to commissions or similar, and I think that anyone who is writing to that (spec) market needs to understand that.

Even if you do have some level of talent and can write well (and I mean 'you'), you are only at best border-level pro, and not yet fully established in the industry, which even if you are more advanced in your progress than many people here, doesn't actually give you the right to act as the same authority as you criticise Jeff for being.

My take on this? You see Jeff as Top Dog here, and you've targeted him for your own purposes, and have not understood that it won't actually do your writing any good - which is what most of us are here for, and which, unlike yourself, Jeff has spent many years helping and assisting people with. What I've learnt is that nobody (least of all you) is actually the final word in screen-writing, and we get better by helping each other out.

Quoted from Forgive Hey Dustin. This all seems to be getting very personal toward Jeff - you appear to have an agenda against him for some reason? I don't know how this is helping your writing, and I don't know what you, personally, are gaining from it.

I haven't said a single bad word about jeff... yet he calls me a fuckwad, shithead and whatever else he said. To me it means nothing, is actually funny. I don't see why I'm the one being accused of personal attacks. I'm just defending myself. He can't disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

Quoted from Forgive Jeff gives a lot of good advice, and as you well know, anyone's experience will not necessarily be the route-path for everyone else to follow.

He just repeats what he's been told... over and over again, getting more hateful each time he spouts it. He's deliberately hurtful to people and is something of a bully.

Quoted from Forgive As far as I know many pro-writers do not tend toward spec-scripts, and I have only come to that conclusion as other media has found it note-worthy when an established writer sells a spec-script - so by default implying it doesn't happen so often. Doctoring and commissions yes, and specs sometimes yes, but if there is an alternative to specs (and people are coming to you), then why would you do that? The other outlet of course, is production of your own work which circumvents the whole spec angle, even if it's via a company you are pushing to.

I agree with you. However a hack, which is what good spec writers need to be, can make a good living feeding from the moment. Maybe if you want to break into commissioned writing, which I'll admit appeals to me in certain areas, like Dr Who and maybe other big projects like Batman then it may help sticking exactly to the rules.. but I don't think so. I genuinely believe that it is having fresh ideas that is the most important thing. You have to figure out a way of doing it completely different, make it more interesting. That's the real talent.

I also understand the other side of the coin though... where people want more of the same. I'm writing a new gangster flick. Basically met a bunch of up and coming actors and I can visualise them in certain roles. It's going to be more of the same. All I'm going to do is escalate the violence to a level similar to Gangster number 1. Again when it comes to trying to raise the money for the film, I doubt the script structure will matter all that much. The exec's reading it will just want to know if it can make money. I know people on here may laugh at a title making money, but it's true. Just your title alone is enough to guarantee a profit in most cases. Often producers are clubbing together their own scripts, or worse getting it from some half baked writer. Not to mention cutting corners on costs, everywhere, poor acting and directing. If you have a good story it's a bonus. The hard part is getting your scripts into the right hands... and then making sure the bastards do a good job on it.

Quoted from Forgive The so-called breakin' all the rules bit. Well, you have to know the rules first before you can play with them to enhance your work. This is different to breaking them, as I'm sure that you are aware.

Yeah.

Quoted from Forgive As I'm also sure you've sent work to the Writers Room, I think that you must understand that there are a limited number of people who act as gate-keepers when it comes to reading peoples' scripts, and these people are going to have rules, standards, and principles, which writers have to be aware of. Sending off to readers/dir./prods on spec is an entirely different market to commissions or similar, and I think that anyone who is writing to that (spec) market needs to understand that.

No, I actually only started back in August last year. So I missed the last window for the writer's room. I forgot all about that place actually. I do have a 3-part drama they may be interested in. I've already ran foul of a gatekeeper or two. I understand where you are coming from. Many of them though will not be put off by little things. It will be story structure, character arcs, sequence arcs, scene arcs and whatever other arcs you can think of... important stuff like that that will put them off. Not whether they are using 5 lines of action.

Quoted from Forgive Even if you do have some level of talent and can write well (and I mean 'you'), you are only at best border-level pro, and not yet fully established in the industry, which even if you are more advanced in your progress than many people here, doesn't actually give you the right to act as the same authority as you criticise Jeff for being.

