Blood in the Water by Cold Blooded - Short, Shark - A friendly wager between three friends, a race across the lake. What they quickly discover is - this swim will be a race for their lives. - pdf, format

'Because their stupid'

Erm no. There's a joke here somewhere. If only I was a little smarter.

About halfway it picks up. But there's a severe lack tension here. Which is a big problem in a story like this. I don't particularly like the characters, so I don't really care enough about what happens to them.

And I didn't. There was too much telling instead of showing. If the dialogue was improved and the tension upped this would work out well.

R

Very awkwardly worded opening passage ending in an orphan.

Next passage is also very poorly written, and going back to your opening, you’ve got 2 guys and a gal, one being tall and one being short, I doubt they’re going to be standing shoulder to shoulder.

“Because their stupid.” – Really?  “their” not the only stupid ones.

The banter is approaching pisser realm, but I don’t think that’s the intent.  Let’s see where we go from here…

“And your talking?” – Bro…c’mon, man.  Really?

“…you guy’s ready?” – Wow, just shocking how poorly this is written. Did you read it back even 1 time?

So, they’re in a $100 race swimming as fast as they can for 200 yards, and immediately the 2 dudes start talking to each other? While they’re swimming?  That I would pay to see.

And on Page 5, this little nugget of an aside is what broke my camel-like back and I’m gone, as I don’t care at all what happens to these idiots.  “As this friendly wager has now become a race for their lives.”

Congrats on entering.

Had to laugh at the type-o on page 1: "Because their stupid".  

I was actually into this until page 7 when the old man shows up. "What's that sonny"? - for me that turned it all cartoonish. Totally changed the vibe.

Good idea that I think could have been a lot better.  Congrats on entering.

I read it all the way though but I'm still trying to work out where the old guy in the boat popped up from.

When they turn to look for Liz, the lake is empty lol.  And it was hilarious when the dude was telling of trying to swim across when he was younger: he only made it halfway? So I assume he was tired, ok? So I guess he...swam...back...

Give this a 5 for the sheer entertainment value

"Because their stupid." They're.

Although there are problems with the writing so far, there's definitely a certain quality and potential to it.

Why are they arguing about who can swim further? Just get on with the story, this banter obviously heads no where. They're going to swim there regardless.

"And your talking?" You're.

Those three pages could've been condensed to "Whoever finishes last does ____".

Are they like doggy paddling? How can they talk whilst swimming so easily?

"They found bull sharks in lakes
before. Swam along the river, right
into a lake. We’re talking about
one of the oldest species in the
world." Convenient.

Can sharks even get that close to shore? Hmm, not really sure about that one, depends how far in the peeps were.

That twist is no good, mate, really on par with M. Night. Except he doesn't have any Oscars! HA!

Show him the ... ? Come on, man! You can't just leave us hanging like that! Ultimate cliff hanger.

Well, I think you're a newer writer so I won't harp on, story wasn't very original, twist was hilarious more than anything, not a lot worked. But I do see a lot of potential in your writing, and although your voice isn't clear here, I think it's definitely hidden somewhere waiting to be harvested.

As I read,

Pg. 1 “Michael (21)…the youngest…” I can do math.

Pg. 5 “I think - maybe we should get out of the water.” Followed by a 30 second discussion about exactly what just ate their friend.

Pg. 6 “John’s tattoo of a crazed monkey…” Touches like this are much more effective if you set them up earlier.

I'm assuming he's singing at the end (Show me the way to go home/ I'm tired and I wanna go to bed). You should put that in a wryly if so.

There’s not much to say here. This was very standard, but also about as short as it could be. It flew by, but didn’t leave much of an impression. The old man, and whatever the heck he’s doing, was a nice twist and definitely the most interesting thing here. But it seemed like as soon as this story found an angle, it was over. Would’ve been better to get to him earlier, I think.

Congrats on completing the OWC

This one has plenty of potential but I felt it missed the mark. I like the idea of a shark attacking and killing people in a lake but like Stevie posted above me, where in the heck did the old guy come from? John and Michael looked back for Liz and the lake was vacant so it would have worked better if the old man sitting in the boat was introduced at the beginning instead of just throwing him in there towards the end. I liked the banter between John and Michael, reminds me of myself and my older brother talking smack to each other but saying that the dialogue could have been shorten a bit.

All in all, not bad. Like I said, it has potenital but it needs to get cleaned up in a couple of areas.

Congrats on completing the OWC.

I'm surprised so many people are focusing on grammar and "adhering to screenwriting rules" instead of the actual story.

I've always said I would rather read a poorly-written script with a good story than a properly-formatted script with nothing to talk about. A good story can be salvaged, and this wasn't bad at all.

