All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
I'm on the other side of the coin here, as I literally hated these names, but being American, I had no clue what Bisto was, have never used the word suds before, and don't think about hens when I eat eggs.
I'm on the other side of the coin here, as I literally hated these names, but being American, I had no clue what Bisto was, have never used the word suds before, and don't think about hens when I eat eggs.
The story was inventive and the tone, in particular, was very evocative.
I didn't fully understand what was going on, so it's hard to give an opinion on the subjective quality of the script.
I thought perhaps that the Church had somehow used computers to establish a kind of literal omnipresence..watching everyone, which is a nice idea, but that doesn't explain anything else...like why Christian names would be gone or why one of the characters called the Church speaker a dead bitch.
That seems kind of internally inconsistent. The speakers respond to live action, suggesting either living people watching, or more likely computerised automation...but then if they were never living...why would it be dead?
This kind of internal inconsistency kept me from understanding it.
Ultimately the whole story comes down to this:
Do not fight your brethren, friends, if the battle is unequal. If odds are unequal - one man upon two - God frowns because the will of men decides fate and this should not be. Only when odds are even - then fate is in the hands of God. For only He should decide the outcome in the battle between brethren.
It's coming from the "Church", but isn't Christian theology in any way, which is love your brother, not kill him, even if the sides are equal.
It goes more back to Teutonic ideas of Trial by Combat, which is interesting, but I don't see what its point is.
The fact that it's an invented theology kind of undermines any point to the story, for me. It's an invented world, with an invented ideology that isn't relevant to audiences.
Ultimately all you can take away is that killing people, even if there are just as many of them as you, is bad....which I think everyone agrees with and I don't think any extant ideology or theology propounds, so it all seemed redundant.
A professional story-teller would have a point that strongly resonates with modern audiences, regardless of how different the presented Universe is.
It is a great effort, though. The tone was really good.
Maybe when I understand what it was you were trying to get across, I'll have more to say.
That was impressive. Really good dialogue. Honestly, not knowing what was going on kind of added to the tension for me. It compounded the paranoia/confusion/mistrust in the group.
But if there's one thing needs to be absolutely clear it's the rule of fighting with even odds. I know it's mentioned on the speaker but so is a lot of other dense Church-speak that had my eyes glazing over a bit. I'd find some way to show this rule crystal clear at the start of the script.
Maybe it's spray-painted in huge letters on a wall: Even Odds - God's Way - Kill 'em all!
Good descriptions and dialogue is good. I don’t know what dialect of englis Suds was speaking, but I found it convincing. I assume Suds’ psychotic rantings represents most of the other citizens’ attitudes. Compared to her, Bisto and Hen are boring.
This society’s religion frowns upon killing, but only when the odds are uneven. So by setting the signal fire to attract Hen’s partner, all Bisto was doing was ensuring Hen and Sal’s eventual death. So crazy Suds is actually the kind one because she was opposed to the signal fire?
There’s more to Suds than is at first apparent. Of course, she’s also a homicidal maniac, like apparently a lot of other people in this society. Is this in reaction to the “infection” that, I assume, is responsible for the downfall of this world? All strangers are considered infected and must therefore be “cleansed”?
In opening slugline plus first two paragraphs, you repeat so many words/impressions for an off-putting start.
P2 dialogue stumbles
P5 mixed up Suds and Hen in Bisto's dialogue, I guess
P7 okay, fuel of the story seems to be the changing event, better said, what it is; which methodically isn't a bad choice of generally proceeding here I think.
P8 how you constantly break up passages within dialogue does harm the read and irritates; if you feel you got no rhythm to present dialogue as usual, then dialogue is probably too long, repetitive, boring, which of course is case here btw -- also, while they talk, there's no movement in picture. Think about pictures, imagery and actions, even little ones, but anything.
P9 hmm, seems to be another one where the enlightenment era and separation of state and church didn't proceed or failed at some point. Unfortunately, it's all told by dialogue though.
Other small sidenote: don't cap the first letter in parenthetical, you don't want to have too much attention on such parenthesis or let them take any focus from the actual spoken words that follow. Btw, those are too frequent anyway. Most times the context in which you use them is clear anyway, which shows insecurity and that you don't trust the reader f.i.
"SUDS (To Hen) I’m only not killing you…"
After we followed the storyline, you think we even would consider that she means Bisto???
P 10 eventually some action
Well, the ending doesn't deliver. Bisto's change felt out of character.
