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 (my opinion) never really like it when scrips use the word WE to describe stuff. We float through the halls, we open on en empty hall, etc.
I would break up that first paragraph. This is a script, not a novel. Make it easier on the eyes, think of every shot as it's own sentence.
I would drop every reference to the camera. It immediately takes the reader out of the story and lets them know they are reading a script. Use 'camera' for a shooting script.
Drop ing ending words, write in the present. Standing becomes stands, etc.
Who is Andreas? You have him speaking, but I have no idea who this character is. You've only introduced Albert and Daniels.
Lose the continues at the bottom and top of each page.
Using Mr. Daniels as his voice and Emmanuel as his name in the actions will confuse the reader. Stick to one or the other.
I don't know if it follows Gothic Horror really, just my opinion on the subject.
All in all, I know who was the ghost and the only surprising part was the he was in love with him. To me this piece has more backstory than actual story. It's simply two men talking about their past and then we discover one is dead. Kinda boring in my opinion.
When readers look at a script they look for concise clear writing not cluttered. Your style of blocking your descriptive action is the opposite of what reads easily. Readers wonít read it and at least itíll distract from the read. I usually am not successful at changing someoneís style, but thatís the best advice I can give you right now.
With some polishing, this one could be very interesting.
A few nitpicks/comments, though:
* I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the descriptions are much, much too lengthy - especially when it's the first thing you see in the script! Delete any camera directions, any over descriptions. And for what's left, chop it up into paragraphs no more than three lines long. That'll make it a much easier read.
* I actually enjoyed the "James Bondish-ness" of the dialogue. Some might call it a little cliche, but it had a certain style to it which I did enjoy.
* I also really liked the premise behind the spy having a man-crush on his partner. It's a fresh twist on an older idea, that could ultimately really pan out.
But - the exposition of the dialogue just doesn't tell the story straightforward enough. It's a little confusing, a touch rigid. Polish it up, rework it. Keep the "Bond" feeling going with it, and this could be a fun piece! It's worth re-polishing, fixing the few typos, and playing with, I think.
Iím pretty fuzzy on how this is a gothic horror story. But we do have another misunderstood ghost present. Everything happens through dialogue, not action. The novelistic prose suffocates any hint of a story. I couldnít tell much of what was happening, too much talk. Ghosts and spies do not a good combo make. Unsure if this is a transplant or misinterpretation of the rules. Thanks for playing OWC.
LATEST NEWS CineVita Films is producing a short based on my new feature!
I'm going to guess this is an early draft and give you the benefit of the doubt that all of the obvious corrections will be made. The characters are charming and original in many ways, I hope to read a revised version of this script some time. Great atmosphere.
Sorry, I just couldn't get into this one. I got lost about halfway in, found the story was lead almost entirely by ropy dialogue and felt there was nothing Gothic horror here at all. I'm puzzled why you wrote such a large block of action for the first and last pages. You could have cut these down into four line chunks and the page count wouldn't have gone anywhere near the limit. I'm sure there is a decent idea in here, just keep working at it.
This one ends as it began... No FADE IN or OUT and a very wordy descriptions of things that could've/ should've been condensed down to no more than 4 lines, preferably 2 to 3.
I find the (Continues) at the tops and bottoms of each page, as always with this software, to be offensive. Turn it off if possible.
Not a huge fan of the We see stuff or the We are stuff. Omit it when you find a better way to bring us into the action. It might be a personal preference, but by and large most will agree it only distracts cos' we're already in the scene the moment we start reading -- Well, at least we should be.
I don't really like to dwell on what you could've done story wise because it's simply not my story to tell. It's yours. If I told you a list of things where I felt you went wrong you'd either not listen to me or worse yet, actually listen and then change it all around. Maybe for the best -- Possibly for the worst. Who knows but you?
It kept me scrolling down the page, even with the multiple hang ups I came across. I agree with a few of the others that the dialogue was well enough and the twist was alright. Very little in way of meeting the challenge at hand, other than the ghost. I guess that's part of the uphill climb, right?
I'm not sure how i feel with all the Bond references, The Mr. Daniels had me instantly picturing Daniel Craig, not sure if that was intentional or not.
Ignoring the lengthy paragraphs and directions, this started pretty interesting, I thought the diolog was good and it kept me reading.
Not gothic, but I think it fulfils the misunderstood ghost requirement well. I do think this was a little too simplistic a story with the ghost simply revealing his true intentions through expository dialogue.
Another thing that I didn't get was the 'mole' concept. How did he not know that he himself was the mole? That kinda confused things for me, felt like a spurious twist.
When I first opened this one up and saw the big block of text, I closed it again. Why? Because it screamed newbie who doesn't know how to write a script and that usually means the story sucks too. After a minute I opened it back up again. Thought I should at least read a few words of it. Being a Bond fan (the older films) I noticed the Walter PPK and decided to continue. As far as reading goes it got easier since the other pages were just dialogue. Halfway through my mind started drifting, but then you dropped the gay thing in there and my interest peaked. I liked that part of it. That's definitely not what people would expect. Then you sort of went too far when they started talking about wanting to be actors. I just can't see hit men secretly wanting to be actors. Didn't ring true for me at all.
So, in short, I liked the premise of a hit man/assassin being visited by a ghost of one of his victims and I liked the gay thing. Now you need to learn the easier part of screenwriting which is formatting.
This didn't work for me at all. First thing's first - proofread. Mr. Daniels is referred to as three different names seemingly interchangeably. A bunch of typos as well, specifically "I" being "i". And then the giant blocks of text - lose them.
As for the story I just found it routine and it left me asking the basic questions; why is the ghost coming back, how is the ghost coming back, etc. I also would have liked to see a greater conflict than just a guy and a ghost talking back and forth.
Sorry. Don't be discouraged if you're new to this. It's hard to write a script in one week.