Yes, the dialogue needs cleaned up. Yes, there are grammatical errors galore. Yes, there are unfilmmables. But at its core, this is Creepshow 2's The Raft with a shark substituting the place of a giant mass of killer black sludge. Clean it up, take out the ridiculous moments of the boys talking while swimming, and you've got something very enjoyable here.

Congrats on successfully completing the challenge!

Chris

Yep - couple of grammar errors here and there, but that aside it fairly easily to read. It was a simple story, so that worked well.

As has been said, the two issues for me were the leg and the old man. You could easily start with a shot from the guys' feet, showing the tatoo, and this would be a nice reference when the leg came out of the water.

The old man's played wrong, but certainly can have a place in the script - the guys scare each other at the beginning with tales of sharks, but maybe have the old man do that as he's setting off in the boat?

I'm with Sham on getting your story elements working, and this isn't too bad.

Code MICHAEL I swam here when I was a kid. I only made it half way, never made it to the other side. Then again I was ten.

If he made it half way, then why not just swim all the way instead of swimming back again?

Well at least there's a shark attack in this one so that's something.

show me the -- what? Plenty of gore in this one, which is good. Story could have been told better, but all in all a pretty decent entry that fits all criteria.

This one started off ok, the banter between the trio was good and I was warming to the characters. The challenge was intriguing and showed potential but then the two lads starting chatting (at surprising length) in the water after a hard swim while terrified. They didn’t even seem out of breath.

This lake is pretty miraculous, deep enough to hide a bull shark, even near the shore!

The old guy, just like the monkey tattoo, just materialises out of no-where. Both need to be setup earlier for the audience to have any connection when they do appear. As it is both seem quickly added in conveniently without thought.

I see why you’ve done the twist because otherwise it would just be three swimmers ate by a shark one chomp after another but it makes no sense really. And the ending, “Show me the----“ The what? The way to go home? The Money? The end to this story?

Nice start, good potential just needs a re-think I reckon. Good for a one week’s effort and well done for entering the OWC.

Mark

Quoted from Sham I'm surprised so many people are focusing on grammar and "adhering to screenwriting rules" instead of the actual story. I've always said I would rather read a poorly-written script with a good story than a properly-formatted script with nothing to talk about. A good story can be salvaged, and this wasn't bad at all. Yes, the dialogue needs cleaned up. Yes, there are grammatical errors galore. Yes, there are unfilmmables. But at its core, this is Creepshow 2's The Raft with a shark substituting the place of a giant mass of killer black sludge. Clean it up, take out the ridiculous moments of the boys talking while swimming, and you've got something very enjoyable here.Chris

Really?  I mean...seriously?

I don't know who wrote this and frankly, I don't care.  How anyone could say this is a good story or entertaining, is fooling themselves as well as the writer.

First of all, Creepshow 2 was not a strong sequel to the very well done original, and we're talking about almost 30 years ago.  The segment you're referencing in reality, is nothing like this script.  In The Raft, the kids are trapped in the middle of the lake. No one is trapped here at all.

This is very poorly written, very poorly thought out, and very poorly executed - none of it makes a lick of sense, and if you actually visualize this...for just a minute or tw, you'll quickly see how redonkulous it really is.

I went back and finished this, based on Sham's glowing praise and things did not get any better - they got worse.  All of a suden, this lake is surrounded by a rock wall, with no escape?  Really?  I'd love to see a picture of this lake.  All of a sudden, there's an old dude in a boat that no one saw before?  Really?  C'mon now...

If peeps really don't want to know they're making grammatical, technical, or whatever kinds of mistakes, that's fine - ignore all comments that point them out.

But, let's not sugarcoat story and execution and turn rotten eggs into Eggs Benedict.

My apologies to the writer, but you seriously need to know and understand what's wrong here, as it's alot.

Dreamscale, do you not see how all of these things you're commenting on can be improved? You're criticizing in a way that makes this script (as well as a few others you have commented on) appear unsalvageable by using words like redonkulous, rotten, poor, and at one point, you even say you don't care. Why are you commenting then?

My praise was not glowing at all. That's a deluded comment. I acknowledge several errors I discovered in the script in my feedback, and I even point out a specific moment I personally felt was ridiculous. As it is now, the script isn't very good. Does that make it bad? No. I see what the writer is going for, and I'm not going to get hung up on a couple choice moments and errors in formatting to prevent me from seeing the bigger picture.

I feel the need to focus more on the stories with these OWC entries because, in the grand scheme of things, what's the point of correcting a grammatical/formatting error if it's the moment itself that doesn't work?

