SimplyScripts Discussion Board
Blog Home - Produced Movie Script Library - TV Scripts - Unproduced Scripts - Contact - Site Map
ScriptSearch
Welcome, Guest.
It is March 28th, 2024, 4:47pm
Please login or register.
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login
Please do read the guidelines that govern behavior on the discussion board. It will make for a much more pleasant experience for everyone. A word about SimplyScripts and Censorship


Produced Script Database (Updated!)
One Week Challenge - Who Wrote What and Writers' Choice.


Scripts studios are posting for award consideration

Short Script of the Day | Featured Script of the Month | Featured Short Scripts Available for Production
Submit Your Script

How do I get my film's link and banner here?
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.
Forum Login
Username: Create a new Account
Password:     Forgot Password

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board    One Week Challenge    February, 2010 One Week Challenge  ›  OWC - The Killing Gene *
Users Browsing Forum
No Members and 1 Guests

 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 » : All
Recommend Print
  Author    OWC - The Killing Gene *  (currently 8771 views)
Dreamscale
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 2:34pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



I have to agree with Rick's post, as well as his edit.

George, I don't purposely like punching holes in things, but when they exist, I will definitely bring them up.

There are a number of scenarios here that are possibilities, but IMO, none of them (that we've hit on, at least) really make sense based on 1 thing or another.

Assuming Edgar is all in his head, like Rick brought up, the entire scene with Edgar and David doesn't make sense, unless, again, it's literally all in his head.  But if that's the case, then my question is why write it this way, which is obviously intentionally deceiving, confusing, and ambiguous?
Logged
e-mail Reply: 30 - 62
George Willson
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 3:26pm Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Doctor who? Yes, quite right.

Location
Broken Arrow
Posts
3591
Posts Per Day
0.51
If we're viewing the story from David's viewpoint, then he would believe everything that Edgar is doing is real. It would also not be unheard of for Edgar to hand David items that David already owns, especially if David had lost his mind. Now, perhaps it might be better if David is handed his own gun and given a number to call, but consider this. If "Edgar" gives David a phone, then David believes the phone is not his until he realizes it was all in his head. He could then look back at the phone and notice it's actually his own phone and Edgar gave him nothing. It's trippy and not for everyone, but I would enjoy the heck out of it.

Jeff, you're thinking too rationally for this one. Break free and think outside reality.


Logged Offline
Site Private Message Reply: 31 - 62
Cam17
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 8:07pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
Los Angeles
Posts
153
Posts Per Day
0.03
I don't think there's any doubt that the author meant Edgar to be a figment of David's imagination.  David even says it himself:

DAVID
Or some random apparition that they
believed was actually real.

Once again we have a script that is a writer's personal twist on a well-worn horror cliche.  The phantom apparition that turns out to be all in the main character's head.  It's been done over and over and over.  It's a staple of the suspense/horror genres because when done correctly it really works.  This piece succeeds on many levels, not so much on others.

I thought all of Edgar's initial explanation for being there was unnecessary and somewhat illogical.  The whole "I work for a large corporation and we want you to testify that your book is all wrong" is simply not true.  Edgar didn't need to say any of this.  I think it would have worked better if he just told David that he believed David's theory was a crock of sh*t and he was going to prove it.  And then he tells him about the body in the house.  Kill or go to prison.  Decide.

I did like the rest of the story.  For a talky script, the dialogue really moved.  A little on the nose here and there, but it rang true to me for the most part.  I think what really made this work for me is that you made David a renowned expert in the field, and then we discover he's got more experience in that field than we thought.  You have to wonder if this has happened before in his life and he just can't remember because...well, he's psychotic.

Anyway, the script is not without its flaws, but well done for an OWC.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 32 - 62
Dreamscale
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 8:12pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



Cam, well put.  The dialogue stuff from Edgar about being with the large company, blah, blah, blah, is what makes this not make sense and work, for me, as it doesn't make any logical sense, if we're to believe Edgar isn't real.

Really good observation.  
Logged
e-mail Reply: 33 - 62
mcornetto
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 8:14pm Report to Moderator
Guest User




Quoted from Cam17
I don't think there's any doubt that the author meant Edgar to be a figment of David's imagination.  David even says it himself:


I agree David says that and it may and probably is the authors intention that Edgar is a FOTI.  However, David saying that line - I think after he has already proved it was BS - is another valid interpretation of the script - whether it is an intended one or not.   Or maybe the truth is somewhere between the two.
Logged
e-mail Reply: 34 - 62
khamanna
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 8:38pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Posts
4194
Posts Per Day
0.79
I loved it. Great story, really thought through. An easy and fast read. Very straightforward.
Thanks.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 35 - 62
Dreamscale
Posted: February 17th, 2010, 9:04pm Report to Moderator
Guest User



WTF?  Very straight forward?  Huh?  In what way is it straight forward?
Logged
e-mail Reply: 36 - 62
currentcmine
Posted: February 18th, 2010, 8:20pm Report to Moderator
New


Perspective without distortion.

