Creature Feature by George Willson - Horror - A young couple goes to an isolated family home only to become the victims of an experiment gone wrong.  103 pages - pdf, format

Hey George,

Here’s what I liked:

> Low budget feature.

> I liked the plain vanilla style you used. I mean that as a compliment. It made for an effortless read.

> I also liked how you let the dialogue flow without interrupting it with a lot of “she glances” and “he gazes meaningfully” intrusions in longer blocks of dialogue. Kind of refreshing really. I do that and wish I didn't.

> I thought the set up for Ethan’s fear of animals; the CD power cord, Mike’s pacifist leanings, and Dr. Horton’s callousness were good. I also felt for Sam and all he had been through.

> The ending satisifes.

Here’s what I didn’t like:

> Not all the details have been finalized.

> The story ran long after the initial scene where Sam and friends are introduced until we experience the MC. For a while it felt like a talking heads piece.

> Too many references to the dog waiting outside.

> Two typos p. 20 though > thought and p. 77 his towel > her towel. And I think you referred to MC as CM once.  MC = Michael Cornetto?

> This is a slow burn of a creature feature in a cottage and not a kin to those high octane creature in a cabin features.

Overall, I liked it and could see what you were doing as a writer but it could benefit from a power boost.

Gary

George,

I've always held you in the highest regards as one of the most respected members on this site, which is why I was hesitant to leave a review after reading this script; but here it goes.  This will be my harshest review up-to-date.  I guess my first mistake is that I found myself  comparing "Creature Feature" to another SS script "Starvation Gulch", which was a great story, IMO.

Your story on the other hand fell flat on its face (for me) and here's why; bad title, unoriginal storyline, weak font, large blocks of dialogue, overly-written descriptive scenes, more telling than showing, oprhans running rampant, and last but not least; predicatable ending.  I've seen it a hundred times.    

Sorry for being so rough but I expected way more from you.  On a positive note; congrats on completing a full-length feature.  Not an easy task for anyone.
But this script, IMO, needs a lot of work.  

EDIT:  Three minutes has passed by and already I feel guilty for leaving such a negative review.  Does anyone else ever have this problem?    

Quoted from screenrider EDIT:  Three minutes has passed by and already I feel guilty for leaving such a negative review.  Does anyone else ever have this problem?

I think Jeff and Balt struggle with that sometimes.  

Seriously, I think most of us here appreciate honesty more than anything.

Thanks for the reads so far. Didn't realize this was up.

So if you had been following this particular script, it was written in less than a month for one Randy Robinson, who asked for a creature feature with this basic plotline with some decent characters. He asked me to write it because he liked what I'd done with characters before.

So I banged this out in a little under a month, and this is basically what I sent to him. I had gone back over it once to make sure it wasn't a total mess, but I did not have the time to go over it with a fine toothed comb. I figured I'd post it to see where people found the weak points since a lot of it actually worked fairly well for me.

Some things I definitely knew about. The details: yeah, it may be all about the details, but I was also writing it for someone that had some of these details in his head and he just wanted a skeleton to hang them on. The most particular detail was the creature design. I did nothing on that because he had already done it -- I have no idea what it was supposed to look like. That section near the end where I said "It's your set, you mess it up" is there because he would never send me any details about what he could or couldn't do to this house, nor did I have a floorplan of it. Since it was for an existing location, I couldn't just go crazy there. I had a very, very basic idea of its layout and that was it.

Talking heads are basically how stuff is delivered when you can't show it due to budget, but I'll have to look to see what I did cheat on.

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.

Quoted from screenrider Your story on the other hand fell flat on its face (for me) and here's why; bad title, unoriginal storyline, weak font, large blocks of dialogue, overly-written descriptive scenes, more telling than showing, oprhans running rampant, and last but not least; predicatable ending.  I've seen it a hundred times.

