Georgie,

It has been difficult to get my thoughts down, as I am worried you may consider this some type of reactionary review, but hopefully you will see it's not.  Most of my points are substantiated and certainly do not come from left field or a position of malice. Everything written below is an honest appraisal of how I view the content and contains a branch out into a wider discussion on screenwriting, on which you may or may not wish to participate in.

Before laying down what I think about the script itself, it's important to preface those comments with this: we are clearly miles apart in how we view scripts. This has been written with you directing it in mind, to my mind. Despite the comment below:

Quoted from George Willson That vanilla style is basically how I've always promoted the spec style around here. Glad it made the read easy. I was just going for a skeleton of a story that a crew could use to make a movie. It allows for a lot of freedom.

I know you state that you kept this minimalist, but it seems anything but to me. There is a lot of direction for characters to look this way, walk this way, makes this sound, that sound, for example. The director should be making these non-essential decisions (IMO) and your script should be simply a canvas with the relevant brushes and paints selected. Here, it feels like you have taken those tools and started to paint something. So while you gain some minor clarity with how it would look, you're taking liberties in doing so much to that end, here. Ultimately, the point is: do I feel the story more as a consequence of how you've written it? No. Now, perhaps you could change this if you directed it yourself and many here commented on the difference between the script and finished product of 'The Strangers', for example. However, this is a spec script and it should partly be geared towards selling the thing; as you've kept it devoid of - what I would term - passion/flair in the writing, you need a very strong story to carry the dry/to the point style. If you have funding, and the script is your baby to direct, then it doesn't matter, but that would not be applicable in this instance.

I differ in the sense that my work is very minimal, 'cos I want the director to tighten the bolts as he/she sees fit. Clearly this leaves my work open to criticism that it's too vague or minimal, but I feel that unless it drives the story forward, directions of small character actions are pretty redundant. All the sighs, or groans, or whatever. I was very surprised to see Gary say few were included, 'cos the script is littered with them.

Here are a few examples of why this is not vanilla, and of unnecessary directions that do not aid the story (although I concede you are right in that these type of things give script to film clarity).

Quoted Text He takes one earbud out, but leaves the other in place.

Of course he left the other one in, he took one earbud out!

Quoted Text Emma pauses and closes her eyes.

Quoted Text EMMA Does dad know you have it yet? Ethan laughs. ETHAN You’re kidding, right? Emma shrugs.

Quoted Text He scoffs. ETHAN Stupid business. EMMA Right. Then you haven’t told dad. He scoffs again. ETHAN No. She shrugs.

There are literally tens more examples that do not aid the story. There's so much shrugging in this script, I am surprised the character have any shoulders left to shrug!

You are telling the actor little things they do not need to know. It's the actors job to build a character (with the director) from your template, and yet you are boxing them in here with too much direction on every little thing they do. These are isolated examples but are indicative of my point (and our different views).

So, in a nutshell that is where we differ and it accounts for a large part of how we interpret one another's work. My suspicion - and you may be doing it sub-consciously - is that you want to control the script, and this owes to your desire to direct the action, rather than write the blueprint. I may be wrong, but it's what shone through, for me. In addition, you have said this isn't your greatest work, which leads me to believe you don't believe in it.

Would you agree?

Onto the script. There is nothing wrong with the script per se. It's competent, but it doesn't set me alive, either. There doesn't feel a passion behind it, or a guiding principle. The first 20 pages (action-filled opening scene aside) do little to cultivate tension. You labour on the communication issue and the isolation of the house. The large chunks of dialogue do not serve the story. Instead, they serve the plot and that's a fundamentally important difference, to my mind. You address this point with the marriage/kids/parents thing, but it would work better as something less obvious and dragged into these opening pages.

When the dog bites Mike's ankle, he says:

Quoted from Mike MIKE I need to make a tourniquet and a big enough bandage to cover this until it stops bleeding. Grab me some paper towels?

We don't need to hear that, nor do we need to hear this:

Quoted from Mike MIKE Well right now, it’s just a dog bite. If it’s rabid, then I’m current on my shots anyway, and I’ll just need a booster. But that can wait till we get back.

That's functional and while true, it fails to ratchet up any form of tension. So what is it doing aside from telling us back story at an inappropriate time? Mike would most likely be a little incoherent from the shock of being bitten and perhaps angrier. He could just as easily be talking of someone else's bite here, and not his own.