Location
Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts
34
Posts Per Day
0.01
David is awfully dumb. Too gullible. He immediately believes Edgar has a dead body in his home. Doesn't test him to prove the body's there. This could be his subconscious ruminations about killing. But we, the audience, don't see enough of the flaw, the split, between his "good" self and the "evil" self. Instead, David resists Edgar's coercion as best he can, until he finally caves at the pressure.

A plus for the "dark" allusions, both cinematically and in characterization.

But, I feel an inconsistency in David's character as a result. If he truly tested Edgar, instead of being as gullible as he is -- seeing the dead, bloody body and ogling it -- and then later fell under the pressure, his face twisting in self-conflict, then I could buy the ending. As it is, the "dark" David emerging from the "good" David is a gimmick to fulfill this challenge and nothing more.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 37 - 62
Coding Herman
Posted: February 19th, 2010, 6:10pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
Toronto, Canada
Posts
455
Posts Per Day
0.09
Very good work here. Kept me on the edge of my seat for the entire script.

The dialogue is the high point here. I don't mind if it's a little bit too talky. Most dramas are like that anyway.

No technical issues here. Quite polished.

Can't wait to find out who wrote this.

Excellent.


FEATURE:

Memwipe
- Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 38 - 62
grademan
Posted: February 20th, 2010, 5:14pm Report to Moderator
Been Around



Location
Wisconsin
Posts
872
Posts Per Day
0.16
I have an alternate theory. David had a psychotic break or an epiphany during his research that led him to his conclusion at the end of the interview. The break is handled like a flashback when the video tape is stopped and restarted.

Reality = interview
Break/epiphany = "flashback" with Edgar, the dead man at his house, the homeless guy
Reality = interview resumes

Whatever. I am probably just repeating what was said by someone above.

Well constructed. Story well told.

Gary
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 39 - 62
Brian M
Posted: February 21st, 2010, 3:28pm Report to Moderator
New



Location
Glasgow
Posts
434
Posts Per Day
0.08
I enjoyed this one quite a bit. Very ambiguous, I've only scanned the comments but it's good to see this has got everyone talking.

I agree with the others who think that Edgar is a fragment of David's imagination and he is exactly the type of person he is researching. It kept me on edge, the stakes were upped after a talky start when he finds out there is a body in his house, then upped again when he finds out the dead body is his ex-wife's new husband. If someone said that to me, I would be pretty freaked out so pressing for proof from Edgar would be pretty far down on my list of things to do. I would grab the gun and go right away too.

I thought the Homeless Guy's dialogue was pretty stiff in places, especially the line about him being a harmless old man.  

Anyway, first one I've read but a very solid entry. I was entertained anyway.

Brian
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 40 - 62
Trojan
Posted: February 22nd, 2010, 12:10am Report to Moderator
New


Location
Australia
Posts
393
Posts Per Day
0.07
Thanks everyone for the reads and comments on the script. There has obviously been some debate over certain parts of the story, particularly as to the nature of Edgar. I'll try and clear things up as best as I can, but basically Bert and George nailed it with their comments.

I had the idea for the core concept but didn't start writing it until the last day due to another script I was working on. So about 90% of this was written between 2.30am and 6am after I finished a long shift at work, trying to meet the deadline. The only thing I really had was the basic premise, and all of the extra story and details came to me as I wrote it. Apologies about any typos or mistakes, I only had time to give this one proofread before submitting.

Who is Edgar? Most people seemed to pick up on the fact that he is a figment of David's imagination. Or more accurately, he is a part of his subconscious. I thought the ending where David explains that many killers create certain scenarios that only exist inside their heads would reveal the true nature of Edgar. I wanted to reveal this in such a way that the reader would be able to work it out for themselves rather than have me explicitly state it in the script. It seemed most people got this, but some didn't. May be something I need to make clearer perhaps. I also had Edgar say the line 'Sanity is highly overrated, my friend' as a little clue that David could be insane.

The way I chose to approach the challenge was in regards to the dark places inside the human psyche. Something I've always found interesting is Carl Jung's theory of The Shadow. Basically that we all have dark desires and impulses at times, it's part of what makes us human. The dark parts of ourselves he referred to as The Shadow. And that if we don't acknowledge our Shadow and embrace those darker thoughts, if we push them down and ignore them then they can manifest themselves in disturbing ways.