Screenrider wins the prize for the weirdest criticism, though. Weak font? What does that mean? It's courier 12-point. Courier is the standard. What the heck is a weak font? To address the rest of this laundry list, I know the title is bad. I actually suck at titles, and this is basically the "working title." Unoriginal storyline, I can buy that. There are few original ones left out there. Large blocks of dialogue are the curse of having no budget and needing to deliver exposition. I actually asked him about flashbacks and such to avoid these, but he preferred the monologue since it was cheaper. Overly-written descriptive scenes back to back with more telling than showing... Confused. Do you want me to show things with the description or tell what's going on? And if I might ask, what did I tell rather than show, other than in the large blocks of dialogue? And I don't understand "orphans running rampant." You elaborate that one for me. Sounds like you're critiquing the format a lot, and while I know what an orphan is, I recall clearing what I consider to be orphans up before saving as a pdf. Perhaps I missed a definition.

And as for a predictable ending... There are only so many ways to end this story, and I've honestly seen them all. This one could have ended a few different ways, actually, and I doubt any of them would have been unpredictable. I'm just happy I set it up well enough for you to not have an ending come out of no where.

I wouldn't be concerned about a harsh review. You write enough stuff and occasionally you miss the mark. Especially when it comes to writing off of someone else's idea.

And I've not read Starvation Gulch...

Quoted from George Willson Screenrider wins the prize for the weirdest criticism

Does that mean I get a blue ribbon...or a gold star?

George, with all due respect, I'm not even gonna defend myself or get into one of these tit for tats.   I see Dreamscale doing that crap all the time and frankly it just gets real old, real quick.  I gave you my honest opinion with no ulterior motives other than trying to help.   Take it or leave it.  And at this point it's probably better if you leave it.

Quoted from George Willson I wouldn't be concerned about a harsh review. You write enough stuff and occasionally you miss the mark. Especially when it comes to writing off of someone else's idea.

I won't take that little dig personal.  Everybody knows I'm a hack.     On a positive note, congratulations on banging out this script in less than a month.

EDIT; Definition of weak font.  It's too light.  Needs to be darker.  I'm assuming you use Movie Magic Screenwriter 2000.  I have the same problem.  That's why I switched to Celtix.

  

How come my name keeps getting referenced in here?

Yes, Pia is correct, actually.  I do feel bad when I post a really negative review...especially when it's on a script from someone I genuinely like. I am always honest though, and it's good to see there are others out there who aren't afraid to say what they truly feel.

Nothing wrong with a little tit for tat, Mike.  Nothing wrong with a little tit or tat, either.

I assure you, I wasn't attacking you, screenrider. Any questions I ask are just questions because I'm curious as to what you were thinking. I want to know the honest opinion behind your honest opinion. That's it. I've received harsher reviews than this, and I'm always curious about the details. If you hate something, that's cool. In fact, negative criticism is more useful than positive. In my case, I just want to know what it was about it that you disliked if I can't readily figure it out.

Grademan's negatives were pretty straightforward and specific. Can't disagree with them at all. Yours were a tad more vague, so I was just asking. I just can't do anything with the comments you left is all.

And when I say "you" I was actually referring to myself in the 2nd person, not you personally. I was saying that I write a lot and by writing enough stuff, I occasionally miss the mark. Can't be right all the time. I wasn't saying anything about you, nor am I trying to instigate anything.

And actually I use Microsoft Word. At least I did on this one. I made it a pdf using PrimoPDF, a free converter which does come out with light font. If I did it at home, I have Adobe Acrobat, which converts it a bit darker. Hence, this is the fault of the pdf conversion process, which I can try to fiddle with the settings on to correct, but it's not something that should make or break anything. I just thought it was odd that you placed so much weight on it.

you'll find that when it comes to criticism, I can take it all in stride. I don't get defensive.

Quoted from George Willson I assure you, I wasn't attacking you, screenrider. Any questions I ask are just questions because I'm curious as to what you were thinking. I want to know the honest opinion behind your honest opinion.

George,

If I were to try and sum up my thoughts on "Creature Feature" I'd have to say it's just too wordy.  You're an eloquent speaker with a huge vocabulary and it shows in your writing.   And please don't make me provide specific examples.  I really don't have  time to get into it any further other than saying this script needs to be trimmed.  

As for the lack of originality IMO, it's like I said before, I've seen this movie a hundred times.  

I apologize for my sarcasm regarding your statement which I interpreted as a personal dig at me (and a funny one)    Internet communication can be tricky.

Best of luck with this script.   I still think you're one of the most highly respected members on this board.  You're just so level-headed.  

Btw, "Starvation Gulch" is in the horror section.

Quoted from screenrider Btw, "Starvation Gulch" is in the horror section.