Up to page 25, we are yet to really learn anything. What do we know?

- Emma dreams of a wedding.
- The house is isolated and the phone most definitely does not work.
- Ethan likes to moan about the lack of any water substitute; and
- Mike got bitten.

Owing to the dry style of writing and - IMO - unnecessary direction of looking here, or groaning there, we actually have about 10 page's worth of material and a real lack of tension, or conflict. Sure, the smoking issue is a base for conflict but it needs to be utilised more effectively. Maybe Mike spots a cigarette and Emma blames Ethan; which would enrich the dynamic between the three and provide another dimension, which to this point we desperately need.

Yes, from page 30, we now have a set of couple troubles introduced, which these characters are not strong enough to carry. The style is so dry, with too much emphasis on the minute and unnecessary.

To reference 'The Strangers' again, the boring couple troubles is tolerable due to the intense tension that Bertino places their issue in. He uses the lighting, lengthy silence and editing to slowly achieve this effect. Perhaps this is what you have in mind, but this would return to the issue I think permeates the script, you have dry writing but too much control over everything.

Sorry, back to script, away from larger issue.

This made me smile:

Quoted Text ETHAN What if it’s the dog? MIKE The dog learned to knock?

More of this sharp, short dialogue, please.

When you introduce Sam to proceedings, the pace feels more horror. It feels heavily influenced by 'Cabin Fever', and that may or may not be intentional. What you do here - that is different - is marry up exposition with something more engaging for us. That is the fundamental problem with your first 20 or so.

In terms of pacing, we have an uneasy relationship between the meandering characters and the splice where the creature is now full on terrorising their world. You've seemingly realised that the script lulled and spiced up the action during writing, but have done so without a 'joiner', or should I say, suitable segue.

I don't really buy Mike's refusal to accept the circumstances. He's not prick-ish enough to carry that charge. Instead, he seems more a plot device to set up faux conflict with Sam. An inverse where Sam is refusing to accept his fate would be more dramatic and interesting. He provides the information then tries to explain the obvious as something (unaware of the effect of his bite) else. This allows the house trio and us as an audience to search out the answers, which would make the content less formulaic, and more compelling. Right now it reads like my old man is reading me a story and I am too passive in that process. It's not a two-way communication, and most of the best movies are. When I watch a movie, or read a script, I want some type of question to be asked of me, or something provided that allows me to work. You simply do not have that right now.

This would work well on screen, but requires a lighter touch when writing:

Quoted Text Emma shrugs and places the adapter back in the drawer. She retrieves a shirt and changes it. Mike watches her. She catches his gaze. EMMA What? MIKE You do like to tempt me, don’t you?

Obviously Emma shrugged! But seriously, something more economical is required. This is - to segue back into the wider theme I am drawing on - a perfect example of our difference. I would convey the same information but feel less restricted in how I write it. To be fair, when you read that alone, you know it's a little boring for a spec script. Spielberg could write it and it wouldn't matter - he makes his magic work on screen. You do not, so why not show your magic and wand here (writing with flair), while retaining the core importance - showing what is to be filmed? The two need not be mutually exclusive.

When the group finally decide to leave the house, it feels too uneven. I think the problem is that the pace oscillates between nothing happening and something happening and too quickly. What you're actually missing is the tension that builds between the two end points. Sam and Ethan's idle chat doesn't do that, and Mike and Emma's formulaic problems also fail to achieve anything approaching the required vibe. The stakes are quite simply not high enough. The two devices I do like are the dog outside and Mike's bite. However, you just leave this two elements on the side like ratty dolls. Also, why the fuck isn't the 'creature' playing an important part? He could remain on the sidelines if this was a psychological horror, but it's not - at least not in current form. What tone are you striving for, Georgie? Or, what hybrid within the horror genre?

The creature within (surely a more appropriate title, and especially if you ramped up the psychology of the piece) is a nice concept, but obviously evokes 'Aliens'.

I suspect you know this already, but the lengthy dialogue of Sam around page 80 is just too much. Even Quentin would struggle justify that length.

In summary then, you have something of a mix-up between 'The Fly', 'Aliens' and 'Cabin Fever', with elements of all those movies feeling present. After Mike's attack on Sam, we have Ethan and Emma talking as though they're getting ready for church on Sunday. There is no sense of a frantic search to get out of there. We need dialogue and behaviour that is endemic to their plight. My suggestions would be that you need to address some big pacing problems and solidify exactly what this script is about. It's just a little rudderless right now, and just because it's horror, it doesn't disqualify the story from having some resonance beyond the gore, psychology or fear.