I feel that if I didn't read the whole script and put some positivity in my comment to the writer, he/she would not have had anything constructive to take away from some of these comments, particularly yours because you bailed. Why does it always take someone disagreeing with you for you to give a script an actual full read-through? Not that it matters -- I'm sure you've convinced yourself not to like it by then, so it hardly qualifies as a fair shake. That only leaves me wondering why you come back and give it another chance. What are you hoping to accomplish with your second comment? Are you trying to indoctrinate someone into your way of thinking?

OK. Show of hands. Who changed their mind?

You are welcome to think whatever you'd like about the script, but I don't need to be told I'm fooling myself when I say I'm entertained by something. You are not me, and you will not speak for me.

Now go read a sentence in a script, type something hateful, read another sentence, type something hateful, and so on and so forth while the rest of us actually read the script the whole way through before putting a pen to paper.

Is this your script? I haven't read it yet, but showing my hand here, I think all aspects are appropriate to note regarding feedback. We're here to learn and improve. I'll focus on the story though if that's your request.

Grammar is important!!

Quoted from Sham Dreamscale, do you not see how all of these things you're commenting on can be improved? You're criticizing in a way that makes this script (as well as a few others you have commented on) appear unsalvageable by using words like redonkulous, rotten, poor, and at one point, you even say you don't care. Why are you commenting then? My praise was not glowing at all. That's a deluded comment. I acknowledge several errors I discovered in the script in my feedback, and I even point out a specific moment I personally felt was ridiculous. As it is now, the script isn't very good. Does that make it bad? No. I see what the writer is going for, and I'm not going to get hung up on a couple choice moments and errors in formatting to prevent me from seeing the bigger picture. I feel the need to focus more on the stories with these OWC entries because, in the grand scheme of things, what's the point of correcting a grammatical/formatting error if it's the moment itself that doesn't work? I feel that if I didn't read the whole script and put some positivity in my comment to the writer, he/she would not have had anything constructive to take away from some of these comments, particularly yours because you bailed. Why does it always take someone disagreeing with you for you to give a script an actual full read-through? Not that it matters -- I'm sure you've convinced yourself not to like it by then, so it hardly qualifies as a fair shake. That only leaves me wondering why you come back and give it another chance. What are you hoping to accomplish with your second comment? Are you trying to indoctrinate someone into your way of thinking? OK. Show of hands. Who changed their mind? You are welcome to think whatever you'd like about the script, but I don't need to be told I'm fooling myself when I say I'm entertained by something. You are not me, and you will not speak for me. Now go read a sentence in a script, type something hateful, read another sentence, type something hateful, and so on and so forth while the rest of us actually read the script the whole way through before putting a pen to paper.

Chris, I said I don't care who wrote this script, not that I don't care in general.

I care more than you or anyone else here knows about trying to be honest, real, and help improve the quality of writing and story telling - that's why I comment so much - because I do care.

If you want to comment on the story vs. the technical execution, then do that and be honest about what you're saying...don't sugarcoat things that give false hope to writers.

Could I say what I want to say in "nicer" ways?  Sure I could.  Should I?  Maybe, but we're all the way we are and after awhile, peeps start to understand that.  If that means, I'm a mean old asshole, who's always negative and picky, then so be it.

You and anyone else can disagree with things I say all you like. That's fine and that's human nature.  You can even disagree with technical styles I shoot down, but simple technical formatting, grammar, spelling, and punctuation cannot be argued - if it's wrong, it's wrong and the writer needs to know that.

As for story, although there's much more room for differences in opinion, some things just can't be argued - if they make no sense, it's a mistake.  If it's redonkulous, it's redonkulous, and my apologies to the writer here, but numeruos story elements here are downright redonkulous.

What am I trying to accomplish by responding to your review and going back to finish the script?  I guess I'm trying to see if I did indeed make a mistake by baling when I did.

Do I care what peeps think of my reviews?  In a way, I do, because however they may be written, they're intended to point out mistakes to help the writer going forward, because most peeps, here at SS, don't see all the mistakes, or are afraid to comment on them, which does nothing to help the writer.

If this is truly the kind of story you enjoy and think is well conceived and put togther, I'm not sure what to say, but I know going forward your words won't hold much water with me.

OK, this part made my day;
“OLD MAN
Don’t forget desert.”

I know you meant ‘Dessert’, but that’s not why it’s funny, it just is…

I’m glad you ended off with that because the rest of the story was questionable. I get the notion you designed the lake around some type of Quarry (you’ve been to, go to) that has; as they typically do, filled in with water, especially the funky green stuff. That would probably explain the rock wall that created the obstacle to get around.

Anyways, then there’s this creepy geriatric from… somewhere, who’s there to feed his pet shark! Nice.

This seriously would not be too bad if the shark was in fact put in the lake by this ‘Incredibly twisted’ old fart, but as you stated, it came upstream from a river. I like the concept of some lonely old guy who’s family have all gone on to better… whatever, leaving this poor dude to wallow in his own vice of how to cope with going on.  How you ask? By getting a pet Bull Shark!