So my backstory for David is he is a guy who fundamentally fails to accept the idea that all people are capable of having dark thoughts and acting on them. He is a man of science who believes genetics decides if someone is good or bad, not free will. He may be right or he may be wrong, but in my mind he was someone who saw himself as being above the impulses of human nature. He denied the Shadow aspect of his psyche and Edgar is the manifestation of failing to do so. It's also often the case that if you emerse yourself in a particular world for long enough you will start to become consumed by the nature of that world. So David has spent years researching and writing his book on killers and criminals, it is only natural that elements of that have seeped into his psyche and he spends a lot of time thinking about it. That's why I have Edgar say the line
'After all those years of researching the worst kinds of people, you yearned to have a taste of it yourself. I simply illuminated the darkness you have in your own soul.' David says that is not true, then fires the gun at Edgar because deep down he knows it is true.

I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether or not David has killed before. Was the guy in the house really dead? If so, did David kill him? I played with the idea of showing this but in the end decided it would work better to leave this up to the reader to decide for themselves. It could be he killed him, or it could be it was just part of his delusion to make things seem more real.

As for killing the homeless guy, this was intentional. I thought about having him letting the homeless guy live on the basis that he was so poor and defenseless. Then going off and killing someone who deserved it instead, someone he found harming another person. But I decided against it because then he could justify the killing as almost doing it out of necessity to help someone else. A vigilante action to rationalise his killing. Which would defeat the purpose IMO, as I wanted him to act out of self-interest and have no justification for what he did at all. Having him kill someone who arguably deserved it would've made David's actions easier and that's not an option I wanted him to have.

With the ending and how the image comes to rest on David's look, I wanted him to have an intense and haunting look in his eyes. Hopefully so that people would wonder if at this point David has already killed before, or if they are taking a trip back in time to look at the thoughts of a psychopath in the making. I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether or not David has already snapped or is simply on his way to doing so at the time of the interview.

Oh and as for the physical reality of different props being moved around or picked up by Edgar, George was right when he commented on this. That everything we are seeing exists as David's reality so it is natural that we would see that. He would see Edgar hand him a phone or pick up a gun whereas in reality they are already on the table or he picks them up himself. George mentioned Fightclub, in which I noticed some parallels as I wrote this but didn't set out with the intention to do so.

I am glad people seemed to enjoy this for the most part. As it was a bit of a rushed effort I was worried about how it was going to come across. It's also my first attempt at this sort of genre so overall I am reasonably happy with how it turned out. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to read and comment, any other questions please feel free to ask.

Cheers,
Tim.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 41 - 62
Tommyp
Posted: February 22nd, 2010, 4:33am Report to Moderator
Been Around


Continuity Is For Pussies...

Location
Australia
Posts
701
Posts Per Day
0.12
Timothy, I just read this script and I thought it was damn amazing.

I liked the ideas in it, and it was very realistic.

The only thing I can suggest is that you don't have the bullets going through the man and into the wall, but he just walks out (we assume he is stilla human). Then it is revealed on the TV that lot's of "evil" is in peoples heads, and it then leaves the audience wondering whether or not Edgar is actually in David's head, or whether he was real.

The above could make it better... just a suggestion.

I also suggest you get to the subconscious bit at the end a lot quicker... like in 5 lines, not a page.

Well done with this, cool scrip, and you went out of your comfort zone which I applaud.


Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 42 - 62
Scar Tissue Films
Posted: February 22nd, 2010, 10:49am Report to Moderator
Of The Ancients


Posts
3382
Posts Per Day
0.63
The difference with Fight Club is that it showed in flashes that he was doing it all himself.

We don't have that here.

As it stands it's very ambiguous. That's fine of course, if you want it that way. The story still works and causes a debate which is good.

If you really want it to be clear that your version of events is what everyone takes from it, I think you'll have to amend it slightly as I suggested before.

Rick.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 43 - 62
khamanna
Posted: February 22nd, 2010, 6:15pm Report to Moderator
January Project Group



Posts
4194
Posts Per Day
0.79

Quoted from Dreamscale
WTF?  Very straight forward?  Huh?  In what way is it straight forward?


Just noticed)

I don't get what you mean though? By straight forward I mean 'focused on one idea', some shorts go astray, but this writer, I think, chose a theme and wrote on it.
Logged Offline
Private Message Reply: 44 - 62
 Pages: « 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 » : All
Recommend Print

Locked Board Board Index    February, 2010 One Week Challenge  [ previous | next ] Switch to:
Was Portal Recent Posts Home Help Calendar Search Register Login

Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post polls
You may not post attachments
HTML is on
Blah Code is on
Smilies are on


Powered by E-Blah Platinum 9.71B © 2001-2006