Andrew

Andrew, do you know the story behind this script?  It has nothing to do with George directing or shooting it.  George wrote it in 1 month for another film maker to shoot it on an ultra low (like ZERO) budget.

My comments about directing were not literal, mate. I stated that the script contained many instances of directing irrelevant action - action that should be left to the director.

Yeah, I know the story (I have commented on the thread congratulating George) and quote relevant comments here. At the end of the day, this is a forum to either tell the truth or to massage egos and reverence.

I am just saying what I think about the script. In the best possible way - that's OK, right?

Again, in the best possible way - just seems a bit unnecessary to discuss this type of thing with you, and not George.

Andrew

Andrew, thanks for the details on my script here. I assure that nothing is taken personally. It appears our individual styles differ when it comes to how we formulate the descriptions and such, and honestly, I think it's more a matter of opinion than requirement. Maybe my characters do shrug an awful lot, but it basically shows a reaction of some kind. Since this is just a blueprint, I would not expect everyone to always shrug at every moment I say shrug, but that's just what I see happening when I wrote it. I consider those non-verbal actions (that you can see) to be every bit as important as the dialogue. After all, a scoff does say something. It actually says a lot more than putting it down into words. A shrug also says something non-verbally. Neither are as elegant as subtext, but they're both something you can pull off better in a movie than most other mediums.

You want to be as minimal as possible where I tend to write a bit more. That's fine, but I would caution not to be minimal at the expense of the story. Mine might be a tad overkill, but you can't really question in most instances, the intentions of the characters. You know how they reacted to everything, even if all they did was shrug. What you have to remember is that at this stage, you are writing what amounts to a scripted story where you still have control of everything. I did not write this script to direct it, so I just turned out a spec that was specific to one person's requirements. I can almost guarantee that no one had any questions as to any of my intents in the story itself. Maybe you'll wonder what the heck I was thinking, but that's something altogether different. Movies don't come with Cliff Notes or an author to answer questions, so you have to ensure that your thoughts are complete on the page. Am I saying you should shrug every other line? Nah, I'm not perfect. Can't claim to be. But I do advocate completeness. Giving the moviemakers freedom to make their movie is fine, but you've got to at least get your point across on the page. I kind of prefer to tighten the bolts before they get to it. And admittedly, I do kind of mentally direct it, but you have to note that before you pass it on, it's your script, not theirs. Feel free to put your vision down before they destroy it.

I know how to make a movie, and specific to your script, Andrew, I had a lot of questions and they would all have been answered had you allowed a little more info.

Now, as to the huge block of dialogue where Sam tells the story of his camp. I went back and forth with Randy on this and did not want to just have a guy talk for a page as to what happened. I asked if it would be possible to actually make that scene, and Randy said to just monologue it. I hated to do it, but I assure you that if he's not going to make it, it's going to be a flashback. Show, don't tell.

Beyond the description complaints, you had a lot of good comments in there as well. The dialogue comments don't surprise me at all. I kind of suck at dialogue. Always have.

I also suspect that since I wrote it low budget with very few character, little for them to do, and a single location, that I spent a whole lot of time on things that one might breeze past. I think my next step is to take a step back and consider what this script needs if it were budget free and try to utilize the space more efficiently.

Thanks for reading it, Andrew. I did find your comments useful. And again, no ill intent is perceived on my part.

Ladies and gents, this stupid thing needs a title. In a nutshell, it's about an engaged couple and the bride's brother going to the groom's parent's summer home in the middle of no where. They get attacked by an infected dog who bites the groom's leg. The groom then slowly changes into a wicked, nasty creature as they all freak out about it.

I'm open to any suggestions anyone might have on a cool-sounding title.

Quoted from George Willson Ladies and gents, this stupid thing needs a title. In a nutshell, it's about an engaged couple and the bride's brother going to the groom's parent's summer home in the middle of no where. They get attacked by an infected dog who bites the groom's leg. The groom then slowly changes into a wicked, nasty creature as they all freak out about it. I'm open to any suggestions anyone might have on a cool-sounding title.

I'd say "Monster Dog" -- "Alice Cooper" but well, I'm sure you know...  I'm reading this one over the course of the day.  Packing it on my phone as I'm going on a little bit of a road jont.