If that's the re-write from about four months or so ago, I thought it sucked. The guy ruined it from what Jeff said.

Quoted from jwent6688 If that's the re-write from about four months or so ago, I thought it sucked. The guy ruined it from what Jeff said.

Have you read Creature Feature?  If not, then why are you even chiming in, you vampire-loving bloke.

I'm gonna read it. Like you never chimed in anywhere. Sorry George. Getcha a review soon.

Meh, sideways chatter keeps it at the top of the boards, so I'm cool.

And yeah, if you want a real vampire comparison, you should read The Fempiror Chronicles. All the best parts of the vampire without any of the actual vampire. (disclaimer: Vampires not included. Books may differ considerably from screenplays.)

Quoted from George Willson Meh, sideways chatter keeps it at the top of the boards, so I'm cool.

At the current rate I'm pretty sure The Gay Parking Lot will be at the top for a while.  
But I'd definitely like to see some other feedback of CF.   As much time as I've spent on it, I feel I have a vested interest in it.

George,

Always nice to see something new from a veteran of the board.  A professional at work here...  Some thoughts... JMO.  

Let me say, for only a month, I thought you did very good with this.  Low budget for sure.  As I was reading this, "Cujo," and "The Breed," came to mind.  Both somewhat similiar to this in their own way.

I think you went more for atmosphere then gore here.  I liked your hook from the get go.  Started off with a bang.  Most good horror scripts do.  I also thought you paced your scary scenes very well.  The no escape and isolated location.

I'm more of a blood, guts and gore type of guy, but to get under someone's skin, screw with their perception, and create a thick atmosphere of fear that they're genuinely afraid to move... I could sense a little of that in this.

This definitely have a feel of a more subtle slow burning horror film.  A good example of one was "Saw."  Aside from the so-so acting, it's a huge, confusing build up to a single outrageous, gory climax. Win.

I thought you gave a unique voice to each one of your characters, especially, Ethan, he was my favorite.  They were all very likable, well except one.

The satellite phone, when you introduced it in the beginning, I was just waiting for it to payoff in a big way, maybe we got it in the end.   I thought it was interesting how Emma was able to find it so quick.

Don't know if it was your intention but foreshadowing the other Mr. Horton.  Needless to say I was surprised.  Maybe I shouldn't have been.

I didn't like the ending here much, then again a lot of movies that end like this, I don't care for... but it works, so fair enough.

page#14, Mike's dialogue, maybe you're missing a "We."  Again on page#20, Emma's dialogue, after beyond, maybe a "Me."

Anyway, it was a breeze to read.  Clearly, you know how to tell a story but I'm sure you've been doing this for sometime, so my hats off too you.  Just my thoughts for what it's worth.

To both of you, good Luck with this.

Ghostwriter

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.  

What about something like Virwolf?

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.

Kinda sounds like a mix of Cujo and Splinter.  For the title, what about something like, uh... "Mongrel"?  Too on the nose?  

"Bad Dog"  "Fangs"  "Inhuman."  "Monstrosity."

With that Canis suggestion, I actually used that in my Trail of the Wolf script for Babz.  Guy called the werewolf a Canis diabolicus.  That script was completely tongue in cheek, though.  Haven't read this one yet, so I don't know what tone you have.

Hello George,

Thanks for your comments on my post, they were helpful.
It's been an informative and fun couple of weeks here on SimplyScripts.

I wonder where you are on this property?
Is this just a title search thread now or is the script still in the revision stage?
If revisions are still possible, I'll gladly share notes and thoughts.

For now, I'll submit my idea for a title.

"Animal Control"

It serves a double meaning and alludes to the inhibitions in all of us that get unleashed during extraordinary circumstances. There you have it.

I'm still open to suggestions on tweaking it until I get word to send something. Word has not yet come. Hence, the comments are still wide open. In that spirit, I just uploaded a revision.

And as for the title suggestions, be assured I'm listening. Thanks all for them.

Gah, I just finished reading the previous incarnation with story credits.
My notes will reflect that draft of your story.

The comments here suggest there are many stipulations behind this script.
I will try to avoid commenting on things involving these various restrictions.
I will also do my best to stay away from vague notes.
I'll go through page cited examples then try my best to sum everything up, here goes.