I don't believe I do act with that authority. I humbly give my opinion... that is all. I'm also not established, I'm just trying really hard to be. I'm no further than anybody else here.

Quoted from Forgive My take on this? You see Jeff as Top Dog here, and you've targeted him for your own purposes, and have not understood that it won't actually do your writing any good - which is what most of us are here for, and which, unlike yourself, Jeff has spent many years helping and assisting people with. What I've learnt is that nobody (least of all you) is actually the final word in screen-writing, and we get better by helping each other out.

Top Dogs don't need to run around shouting -- they're cool, laid back, respectful to people. I just see Jeff as a bully, if you want the truth.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I haven't said a single bad word about jeff...

While this may technically be true, looking back over the thread, post 15 is officially you stirring up trouble.  Objectively, this comment serves no real purpose but to agitate.

Jeff responded briefly ( post 18 ) which should have been the end of it -- but you called him out yet again later in the thread.

Jeff will admit to his flaws (occasionally), and chief amongst them is his inability to ignore comments pointed directly at him.

Nobody appreciates arguments on their thread, Dustin, which provide only clutter.  Please try not to incite them.

We'll chalk this one up to the learning curve, but in the future, please do not feed the bears.

OK.  Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion of the script.

Cut it out, both of ya'.

:D :D :D!!!

Hey James.

I like Texas and I like Westerns, so I thought I'd check this out.

Sort of a modern western going on here.  I like that aspect.

Honestly, I think I'm sort of opposite of everybody else.  (I didn't read the arguments, though, just everybody's early opinions of the story.)

It seems most readers disliked your opening, but liked the ending.  I actually like the beginning.  Even with the large chunks of voiceover, it was still an entertaining tale how the father got put into jail.  But I didn't like the ending at all.

The dialogue was good throughout, (a little heavy for Del, but I'll get to that later), I'll give you props on that.  But really, all that happens at the end is that Cordell shoots Sam and Del shoots Cordell.  It's so plain and vanilla and expected.  Even Cordell knows what's going to happen and he still doesn't defend himself against it.  And then an old man comes out and asks why Del's taking his father's body away?  That seemed disjointed.

I agree with some that Del's overly thick accent gets in the way of reading.  It can probably be toned down some without losing much of the accent.  It almost seemed like 1849 instead of 1949 because of his over-slave-like accent.

But the beginning did work for me.  I admit, I like just sitting around and listening to a story being told sometimes.

While the ending was weak in my opinion, it was still enough that I enjoyed the story for what it was.  Do you have any other stories on the boards?

- Mark

My apologies, Bert, but you're right.  I definitely have trouble not responding to prods aimed directly at me.

Dustin, just for the record, I'll say it again.  In no way, shape, or form do I simply repeat over and over what I've heard, in terms of feedback, advice, etc.  SO far from it, in fact.

What I repeat over and over is what I feel makes the most sense and what i know works and doesn't work.  I tell peeps over and over that when they receive feedback, some will be good and some will be terrible advice, and that it's up to them to not only figure out which is which, but also decide where they stand and why.

You, on the other hand, are obviously a parrot, among other things, as you continually squawk about all the BS that you've read in your 40 year old screenwriting books.  Classic structure, character arcs, STFC, on and on, and when someone points out obvious, glaring mistakes in your writing, your response is either no response at all, because you can't own up to your own mistakes, or, you say something to the effect, "easy fix - not worried about it".

You should be worried about it.  And you should want to produce the best script you can.

I'm sorry you feel like I'm a bully, as I'm so far from one.  I'm the guy that sticks up for all the little peeps out there.

You, on the other hand, have made it very clear who and what you are when you first stormed into SS.  You're arrogant beyond belief, and based on the writing you've shared, I don't have a clue where all that arrogance is coming from.  Your responses to feedback also show your character.  And then, your irritating little snide comments make it clear that you're most likely that A-Hole that everyone can't wait to punch in the face.