But, not to pad my own stats, I am a very good title comer upper.  I've titled more than 120+ screenplays, 2 album EP.S, 1 instrumental concept album w/ animated cartoon (see below).  My daughter's name is Amnesty, one of my cats name's is "Brinks" (like security cos he's a bad ass), and my other cat is named "Corpis" -- cause he got hit as a baby by a car, skinned the top of him down to bone and yet he lives!!!  I can come up with a name for your script, George.  A good one.  Let me read it today and let it soak in.

I'm really good with names also.

My 2 current cats are named Mango and Jager, because...well, because I like mangoes and I love Jager.

My first cat was named Ludwig because...well, because my girlfriend named him.

My 2nd cat was named Baby Ewok, because...well, because she reminded me of a baby Ewok, and it was right around the time that Star Wars movie came out.

A former cat was named Spooky, because, well because she belonged to my girlfriend, and was already named.

See how good I am?

Here's my idea for a title for you, George...

What happens when a rabid dog bites a dude's leg in the middle of fucking nowhere

Quoted from Dreamscale Here's my idea for a title for you, George... What happens when a rabid dog bites a dude's leg in the middle of fucking nowhere

That's more of a tagline, really...

And thanks, Balt. Items you're not allowed to complain about: the extremely long sections of dialogue spoken by Sam of his back story. I'm working on those right now. And the portion that says "you know your house better than I do. You figure it out."

Other than that, while not necessarily the most original story in the stack, it doesn't completely pork the proverbial chicken.

But Jeff, your names weren't that good...Very typical.  And what's more, the stories behind them were liquid too.  Credentials are important when via for anything.  If you're here for nothing more than to be snide and cynical and not contribute, then maybe you shouldn't be.  George is trying to, from what I gather, be serious and sub his script for production.  Why try and diminish that?  Why try and make a joke about it?  Got a problem, talk about it in PM.  Don't ruin his vibe with your Keyboard Commando antics.  We get it, you eat hammers and shit nails, Jeff. Now stop.

Oh Balt, relax, bud.  I was just messing around, obviously.  How in the world is that keyboard commando tactics?  I was just joking around, based on your post about naming 120+ scripts, cats, albums, chipmucks, etc.

All in good fun...until someone gets hurt.  I don't think anyone's hurt here, are they?

Can't we all just get along?  Group hug...

When I was going through the list of titles I had thought of for this (real and joke), I'm currently leaning to Transmutation until something better comes along. Those who've read my Fempiror material will recognize this word as the process that occurs when someone fall prey to the Fempiror serum. For that reason, I hadn't used it, but in fact, it's not a word I made up.

I just sent you a detailed PM, George.  Hope it helps you out a bit.  I didn't want to tack up your post here with all I said or suggested so use it, don't use it.  I hope it meets your needs, though.  Also, check out Monster Dog if you haven't already seen it.  I stress this and good luck with whatever you choose to do with this script and or if whoever is looking to produce it does so.  

Transmutation isn't horrible, but how about naming it a more official medical name? Just read a script that talked about an infectious pathogen that used a scientific name. How about naming it something along the lines of the H1-Ni virus, but something different obviously. Just some scientific name?

Balt mentioned something in latin as either Canus or Caninus (dog and of the dog, respectively). If I try Bite of the Dog, I believe that would work out to Morsus Caninus. I ran that by my wife and she wasn't sure because her first comment was that she would want to know what that meant. Even tossing the word Virus on the end of it didn't help it in her mind. Still getting some further input.

Quoted from George Willson Balt mentioned something in latin as either Canus or Caninus (dog and of the dog, respectively). If I try Bite of the Dog, I believe that would work out to Morsus Caninus. I ran that by my wife and she wasn't sure because her first comment was that she would want to know what that meant. Even tossing the word Virus on the end of it didn't help it in her mind. Still getting some further input.

In retrospect, and I've done a bit of thinking on this -- Canis could actually be the creatures name.  It'd give him an identity. And although it is more viral than that, anyone with a bite could be infected with Canis and thus be called "A Canis"... Like a wearwolf, kinda.  A wearwolf is known as a wearwolf.   They don't have a flashy name for each one.  This could be no different.  And, if you weren't happy with the way things were shaping up as the story is now, you could always alter bits and pieces of the story to fit into place.

Which I enjoyed the script a great deal.  It never failed to keep me clicking the PDF's (-->) button.

Just something to chew on, so to speak.