Congrats’ for getting a script in to the OWC!

I know Jeff's an arsehole... in fact the biggest arsehole on the site. I have no problems being number two. But there are times I can't finish a script and will say my reasons why. Quite a few have been through feeling offended at the writer not even bothering with the rogue shark element. Rogue in this case, of course, means a shark that is attacking humans.

Jeff didn't have the bottle to put in a serious entry himself.... so it doesn't matter if it gets slated. He has the ready-made excuse... hey, I didn't even try. Then he has the nerve to slaughter other scripts. I understand this can be grating to other writers... but think about where poor Jeff is coming from for a second.

He's a failed screenwriter and he can't even be bothered trying to be an amateur any more for fear of being ridiculed like he ridicules everyone else. He's got it tough. He's got a lot to live up to. Last time he had a script up it got slaughtered and he disappeared for a while. Recovered, came back his old pisser-writing self. Still slaughtering scripts without fear of reprisals. Where I come from it's called being all mouth, no balls.

I don't think you're being helpful here, Dustin.

Jeff has a point and Chris has a point.

Personally, I don't think it's useful to critique a script - but giving feedback is useful, and I think it should contain elements of not just where you think the writer went wrong, but where they can go right.

That's my only gripe with some comments here - it's actually quite easy finding an error, but often if people are going to move forward, you need to say what they can do to put it right.

Quoted from oJOHNNYoNUTSo Is this your script? I haven't read it yet, but showing my hand here, I think all aspects are appropriate to note regarding feedback. We're here to learn and improve. I'll focus on the story though if that's your request. Grammar is important!!

Let me tell you some things about myself, and I'll let you answer your own question.

I'm 24 years old. I have been with my partner for two years. We live together. We rescued a dog together. I have been teaching pre-kindergarten for the past four years. I have seen nearly 100 children transition from the preschool setting to their first day of kindergarten in a public school. I don't make much money, but I do what I can to support myself because I am completely independent of my parents. Not only do I rely on myself, but my partner, dog, and students all rely on me in some way.

Now, given all of this information, do you really think I would care enough to take the time to falsely critique my own script as a pat on the back to myself?

With that incredible assumption aside, I agree that grammar is important, and all aspects of screenwriting should be noted. I will never say it's not okay to look for those things.

Here is my issue. Dreamscale hates the story. He takes the time to tell the writer how to fix the grammatical/formatting issues, but then says he doesn't understand how anyone could possibly enjoy this and actually questions a person's judgment for doing so. WTF? Because you didn't like it, nobody else can like it? What kind of self-serving, egocentric logic is that?

Dreamscale should have said, "Look, I wasn't a fan of this at all, and I never will be. But here's how you can fix the formatting and grammatical issues for those that might enjoy this kind of thing." But saying anyone else shouldn't enjoy this because he didn't is bombastic and a disservice to the writer and all readers who could potentially get something from this. I should never have been specifically quoted and judged for saying I saw potential here.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I know Jeff's an arsehole... in fact the biggest arsehole on the site. I have no problems being number two. But there are times I can't finish a script and will say my reasons why. Quite a few have been through feeling offended at the writer not even bothering with the rogue shark element. Rogue in this case, of course, means a shark that is attacking humans. Jeff didn't have the bottle to put in a serious entry himself.... so it doesn't matter if it gets slated. He has the ready-made excuse... hey, I didn't even try. Then he has the nerve to slaughter other scripts. I understand this can be grating to other writers... but think about where poor Jeff is coming from for a second. He's a failed screenwriter and he can't even be bothered trying to be an amateur any more for fear of being ridiculed like he ridicules everyone else. He's got it tough. He's got a lot to live up to. Last time he had a script up it got slaughtered and he disappeared for a while. Recovered, came back his old pisser-writing self. Still slaughtering scripts without fear of reprisals. Where I come from it's called being all mouth, no balls.

Oh, Dustin, Dustin, Dustin.  All mouth and no balls?  Really?  You're definitely one to know about that kind of arsehole.

What are you referring to when you say I worte a script that got slaughtered and disappeared for awhile, only to write pissers only?  And, maybe the better question is, why would you een bring up such nonsense?

Am I really Arsehole #1?  Really, really?  I hope that's not the case, but if peeps think I am, based on the tone and honesty of my feedback, it's totally up to them.  The reality is that whether or not they'll admit it, I've helped hundreds of writers here on SS and still do.

I'll tell you what, man, in all seriousness, and not remotely in a gay way, I'd love to show you up close and personal my all mouth and no balls.  You get me, freakboy?

Whoops! Sorry for the assumption bud.  

I'll just cut it short:

Grammar is important.