I've tried to play nice. I've tried to ignore you, but I'm only human.  I'll do my best to steer clear of anything you post but the truth is that we'll come across each other on other peep's threads.  If I irritate you so much with my comments to other peeps, just ignore them and continue to be the little shit you are.  OK?  You cool with that?

Bert, my response in post 15 was purely down to DS contradicting himself in the very next breath. I found it funny. He then went on one of his usual, nonsensical foul-mouthed rants. He actually called me out for an argument, not the other way around. DS not seeing the humour in his contradictory post isn't my fault. I just pointed it out to him. He has the choice how he responds to that. As usual he picks the angry way.

Quoted from Dreamscale My apologies, Bert, but you're right.  I definitely have trouble not responding to prods aimed directly at me.

So of course that makes it OK that you continue... again.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dustin, just for the record, I'll say it again.  In no way, shape, or form do I simply repeat over and over what I've heard, in terms of feedback, advice, etc.  SO far from it, in fact.

OK, let's say that I believe you... what now?

Quoted from Dreamscale What I repeat over and over is what I feel makes the most sense and what i know works and doesn't work.

Ah. I thought so. So let's get this straight, you are not parroting what you hear, you're telling us what works and what doesn't work from your experience? Which is what?

Quoted from Dreamscale You, on the other hand, are obviously a parrot, among other things, as you continually squawk about all the BS that you've read in your 40 year old screenwriting books.  Classic structure, character arcs, STFC, on and on,

Story writing hasn't changed in structure since Aristotle. We can go back that far if you like.

Quoted from Dreamscale and when someone points out obvious, glaring mistakes in your writing, your response is either no response at all, because you can't own up to your own mistakes, or, you say something to the effect, "easy fix - not worried about it".

Completely untrue... and this will be glaringly obvious to many people that happen to read this. You're just making yourself look even more of an idiot now.

Quoted from Dreamscale And then, your irritating little snide comments make it clear that you're most likely that A-Hole that everyone can't wait to punch in the face.

It's called wit, Dreamscale. A skill you most certainly lack. I can see that it drives you crazy being unable to summon the repartee for a decent exchange. Shame. I actually don't think you do smoke weed now. I think you're on meth.

Quoted from Dreamscale I've tried to play nice. I've tried to ignore you, but I'm only human.

Sounds like you're going to ask me on a date...

Quoted from Dreamscale I'll do my best to steer clear of anything you post but the truth is that we'll come across each other on other peep's threads.  If I irritate you so much with my comments to other peeps, just ignore them and continue to be the little shit you are.  OK?  You cool with that?

I'm cool with ignoring you. You're really no fun. Watching you get angry has lost its lustre. I thought you had more.

My only comment on this row: It's like a Western within a Western.

.............

Mark,

Why thanks for all that. And I really appreciate the read.

You know for some odd reason, I can agree with you :) The beginning is certainly different from the ending and in a way, as I was writing the story, I realized that the ending is sort of 'quick' and not as well developed. Very kind of bare-bones Western. Not a whole lot of meat on that ending. Hence being "weak" :) Yeah, it is sort of that plain vanilla "formula". But I like vanilla :) And you know it's a short, and I guess I don't have the talent to actually make something of a different flavor for that ending in what amounts to 6 or so pages. No matter how much I try to rewrite it, I'm sure there'll be some vanilla in there somewhere.

I think for like a feature, there are always ways to play up that angle. But even in a movie like Rio Bravo, which is very dialogue based and one great piece of film making, the action is very mild in that one. But I guess it's effective given all that happens before hand. Same goes for High Noon.

The old man at the end. It was meant to be kind of funny, and it kind of made sense to me that someone would come outside and question Del's taking of the body and just question the survivor I guess. And I had to keep it short. It's odd in a way, yeah. Not really disjointed, not from my perspective anyway. But certainly a different feeling from what happens before, at least on the page.

I did write another short but it's not something I would bother reading if I were you. For one, there's no story. And for two, its too odd for most people to wrap their heads around. Which is probably a bad sign :)

Again, thanks for the read Mark. I'll have to check out some of your scripts when I have time this week. Others too, if I can find anything you've all written recently.

Best,

-J.S.

