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.
Oh man I feel like a real prick for doing this, but I just can't resist. I apologize for doing it.
Quoted Text
pg. 58 – Romans were all Christians. It doesn’t make sense Livius would refer to them in such a disgusted manner.
Yeah you are right James, but in this case Michel is right. The Romans worshiped the same gods as the Greeks did but gave them diffrent names. It was the slaves and the poor who adopted christianty first and because the religous concept of one god challanged the Roman religion of lots of gods, christians where considered the enemy and made into lion feed or nailed on a cross. So yeah Livus would of showed contempt to christians.
Michel has done a great job with the research and while on the subject I did like how everytime there was an earth quake or tremor in the story the characters just shrugged it off and blamed the Gods. Makes you wonder if this was the truth. with out any of the science we have today did the locals of Pompeii consider each earthquake as harmless and just the gods being restless.
Yeah you are right James, but in this case Michel is right. The Romans worshiped the same gods as the Greeks did but gave them diffrent names. It was the slaves and the poor who adopted christianty first and because the religous concept of one god challanged the Roman religion of lots of gods, christians where considered the enemy and made into lion feed or nailed on a cross. So yeah Livus would of showed contempt to christians.
Michel certainly does appear to have done his homework. Perhaps I shouldn't have questioned this. I know the Romans had their own gods in B.C. I have to admit I don't know much about Roman culture A.D. Not sure when they decided to swap religions.
That's the big question that has me stumped as well James. Why did the Romans change religion? But change they did from Greek influenced religion to the Roman Catholic church that ruled all of Europe with an iron fist. But that's another story.
I have no idea why, maybe Michel may have an answer if he has stumbled on an answer while doing his research.
pg. 77 – It’s not necessary to show Sila and Nautius making love twice. The first time has its purpose but the second does not. It’s just repetitive.
pg. 82 – “In that case...”
pg. 83 – Lose the parenthetical. Everyone knows what rocks are. The mineral itself is of little consequence.
pg. 87 – It rings false that Nautius would be in such a rush that he would neglect Sila’s safety. He loves this woman. I’m sure he would insist upon her joining him to be with his family.
pg. 92 – A section of wall CRUSHES Celatus, not CRASHES.
- I highly doubt a tavern would be operational in such circumstances. Better just to have Nautius enter and take the wine himself from behind the bar. Makes much more sense that way and it’s a simpler solution to Nautius’ thirst.
pg. 104 – “Accosts” is a harsh word. I don’t think it’s the one you want. “Approaches” would work much better.
pg. 108 – “Don’t you dare approach.”
- Why do Nautius and Sila return to Pompeii? It's completely destroyed. I get you want to show she is pregnant but you could just as well show the two of them somewhere else living happily together. A little corny, perhaps, you don't have to do exactly that, but you cut from the two of them walking the blackened beach right back to Pompeii. It feels repetitive.
This was a very strong piece of work. Very different from most epics. This one dealt with characters much more than concepts bigger than the characters such as war, quests for power, nation rivalries, or the fate of mankind (as seen in most epics). I thought it was a much more personalized and original take on the subgenre. Well done.
Nevertheless, I feel this lacked focus and direction. As I said before, it takes too long to arrive at the main conflict of the story. Develop your characters but not at the expense of the plot.
I also felt the second half of the story was pulled in too many directions at once. Characters like Sofia and the gladiators are to minor to garner any major focus and yet they did. These subplots took away from Nautius' story. I felt the same way about the Pinius subplot but that proved to tie into Nautius' fate in the end.
This leads me into a third problem. There were a lot of plotlines throughout the story that didn't get enough attention. Pinius for one. Earlier on in the story, he's not a main character at all but during the second half, his role is expanded considerably. This is no good. You need to develop his character in the first act or so to justify is role in those following. The same goes for Livius. His role was terribly downplayed as is that of Nikias. Nikias is at the forefront of the story early on but seems to be missing in action during the Pompeii pandemonium. I'd sacrifice some of the less important subplots to focus on him and the Christians in hiding, yet another subplot that was downplayed.
Overall, your characters were very strong, the conflict was strong, the action was gripping, and the stakes were high. Yet when all's said and done, I think you blew things up a bit too much while at the same time not giving the stuff with the most importance the attention it deserved. While just about everything else about your script is in place, your story is scattered.
In closing, my advice to you is choose what you feel is the most important about your story and let everything else be. Hope this helps. Good luck with your screenplay.
Michel certainly does appear to have done his homework. Perhaps I shouldn't have questioned this. I know the Romans had their own gods in B.C. I have to admit I don't know much about Roman culture A.D. Not sure when they decided to swap religions.
That's the big question that has me stumped as well James. Why did the Romans change religion? But change they did from Greek influenced religion to the Roman Catholic church that ruled all of Europe with an iron fist. But that's another story.
I have no idea why, maybe Michel may have an answer if he has stumbled on an answer while doing his research.
First of all, thanks to anyone for your reviews. I've been very busy (I still do) and I'm sorry for the delay of my response. There were a lot of underlined points. I chosed the ones where I could discuss.
The first half is a conventional love triangle with a villain thrown in. While reading I couldn’t get the movie Titanic out of my head. You script shares a lot of similarities with that movie. Friendships are made, people fall in love, a jealous villain inflicts conflict. Big disaster overshadows story and threatens everyone.