Quoted from Dreamscale What are you referring to when you say I worte a script that got slaughtered and disappeared for awhile, only to write pissers only?

The tragedy (and not in genre) you wrote called, Samhain, Romanian Style. Then you cried about it afterwards and disappeared for a while. I imagined you were sulking... but I now realise you were simply skulking... just biding your time till everyone forgot how shit you are.

Quoted from Dreamscale Am I really Arsehole #1?  Really, really?  I hope that's not the case, but if peeps think I am, based on the tone and honesty of my feedback, it's totally up to them.  The reality is that whether or not they'll admit it, I've helped hundreds of writers here on SS and still do.

Well, there's just no way I could call myself Arsehole #1 with you around. You should be proud.

Quoted from Dreamscale I'll tell you what, man, in all seriousness, and not remotely in a gay way, I'd love to show you up close and personal my all mouth and no balls.  You get me, freakboy?

If you come near me with your no balls I will kick you in the............ dick.

Poor poor writer ... This Often happens in an OWC when others fight over a script...and you can't answer back.

OWC's are also the place when things get more personal.

Anyway back to the script...

Look, quite a lot of writing issues, which you now know in technicolor

Does the story work?

Three friends in a race - that's fine. Get to it quicker, or with more at stake, or the opposite more lighthearted

Something happens - now to the viewer, they may not be expecting a shark. We are because it's an OWC, but this could be a real surprise in a lake, so that could work.

The girl gets it - seems fine, she is likely to be behind.  But would you really debate the fin and explain what it could be?

One gets to the shore, one doesn't - ok, ish

The man in the boat - quite like that reversal. The shame with OWC 's is that sometimes you can see the same idea, and this has happened with this script. Another has had the shark controller.  BUT there was no foreshadowing, I think.  Good scripts need to make you think it wasn't out of the blue, totally.

My opinion is that I think this would work better if;

Shark was known about

The characters hated each other

It was a revenge, hatred race - personal - a test, like Russian roulette

One is hit and the other now have to work together to survive

All the best

Quoted from DustinBowcot The tragedy (and not in genre) you wrote called, Samhain, Romanian Style. Then you cried about it afterwards and disappeared for a while. I imagined you were sulking... but I now realise you were simply skulking... just biding your time till everyone forgot how shit you are.

Well, I was definitely not pleased with the reception that script received, it did still place in the top 9.  How'd your epic fare?

I don't think it helped that you and another SSer decided to atttack my script, once you figured out it was mine.  Was I sulking or skulking?  No, bro.  I was happy with it and that's what counts.

Quoted from DustinBowcot Well, there's just no way I could call myself Arsehole #1 with you around. You should be proud.

I'll take that as a compliment then, I guess.

Quoted from DustinBowcot If you come near me with your no balls I will kick you in the............ dick.

That wouldn't surprise me one bit.  Would you have your high heals on when you attempted  that kick or your loafers?

Due to the outrage over poor writing and grammar, here's what I saw.

This didn't remind me of The Raft, more like Lake Placid. The dialogue was good, but not without a huge misstep that could've been good for a comedy. The dialogue between John and Michael doesn't fit the stakes as Liz gets the business from the shark. Other than the easily fixed grammar errors in it, the dialogue is good.

A few examples of awkwardness are easily fixed too. Combine dependent clauses with conjunctions/commas. That alone would make this read better.

Verbs like "eye down" aren't good verbs. First off, "eye" goes against "friends" -- comes across awkward because the flow of the sentence at glance reads "friends eye". Could be eye-down for clarity's sake, but I'd recommend replacing it completely. Secondly, is the obstacle worthy of an eye down if it isn't identifiable? Identify nouns. Instead of using another sentence, "two hundred yards of lake" (which should be joined with the main clause anyway), cut out "obstacle" and define it as such.

"Ripped" and "Athletic" although similar in meaning, are two entirely separate body types. Also, there's no need to include Michael's the youngest because it's stated in the age bracket, and there is no way of telling because they're all very close in age visually.

"Completely" vacant is an unneeded adjective. Vacant is enough.

"A calmness resonates over the lake." This is a good sentence: subject, strong verb, and complete predicate that is supported by subject/verb. This is the formula for all good sentences. Your next sentence -- no verb.

The story is good I thought, and writing isn't half bad but would you rather drive this story in a rusty pick-up or a Ferrari?

Johnny

Hey Johnny - some great points there. Not forgetting the author's probably checking what's going on here...

Given the grammar that you see in the script, what do you think the author will make of:

"Combine dependent clauses with conjunctions/commas. That alone would make this read better. "
vs
"Ripped" and "Athletic" although similar in meaning, are two entirely separate body types."

$ on you've lost more people than the author on the former and no-one on the latter.