James

A lot of V.O, in the beginning here as others have pointed it out, too much perhaps without any action to break it up, barely even character movements. I really enjoyed the language used though, so very realistic that I presume you are either from the area or really done your research. It was a little hard to read at times but gave the piece a singular character and voice, something you can’t say about a lot of scripts. Not to mention it give the characters a certain extra depth and personality which would be difficult to achieve otherwise.  It felt like I was reading a William Faulkner novel!

As for the story, it’s an interesting one, just a shame you chose to tell us rather than show us. Of course we wouldn’t get all that delicious regional dialect but everything is practically told to us via dialogue rather than action.

I really liked the final scenes of the shootout and Del taking Sam away to bury him, very simple but eloquently told, you really get a feel for these damned individuals, adrift out in this desolate wasteland. We are waiting so long for a confrontation that when it does happen I was totally immersed, the build up had me genuinely engaged to see what happened, which is testament to the dialogue as that s all the first 13 pages really consist of. I can understand others been totally put off by the excessive talking though, if you are ruthless enough in the rewrite this could be cut by a third at the very least.

Best of luck with it.

Col.

Hey Col.

Thank you for the read. I really appreciate it.

I'm glad you enjoyed the language and the characters since that's usually as big a priority for me as thinking about the story. No, I'm not from the area. I went by movies I've watched, books I've read, and what I've heard. Some of it I'm sure is probably somewhat exaggerated and a fiction. But I don't go for realism as much as I go for balance and flow. I agree with you that language gives characters depth and personality that's why I try to be careful in what I have the characters say. Thanks for the compliment that you felt it was something like Faulkner :) That's quite a compliment to be receiving for someone like me who loves his work :)

The story is more dialogue based, yes, because I made the conscious effort to keep it in one location since shorts more often than not are. For a feature, I would have made heavy usage of landscapes and the outdoors since that's more representative of the region, I think.

I'm glad you enjoyed the action in the end. A lot of it reminds me of High Noon and Rio Bravo when I think about it now in retrospect. Those films are very heavy on the dialogue/characters chatting and most of the action happens towards the end. I can't say that's what I was going for, because honestly I wasn't even aware of it until just recently, but I can see the resemblance. Yes, I think movies that do a good setup of that in the beginning make the action that much more worth it. And yes, I did want the first 13 pages to be a strong build up for what occurs at the end. I sort of knew that that was what I was going to do when I finished the V.O. But that wasn't my initial plan. I'm glad I was able to deliver on that :) I've been working on the third draft on and off, majority of it is on the V.O., but I'll get to "Act II" rewriting and some finer polishing on Act III and post that.

I don't believe I've read any of your work Col. I'll get on that as soon as possible. I've been working on a feature script for the past month and so my review time has been shortened as a result. And also as a result, until I finish that I won't be finishing the third draft of this script.

Thanks for the honest feedback. It's very helpful to hear your thoughts. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Best,

-J.S.

Quoted from J.S. I'm glad you enjoyed the action in the end. A lot of it reminds me of High Noon and Rio Bravo when I think about it now in retrospect. Those films are very heavy on the dialogue/characters chatting and most of the action happens towards the end.

- You know I thought the exact same thing when I read it since I only watched those two films back to back in the last few months. Rio Bravo is especially heavy n dialogue, clocking in at over an hour longer than High Noon.

As I said though, you’ve clearly got the writing skills to flesh out  three dimensional characters and create a dramatic situation, just look to executing it in a less novel, more cinematic way.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 - You know I thought the exact same thing when I read it since I only watched those two films back to back in the last few months. Rio Bravo is especially heavy n dialogue, clocking in at over an hour longer than High Noon. As I said though, you�ve clearly got the writing skills to flesh out  three dimensional characters and create a dramatic situation, just look to executing it in a less novel, more cinematic way.

Okay, I sorta lied. I now remember distinctly thinking of Sergeant York every once in a while during writing. But I haven't seen Rio Bravo since last year so I wasn't thinking of that for sure. York I watched a few months back and I just fell in love with it.