That being said, I like the premise of transformation and animal instincts here.
The conflict between human repression and animal lust are fertile ground.
I would like to see a lot more of those themes explored in this material.
I think this is a fantastic effort for the time allotted, here are my thoughts:

p. 12 The sneaky ex-smoker. Why is that such a big secret? Where's the payoff?
Did I miss the return of that repressed vice in the story? If so, my bad.

p. 18 The dog attack. I don't buy it.
Mike is a veterinarian in training. I was a vet tech for 5 years.
The first thing they teach you is NEVER turn your back on a challenging animal.
I can see Emma panicking and Mike paying the price to defend her though.
Could lead to juicy post incident tension between the happy couple with that scenario.

p. 24 The secret guitar playing. Ethan sounds 14 to me here, not 24.  
Is he really that repressed? It sticks out to me, I didn't feel it was necessary.

p. 28 Aborted advances from Emma. I prefer impotence over abstinence here.
It makes more sense to me the emotional scars of childhood would cause that.

p. 50 Ethan is a real jerk to Sam. Why? I'm ready for him to die now.

p. 58 Second aborted sex scene.  Impotency versus abstinence is stronger here too.
This where the animal breaks through that, Emma doesn't recognize the lust at first.
She stops him, but its too late. Wham. Bam. Thank you, sequel.

p. 72 The creature recognizes Mike as a kindred. So, it spares his life, right?
Mike still thinks like a human. Why doesn't he drive down the road and call the cops?
If I am missing a bit of logic here, I apologize.

p. 82 I like the duality of the dog kept in the basement, very nice touch.

p. 98 If memory serves, this deal is a tight production. Two critters on screen at once.
Given that, this scene doubles your creature effects budget. Does it need it?

Ending. Repressed son now tragic victim never gets a shot at monstrous father.
I want to see poor Mike take a shot at dear old dad before departing this world.
That's a juicy scene I want to read, face to face, monster to monster. Endgame.
Evil dad still wins but you have a half breed bun in the oven for a sequel.

I really love the concepts you're playing with here...
Repression, regrets, sexual tension, animal lust, emotional predators and victims.
This is all great stuff and I can't wait to see more of it!

Thanks so much for posting the read.

Electric Dreamer, thanks for the comments. Especially the bit on the dog attack. That first hand stuff is gold. You've caught onto some stuff that are purely character moments and possibly those that don't really pay off. However, if you look at Emma, you'll see that while the smoking bit doesn't necessarily payoff as smoking, it goes with her backstory without talking about it. She smoked. She's been around more than once. She's had a lot of boyfriends (hinted when Ethan says "one of your-" and she nods). Her brother contrasts her by being the "good son." A lot of siblings actually do this. The older one goes down a path of destruction while the younger tries to show how good they are, and in doing so, goes to the other extreme.

Why doesn't Mike leave? Well, for what it's worth, I just didn't think of it, and it's possible that in the heat of that moment, they might not either. But it might also be worth mentioning that even if they did, the creature might come after the others. Perhaps a conversation that needs to be worked in there.

I do kind of like the impotence versus abstinence. It would enhance Emma's insecurity over their relationship. It becomes worse than he can but he chooses not to. It works into "he can't get it up, and is it my fault?" It won't matter the real reason; women make stuff their fault (been married for eleven years, folks, I'm not just being sexist here). The lust scene would also allow for that R-rated tit shot everyone wants out of it, I suppose. Oh come on, you knew its absence was disappointing you.

An irony with Mike is that the "good father" is the one that ultimately kills him (albeit indirectly). Can't really work out how Mike would have a showdown with Dad since he doesn't know the dad that caused all the problems. Perhaps anoher thing I'll think about.

Great comments though. Thanks a lot.

Quoted from George Willson The lust scene would also allow for that R-rated tit shot everyone wants out of it, I suppose. Oh come on, you knew its absence was disappointing you. An irony with Mike is that the "good father" is the one that ultimately kills him (albeit indirectly). Can't really work out how Mike would have a showdown with Dad since he doesn't know the dad that caused all the problems. Perhaps anoher thing I'll think about. Great comments though. Thanks a lot.

Action with consequences is always more interesting to me than an aborted set up.
In this case, breasts and a built in sequel are the gravy.