...so, are you pitching your knowledge, or actually helping the author here? Pitch to the level that the writer's going to get... not to your ego. No offense.

Whoa now, not being pretentious at all! These are basics, and whether the writer is new are not, should look into putting them in their toolbox.

When I first started writing two years ago, I didn't know what a verb was. Writers need to learn these things, and if my feedback doesn't make much sense to the writer, then they are more than welcome to chime in and ask for further clarification on what I'm talking about.

Apologies to the writer if I come across like "a know-it-all", but I don't. Not even close.

OMG three pages of dialogue back and forth about the water and nothing really? This is not starting good I’m sorry to say.

All the characters sound alike. I don’t really care for any of them. Maybe I will as I read onward.

They all sprint towards the lake? I thought they were standing beside the water. One of them had even dipped his foot in and said it was cold.

They are in the water and see a shark fin and their friend Liz getting jerked under yet they say things like this:
MICHAEL
I think - maybe we should get out
of the water.
**What would you do if you were in the water while this were happening?

Then more back and forth about I saw a fin..did you see a fin..there are sharks in lakes..WTF? They’d be swimming for their life, wouldn’t they??

A man in a fishing boat appears. I thought this was in a lake? Wouldn’t they have seen a boat before they swam across?

And then the old man sticks Michael with the knife...not much of a story here sorry to say. Congrats on finishing a script for the challenge.

You make some great points -- but they're not basics, and new writers won't get them. I still get confused with grammar, and it's complex, but it's totally worth knowing, so people like you are completely needed here -- my only point is, that given the writing on display, what's the author going to take from what you have to say? If you can explain it in terms that they're going to get, then you've hit the target.

Another perfect example of how different peeps try to help...and it goes all ways as someone else thinks it's helpful to challenge or attack the others feedback.

And...wait for it...

I see both sides all the time, even when I'm the one being questioned or doing the questioning.

The true beauty lies in the fact that so many peeps are passionate about this thang we call writing.  We all need to learn to take what we can out of each person's words, be they harsh, honest, sugarcoated, downright silly, uninformed, or just wrong.

Johnny's right on, BTW, though.  Dude learned his shit, and it shows.  As he said, all writers should have at least a clue on the basics, if not a mastery - it shows...it always shows.

Roger. I will.

Again, apologies to the writer if my feedback was too much.  

And Jeff... the key-word here is help. If people have got a passion for writing, and a lot of people wouldn't be here if they didn't, then the writing community should help each other out.

You can kick people up the hill or down the hill.

Quoted from Forgive And Jeff... the key-word here is help. If people have got a passion for writing, and a lot of people wouldn't be here if they didn't, then the writing community should help each other out. You can kick people up the hill or down the hill.

Simon, I'm far from the only one who gives "harsh" feedback.  Really?  Look at my bro, Mo.  Looks at lots of peeps at times.

My words are meant to help, whether it's tough love or downright honest shit.  If thge writer takes it to heart and looks to see what I may be saying, I guarantee you, his or her writing will be better the next time out.

And you know what?  It's just my opinion and advice...take it, leave it, make oyster stew out of it.

Starts out with three full pages of filler.  Just back and forth among the three characters that does nothing to build any suspense.  

Once the swimming begins, how exactly are they speaking to each other so clearly?

Not even sure what this next line of dialogue means, but I'm guessing it might be Aussie slang? --

JOHN
You seen the fin too right?

The two guys watch their friend Liz resurface, scream for help and then get pulled under again.  Would they really tread water while saying stuff like "We’re talking about one of the oldest species in the world"?  Thanks for the history lesson, bud, but I think we're about to die here.  So, they make the heroic decision to bail on lunchmeat Liz and swim for shore.  John's "Crazed monkey" tat needed to be intro'd earlier if you're going to make a point of showing it at this part of the story.

Okay, why would a guy safe on land purposely jump back into the water where a bull shark has just devoured his two friends?  I take it Michael was on the swim team, but not on the chess team.  

Not sure if the writer was going for humor with the old man, but it was pretty damn funny when he offers Oscar dessert.  And, I can't wait to hear the explanation for the last line.  "Show me the -"  -money?  -entrails?  -way outta this freaky lake?

This reads like it was written very quickly either right after the owc was announced, or in the minutes leading up to the deadline.  Hey, at least you entered.

Hey.

This one... well, this one felt rather generic to me.  There are quite a few typos in it, and easily avoidable orphans (maybe par for the course with an OWC).  On the up side, a few of the lines/quips were fun and brought a smile to my face.  For instance, "And you forget, the swim team sucked." And: "Elation is gone, fear is present."

One thing that really stuck out at me... On page 5, they see a shark fin... and proceed to banter about it?!?  That's the time they should be bolting out of there!