It's nice to hear the characters are coming off three-dimensional. I usually don't trust those kinds of kind words from friends because well, they're my friends, who knows, they might want something from me in exchange for torturing them through this :) Your comments are very much appreciated. As I said, I'll try to make time into my busy schedule sometime this week and I'll give a few of your scripts a read.

Thanks again Col.

Take care,

-J.S.

"INT. TEXAS DINER (1927) (LATE MORNING)
Which appears very ordinary for this period and region,
though quite darker inside than the scorching sunlight.
Fairly quiet.

FADE IN on DEL, medium built man who just hit forty-five;
oily, faded flannel shirt, jeans, and Stetson, sits at a
booth. He gazes out the window, eyes parted some. Lit
cigarette between fingers, arms crossed over table. Light
guest count. With a strong voice:"


- I take it you mean the diner appears ordinary, going from the slugline? Some could perceive this as lazy writing - rather than adding some illustration to the scene you seem to be just asking the reader to throw up something from their imagination - and I must say mine is a little sparse on 1920s diners. More at home with the 30s through various gangster serialisations.

- Hadn't we already faded in before Del was introduced? There was a 'FADE IN' at the start?


- Wow! I wasn't expecting such a long piece from Del. Must say the slang does deter the read a little bit - but of course it adds to the characterisation and I must say you mention that characterisation is something you strive towards. Must admit if I was in a bar with this fella I'd probably move away to save my ears from him. But at least for the actor he knows where he's at exactly.

- My only worry, with such a stream of dialogue, is that it may not hold audience attention. Unless someone's giving a particularly rousing speech it is hard enough in real life to hear them out. But at least in real life you can interject comments to try and make what they're saying a little more fluid.

- "Eyes carry bags; nails carry dirt."  

- Pik it up.

- Sun..!


I was expecting Cordell to actually pull some sort of dirty trick before he just shot Sam out right - and I guess it was predictable enough that Del shot him, I wasn't sure whether there would be another twist in the tale.

Did things like this still happen at that time?

Overall it was a nice genre piece. I'm not certain I've ever seen a script with so much slang in the dialogue, but of course it was consistent - which is important. And, no doubt it was how they spoke at the time. Are you thinking of adapting this into a feature, or filming it as it is? I'm not sure I've seen many short 'westerns' - or post-westerns as this would be I suppose - mainly because production costs would be high to try and correctly simulate the sort of historical environment necessary for production, I suppose.

:) Why thanks so much for the read.

Though I'll be uploading a better draft sometime in the near future. I'm in the middle of a feature script so I've put this one aside.

There are large portions of it that do not satisfy me wholly. I know what I have to do to it, but I haven't actually done it :P

"I take it you mean the diner appears ordinary, going from the slugline? Some could perceive this as lazy writing - rather than adding some illustration to the scene you seem to be just asking the reader to throw up something from their imagination - and I must say mine is a little sparse on 1920s diners. More at home with the 30s through various gangster serialisations."

Yeah. Exactly. There's no need to get into those specifics because it would just detract from the read, imo.

"Hadn't we already faded in before Del was introduced? There was a 'FADE IN' at the start?"

Yeah, I've figured a better way to do this now. Essentially, it means that The fade in is on Del himself, rather than more generally on the diner atmosphere.

"Must admit if I was in a bar with this fella I'd probably move away to save my ears from him. But at least for the actor he knows where he's at exactly."

Right, exactly. This is why I thought it would be better to do it as a voice-over rather than a soliloquy, guy talking to someone else. It's funny, actually, because he talks so rarely in the scene minus the voice-over that is. But also, it's funny, because in an earlier draft he says something about talking differently in his head than when he talks to other people :) I deleted that, but I thought it was funny.

"My only worry, with such a stream of dialogue, is that it may not hold audience attention."

Yes, I can sympathize with that worry. But because I've never seen it done before I would be interested in seeing whether it would work or not. Also, as I mentioned, it was written in a way that would allow the audience to visualize what happened simply from the voice-over, rather than being shown what happens. Telling rather than showing, in this case. Like listening to someone telling you a story.

I'm not going to expand it further. I've had the fleeting thought of doing a western feature, but nothing like this script.