This structure of story is older than the wolrd. You find it in the Greek classics. Believe me James Cameron didn't invent anything.
It is all good, but I felt you could have spiced it up a lot more with conflict and drama. Have the two friends start to hate and fight each other for example.
At this time, friendship was above love. Mentalities were far different. Friends respected each other.
pg. 2 – You’re giving information here that can’t be shown on screen. How do we know these are “prisoners of war, chosen for their brawn and endurance?” Their nationalities can’t be shown either. I’m not sure they’re even of any consequence. This is a heavy read. If there’s stuff that’s written that can’t be shown, get rid of it. It’s unnecessary bulk.
I disagree. All this can be shown here. Slaves nationalities can be easily showed by the color of their skin, their hair.
pg. 6 – “Row well and you will be awarded.” I believe you mean rewarded unless Nautius is going to give them medals for good rowing. Somehow I doubt he would do such a thing.
Sorry? Imeant rewarded. Rewards were extra food, extra water or extra resting. It makes sense.
pg. 87 – It rings false that Nautius would be in such a rush that he would neglect Sila’s safety. He loves this woman. I’m sure he would insist upon her joining him to be with his family.
Nautius knows Sila since they were kids. He knows he'd waste precious time to try to convince her.
I highly doubt a tavern would be operational in such circumstances. Better just to have Nautius enter and take the wine himself from behind the bar. Makes much more sense that way and it’s a simpler solution to Nautius’ thirst.
archeology has proved that fact. People were waiting here for Vesuvius' wrath to be over
Why do Nautius and Sila return to Pompeii? It's completely destroyed. I get you want to show she is pregnant but you could just as well show the two of them somewhere else living happily together.
Why do people return to places where they families have been destroyed? This is just remembrance and grieving.
There were a lot of plotlines throughout the story that didn't get enough attention. Plinius for one. Earlier on in the story, he's not a main character at all but during the second half, his role is expanded considerably. This is no good. You need to develop his character in the first act or so to justify is role in those following.
Plinius is the only witness to have leave a written quote about the eruption. The same thing for his nephew. I couldn't let it pass.
Nikias is at the forefront of the story early on but seems to be missing in action during the Pompeii pandemonium
I agree with you on that point. He could have more present on the second half of the story but his affair with Nautius' blind sister would have been too complicated and mostly a repeat of what happened to them after the cave. I had to sacrifice him.
Anyway, I'm glad this story entertained you. I'm a litlle bit disappointed that Polanski will treat the same subject, but his film is based on a best seller published shortly after I finished my first draft. (sob)
Through my script I always try to be as entertaining as possible, and at the same time, educative.
A quick laugh at the name Nautius and I'm ready to review..
I've only glanced at the other reviews so what I may say could have already been said. Theres no indication of who these three kids are in the flashback. Nautius and Livius should taunt each other when sword fighting, naming each other, maybe even saying some personal phrase that shows their friendship.
Some sentences are strangely constructed.
Ex. "The three children are looking panicking people running.."
It takes me away from the story. It's very hard to get into the story when I have to keep stopping and analyzing a sentence that doesn't quiet make sense.
You deliver on action. Two battles and not even 30 pages in!
I'm up to page 33 and I'll leave it there for today. End my read on a cliffhanger. I'll finish my review tomorrow.
Shorts: I Named Him Thor Footloose, Cut Loose Tainted Milk Marshmallows Confucius & The Quest For Nessie Wondrous Presentation
You (...) started the story with "grainy and scratched, Kodak color 8mm" footage. Do you really need to do that?
I know this a historical story, but I wanted to show that flash-back like it was unforgetable moments you could shot with a silent camera as our parents and granparents used to do it in the 50's and the 60's. I know it's my role as a writer but it was just to give those moments that look.
Well done! I really enjoyed reading this script because I like the subject and stuff + it was clearly thought-out and organized and formatted and so on. Although, yeah, there are quite a few grammatical mistakes and typos here and there like others have pointed out, and like Alex said the characters name seem a little silly for the average reader (e.g. me) but overall I really liked the way this script seems so professional, almost like it could be the next big-budget summer movie.
However, one MAJOR criticism is that, while the descriptions and action paragraphs are near-perfect in tone, like others said there is just too much info and historical jargon, although it is quite clear you know a lot about ancient Roman history it's be an even better read if you cut some of it out, as mentioned. And, most importantly, one really crucial thing I can see that otherwise separates this from the real blockbuster movies is the dialogue. Basically, what the characters say works and makes sense + all but if you only changed it some, given it variety and memorableness and whatever, then...?
Just wanted to let you know that Michel does not have an internet connection at the moment.
I'm sure he'd be delighted to read your review, just wanted to let you know it might be a while before he responds. Don't take that personally. He'll be back eventually.
like Alex said the characters name seem a little silly for the average reader (e.g. me)
However, every Roman name is true. Several even belong to people who lived at this time. They maybe sound silly today but many today names will surely be in the future (LOL)
Okay, I know, it's 133 pages(!). Okay, I know, it's not another sequel of Batman, Matrix, X-Men, or Casper (?), but it's gold! (Well, you'll notice I'm not a good seller) But I think it worth reading.
I tried to follow general reviews made before. I took from the script all the Roman technical words and many documentary descriptions. I think the text is now easier to read.