I actually enjoyed the twist, though I don't feel it was set up properly.  And the ending itself... just petered out too abruptly.

I think this COULD be reworked to something fun.  If you're in the mood to do so.

Cheers,

--Janet (W)

In regards to the grammar and mistakes in this, I'll look past many but when the same one is repeated (and that's the case here) unfortuately, it does detract some. I think a script can overcome that if there's something really good and compelling...this one doesn't quite get there.

It has some things going for it. I think the set-up was OK. I like the concept...the story had potential.

At first I was thinking - a shark in a lake? But that got answered.

I'm with the rest as to what seems to be continuity errors (boat with the guy is now on the lake and topography of the lake).

The twist at the end did work in that I didn't see that coming.

Beware the Old Man of the Sea.

I liked this simple premise. A race to the other side of the lake. The dramatic irony was good. We knew there's a shark. They don't. I love this device. Good job building it up. I liked the competition angle of this short. It's like nature. A race to be on top, as the dominant predator.

The guys are so caught up in race, they don't notice girl missing. Nice. Shark attack. Not a lot scripts had this element. Despite being a supposed requirement. I just wish one of the guys died first. I always root for the underdog. In sports, and like with Ripley in Alien.

Besides some of the bragging made me okay with their upcoming deaths. Good job making us a annoyed with some of their dialogue. Another reason to have girl spring ahead in race. One boy is so caught up chasing her, he doesnt notice buddy disappear. Just an idea.

I would consider trimming dialogue during their panic. Have them swim away and shout sparse dialogue back and forth.

Dang I kinda wished the old man would help. It's another madman somehow controlling and/or feeding shark. I've seen this a few times this OWC. And they always pop out of nowhere to explain why there's a shark. A n unfortunate trend that many are guilty of. Even if these antagonists are hinted at earlier, I still feel like I've been cheated. Story wise.

Our antagonists should have been easy this challenge... it was selected for us in the  requirements. It's hard to find that perfect excuse to pair man and shark as cooperative villains. Cudos for trying. Its just a matter of my personal taste is all.

That's why the concept intrigued me here... simple race across water chased by shark. With this format I just want 10 minutes of entertainment. I think you achieved that, but would have been more enjoyable as the simple race, for me.

Very abrupt end. With cut off dialogue. This would work if we really wanted to know what he said. Like, if it was the reveal of a mystery or a who-dunnit.

Short. Good visuals. Exciting moments. Simple premise goes batshit crazy. Uneven ending.

Lots of errors, but that's not the point.  Spelling, typos, issues with the writing are present but we're not to focus on that.  This is one week's worth of writing and the story is the idea.

Concerning the characters.  I believe, when mentioning John's "crazed monkey tattoo" you could probably mention that much sooner.  His leg washing up on the beach would immediately set the tone and afford you to lose some of the unrequired detail.

The dialogue, as stated before, has some debilitating issues that hurt the flow.  Misuse of "there" and "your", "desert" for "dessert", but here we find me going OTT on something that really doesn't matter for this OWC.

STORY WISE:

This one has a certain spark.  Old git has a pet shark, three young adults are at the lake where the shark is, it has spark and drive, but lacks flavor.

I believe you could have made full use of the 12 page limit for this one, just to shed some light on the situation, bring them to life.

The characters in general did not strike me as people with personality.  I mean, Michael and John had a bet, but Liz?  She did not really add anything and I feel as if her character was wasted just to have 4 characters rather than 3.

The characters could have boasted more personality, but that's again, not the point.

For a 7-day challenge you did pretty well crafting the tale, but I do feel as if you could have added more.  

I, personally, like the idea of a shark as a pet, with a crazed and maniacal old coot keeping it there.  It has potential, but falls in some areas.

You did well, writer.  It's not bad, but it does lack flavor.  An OWC is a tricky beast to pull off, but at least you participated and that's all that matters.

Short: 5.5/10 (has some good moments, the story has potential, not fully realised here)
Shark: 7/10 (it WAS menacing, it did ATTACK, and it was ROGUE, good marks here)

4. Blood in the Water - A friendly wager between three friends, a race across the lake. What they quickly discover is - this swim will be a race for their lives.
Brief - Three random “kids” get nabbed by an old man’s pet freshwater lake shark.