It's not a disaster storywise. There's an interesting foundation of social countryside drifters, fighting along in the shadows of the metropolises' autocracy. I also liked their showing of a secure route by signal fires.
Then the last act makes it a common piece about betrayal in a chamber shootout scenario. When it comes to presentation, you need to trust the reader and the established way of screenplay format, meaning: fewer parentheticals, fewer lyric asides, avoid overlong expositional dialogue, combine dialogue with active pictures, and avoid any self-inventive formatting, write in an active present tense.
The first and second act could have been shortened and be fine, I would have originally said. Because there IS a story that just needs to be communicated more direct, quicker and smooth, which would have just meant to undertake a cutting of 3-4 pages and edit for the good. Then the last act is where you actually could have decided everything in your favor regarding your choice of story structure with having that massive build-up dealing with solving a mystery as "story goal", or better said, as entertainment value for an audience. However, then the last act's story choice pushes it back in "seen before territory", a chamber play climax. IMO there should be more at this specific part and everything else would be fine and reasoned.
Otherwise, I wouldn't call this one a complete failure because there was some definite creativity and imaginative storytelling shimmering through from the background -- and the overall mistakes were that obvious and probably so often commented on, that you can learn quickly to get control over your execution, so that those better, creative parts will come to life soon. Storywise, work on your third act's plot resolution and just fix the other "cold" necesseties from the execution department ;-) imo ... Good luck-
Not sure what the major event change was in this. I understand that society has fallen and that computers and religion were some way involved, but even with Hen’s backstory, it isn’t apparent as to what exactly happened.
The dialogue being broken up the way it was kind of threw me out a little. It’s not something I’ve seen before and I’m not entirely sure what purpose it serves.
I like the dystopian world you’ve created and how both the people and their language has devolved, but in the end I was left a little confused - not just as to what had happened, but what the actual story was about as a whole.
There is an actual story here, and I enjoyed that.
I’m not 100% sure what the Brave New World premise is - but that didn’t stop me following the story. I suspect the Millennium Bug happened and there was some sort of global financial/business crisis as a result. The stuff about the church listening in was an unexplained leap. Perhaps the rise of religious fundamentalism?
Adam’s Principle was interesting.
The longer chunks of dialogue are indeed a bit strange, as mentioned in some of the other comments. If they need breaking up that much, they’re probably too chunky period.
Nice attempt. Maybe too many things squeezed into too small a space?
No bueno on the logline. Hard to read something when you have no idea what it's about.
Air as thick as water? A SUPER heavy fog?
Cap THREE PEOPLE
Hen (40s)
It's a pet peeve of mine, but clothing doesn't reveal character. I know nothing about these 3 people from the clothes they are wearing.
"He's from city? "
Page 1 and all these errors are a red flag already.
Because the action reads well but the dialogue doesn't I'm guessing this is on purpose? But it makes the script hard to read and with the lack of logline I have no idea if this is fitting with your story or not.
Pg 4 and I'm more lost than your characters. Sorry. Out.
It's a pet peeve of mine, but clothing doesn't reveal character. I know nothing about these 3 people from the clothes they are wearing.
When I describe clothing on a character it can sometimes be used to denote their occupation but it can also be simply so that the reader gets a better visual image. I suppose we all have our ways.
There is a place for clothing of course. But when you get specific about the type of hat, heels or purse one accessories with it's a bit much and I often see writing confusing wardrobe for character. I'd rather see somebody clowning around, cheating, helping, arguing etc than knowing what they decided to throw on when they got out of bed that morning.
Read all the comments and there isn't really a whole lot I can add to what has already been commented on. A few of my thoughts though...
A bit too descriptive, for me at least, in the beginning. I think you can trim that down.
I had no problem with the names. When someone uses unusual names it's very important to let us know if the character is supposed to be a he or she. Otherwise it can be really hard to picture the story. I wouldn't worry about those who complained about the names you chose. I often use "different" names too and have been asked many times, why can't you just use normal names. Normal to whom I ask. If you open your eyes and look around, not everyone is from a place with only english names. Besides, nowadays it's more important to appeal to an international audience than just American. Especially with features.
I liked the fire signals. Should use that more as it was interesting.
I hated Suds, but perhaps you wanted me to.
Would've liked to know more about what had happened and why.
Lots and lots of orphans. Get rid of those and you're script will be shorter.