Hi Michael and Sandra,

Part of it is personal preference.  I've never found drug humor amusing mostly because it's just people acting funny rather than being funny, which is what I felt Darnell and Roddy were doing.  Again, part of it is personal preference so I'd see what others think about it.

I highlighted dialogue because I thought this would be more of a talkie piece when I started reading, and I think when incorporating backstory, that's the way to go.  Have the characters talk about it.

Hey guys. Big congrats on managing to collaborating on a feature. I've tried this too a few times, but it's very hard to make it work IMHO. I never read the Thief thread, but saw it on the portal page for the longest time. To be honest, I never realized you actually managed to write something together. I applaud you for that!

Thanks.


When it comes to the script itself however, I have to be honest and tell you it didn't really work for me.  I see that you were 8 people involved in this…and it feels like it. What I mean is that it's seems there are way too many cooks in this kitchen. It has a very jumbled and unfocused feel.

Better or worse than the Killer scripts?

There's a simple story here. Gabriel needs money and decides to film his highschool friends in order to make a reality show. That's a good idea, but you fail in your telling of the story.

This is true except that isn't really supposed to be the story and was only tacked on a third of the way through the writing.  The story is supposed to be about the ring.  I know it isn't exactly but not for want of trying.

First off, I don't think the title fits the story. It's not about a thief or being a thief. It's about Gabriel making a reality show unknown to his "friends" because he needs money. Sure there's some stealing going on, but it's not really a big part of the story.

Like I said the title is from the exercise and it's what the story should be about.   I'm all for another title but not until there's another draft.  

Second, there are too many characters. Who's the protag and who's the antag? VERY late in the script I figured Gabriel is the antag and the others an ensemble protag? If so, it comes wayyyyy tooooo late. Throughout this thing, I was confused as what I was supposed to feel about anyone.

I always considered this an ark movie there's no one protag and antag, instead there are different stories that twine together around a single event.  


Third, the set up also takes wayyyyy toooo long. 20+ pages of people just arriving? Sorry, but that doesn't work. You need something interesting to happen right away. Why not have the very first image being the ring in someone's hand. Set the story up that it's about thievery of this ring…

Good suggestion. Johnny calling about being later while holding the ring is a very good way to cut into the script.

Fourth, the characters didn't really work for me either. Why? They seemed to not stay true to their character. They start out one way, but end up a different way, but!!! not through experience, story conflict or emotional challenges. They just seem to change. I'm sure one of you will let me know that so and so changed due to this or that. The problem is that it doesn't feel natural or even believable. Roddy for example is the biggest issue as far as this goes to me.

How is Roddy an example of this?

In regards to the characters, I think you have too many of them for us to really care about or connect with. The characters that I cared most about would be Darnell and maybe Roddy and Francesca. Jimmy and Johnny were throwaways IMHO. I couldn't care less about them.

Good stuff to know.  Interesting that a number of people cared about Darnell.

The writing itself felt jumbled. Again, like too many cooks in this SS kitchen. Lots of mistakes. Slugs were weird. No CONTINUOUS, DAY nor NIGHTS. And some other issues like that that I know you all know better about so I'm leaving that for now.

Again.  More or less than the Killer scripts?

Fifth, again, IMHO, there were too many scenes in this. Too many jumps from scene to scene. One second they're in here and then they're there and then they're there. All without a STORY REASON.

Can you give an example of this?

Also, the scenes went from people laughing in one scene only to jump to the next scene where someone would be upset or mad or whatever. Too much of an emotional roller coaster IMO for an audience stay follow.


Good thing to keep an eye out for.  There should be emotional follow through.

Sixth, the RV, step dad muslim part went nowhere…

I'm sure it goes somewhere, somewhere.

Anyway, I'm sorry I couldn't be more positive here. I know you're all pretty darn good but I think in this case there was too much of a good thing and it just left me feeling less good.

If anyone have any questions, feel free to ask. I want to be helpful if I can. I do like all of you!!

Thanks for reading and for your feedback.  It was quite helpful.  

Thanks Pia, We might have written the absolutely worst script in the history of the internet. Who knows?

Hey guys!

First, thanks for the reads.

Second, thanks for the undiluted comments regarding the script.

Third, Michael helped a few scriptwriters learn to write together on a full length
script. I know I experienced a thrill as we worked on this as we saw each other get better and wrestle with what we thought the story was. I am convinced there is a story here worth telling.

Four, the script must stand on its own. Doesn’t matter what we were doing behind the scenes.

Five, the writers secretly hoped that maybe lightening had somehow made its way into our script (come on, we all hope our first draft doesn’t need a rewrite… am I right?) but we knew that what all writers know:  There is no good writing, only good rewriting. So we can take shredding. I am sure the writers would not be able to unite to fix this script until we saw how you, the readers, reacted to the first draft. We are, after all, competitors not collaborators by birth.

Six, some common points have been noted by many of the reviewers. I’ll rephrase them as questions here:

How can we make the plot clearer, more compelling?

How can we make the characters more there, more compelling?

These two questions are what all the points boil down to one way or another.

Our solution will be to address the points like any writer. Break it down, build it back up. Then post it again. It’ll be interesting to see if we can do this. LET THE REWRITE BEGIN!

If you get the chance to work on an SS collaboration project, give it a try. Tommy, Sandra and I learned a lot by doing and then reading your comments.

Michael, we thank you for your help. Much respect sir.

Gary

How can we make the plot clearer, more compelling?

How can we make the characters more there, more compelling?

I think I will have to wait for the rewrite on this one before I can really give any criticism on the story, because I just could not get through the whole thing.

I could go on, but I don’t feel it’s necessary. It was quite tiresome to read. A script should show me what’s happening, not make me work it out for myself. As I said, I think I will wait for the rewrite to make any further comment. But I certainly think that any rewrite should take this into consideration so as to make the story more obvious, and not have it weighed down with unncessary metaphors and fanciful language.

“Cherry and Jimmy move closer together -- electric sparks fly.”
Obviously sparks are not literally flying. So how is this shown?

Just about every action line was either (1) so descriptive, I had to spend ten minutes trying to decipher its meaning, or (2) it was just simply an example of telling me something that really should have been shown.