Characters to Animate/Voice - 4/3
John, Liz, Michael, Old Man
Scenes to Build  - 3
Lake w beaches, swim across the lake, rock wall shore
Accessory Visual - 17
Toe dip in water  + rings, running trio, dive into lake, Liz thrash in water, dark fin, John pulled into lake, air bubbles, blood in water, leg in water, old man in boat, fishing knife, blood, shark under water, chum bucket, chum, chum scoop
Accessory Audio - 7
Woodland nature audio, sand crunch, splash dive, water thrash, air bubbles pop, knife stab, bloor & air gurgle

Genre & Marketability - Thriller horror
Script format - Good
Comments  -  A lake shark is kinda preposterous and the appearance of the old man in a boat is rather random, but those aside the story is okay. Honestly, just to economize I’d consolidate Liz’s role into either John or Michael’s, eliminating one of them two sausage danglers. Estrogen goes a long way in marketing and could have been better utilized here. Good use of just three scenes, although the rock wall shore seems rather contrived, might nix that as well.
Final word - Meh… Prolly pass on this

10/15           Lo/Hi Estimated Build Hours per Screen Minute
x 7.3          Screenplay Pages
= 73/110     Total Build Hours Time Cost

"He grabs the mangled leg and chucks it as
far as he can away from the fishing boat."

This is the best script hands down.


-------

Quoted from RayW Estrogen goes a long way in marketing and could have been better utilized here.

Where are you getting this information, I'm curious to know? I recently read an article stating that women are underrepresented in movies even though they make up 52% of the viewing audience.

-J.S.

EDIT: Fixed incomprehensible language. Thanks R.

Quoted from JS   I recently read an article stating that women are underrepresented in movies even though they make up just a little over the viewing audience.

You've lost something there. They probably do wear make up. I've even been known to myself on the odd special occasion.

R

Quoted from J.S. Where are you getting this information, I'm curious to know?

Experience and observation.

Men pay money for sex and to watch sexual material.
Largely, women do not.

Put a bunch of sausage in a film and hardly anyone wants to watch it.
Put some eggs in there and all of a sudden you got a blossoming love story potential or the mere suggestion of some little spark of hope paying audiences want to see.
BAM! Your audience just doubled.
Plain math and economics.

How many films have a token girl in there just for the satisfying love story aspect?
Darn near all of them.

Girls go a long way in your film.
Use them.

Man cannot live by guns and explosions alone.
Boobs - bullets - bombs.
Learn it - live it - love it.

Quoted from J.S. This is the best script hands down.

Hopefully not a serious comment, but coming from JS...not sure...  

Quoted from RayW Experience and observation. Men pay money for sex and to watch sexual material. Largely, women do not. Put a bunch of sausage in a film and hardly anyone wants to watch it. Put some eggs in there and all of a sudden you got a blossoming love story potential or the mere suggestion of some little spark of hope paying audiences want to see. BAM! Your audience just doubled. Plain math and economics. How many films have a token girl in there just for the satisfying love story aspect? Darn near all of them. Girls go a long way in your film. Use them. Man cannot live by guns and explosions alone. Boobs - bullets - bombs. Learn it - live it - love it.

I agree with all that. At first you said, "Honestly, just to economize I’d consolidate Liz’s role into either John or Michael’s, eliminating one of them two sausage danglers." Which, okay, on one hand the "just to economize" part might make sense. But I don't really agree. I think her character is actually pretty great: the kind of character she is and how she dies. Now had you said that in horror films, female leads are often better, I would agree with you. But I'm still a bit confused on estrogen going a long way in marketing. Many great films are sausage dangler dominate. The female characters are usually utilized for the reasons you mentioned, and only used at a minimum. Sometimes as cheap entertainment i.e. they're just bare breasts that make an entrance into a scene and make an exit. Even in love stories, they're usually used at a minimum. I was just a bit confused how your comment had any relevancy to this particular script, that's all.

Quoted from Dreamscale Hopefully not a serious comment, but coming from JS...not sure...

It's the only script I read that cut to the chase on the first page and kept my interest all the way throughout, minus Nick's script, of course. It's far from perfect, but without question the most entertaining one I read.

-J.S.

Quoted from J.S. It's the only script I read that cut to the chase on the first page and kept my interest all the way throughout, minus Nick's script, of course. It's far from perfect, but without question the most entertaining one I read.-J.S.

How many did you read?  Seriously?

Hey, apologies to teh writer if I suond like I'm picking on your script, but...really?  You get me?

Quoted from Dreamscale How many did you read?  Seriously? Hey, apologies to teh writer if I suond like I'm picking on your script, but...really?  You get me?

Close to all of them.

-J.S.

Quoted from J.S. Close to all of them.-J.S.

OK...very good...didn't see a whole lot of feedback from you, James.

Women are definitely under represented. Sometimes, when a crap bit comes on in a film, like a romantic scene, I'll look at my gf and she's gone all gooey-eyed... so I take my finger off the FF button.

It is always good to take women into account. Not easy. A lot of writers just can't write for females... I couldn't either, still not proficient... but I can manage now.

I know this is going to be a hard thing for us guys to take... but to write better for women means we've got to listen to them when they speak.