I definitely did not want Kara to be passive. That is why early on she exclaims she's not going to just lie back and wait. The first step, wants she decides this is not an issue science can deal with, at least by itself, is to visit her childhood priest, Father Malone.

Growing up, Kara had two influences: her mother is the strict Catholic who believes in Satan and all that stuff. Her father considered that superstitious, was a man of science. He encourages Kara to use science as a way of overcoming her fear of what she senses watching her.

Once she realizes science alone cannot explain these things, she turns to her priest. However, Father Malone is a Jesuit priest, more science than prayer. Many if not most Catholic priests are actually like that. Highly educated, not overly superstitious. He sends Kara to meet with Father Conner, who he knows deals with these types of things.

Her taking these steps is suggestive of an active character. Granted, there is not much she can do to actually defeat the demons, but in the end, she does defeat the one within her sister. She is aggressively pursuing the goal of protecting her sister, and then leads the charge to rescue Marcus.

Is there a way to ultimately defeat these things? Perhaps not. Their strength ebbs and wanes, but ultimately they have moved forward with their plan. Father Conner's order has studied them and battled them for thousands of years, with very limited success. Entities vary in strength, he can't beat the stronger ones. He can't always recognize them either. Not only does he not recognize Melissa, but Kruger as well, who he considers a friend.

As for other spirits on the other side, sure. Presumably every one and every living thing is there in some way. But these were the first really intelligent creatures on earth, and have been around far longer than man. It took them eons just to learn how to possess a man. They are far stronger because they are far older.

This was my idea when I first concocted the story, back when I knew absolutely nothing about screen: the goal was to get people to sleep with the light on.

Now, if we have a story where a young woman is haunted by the spiritof her evil great, great grandfather who was a Satan worshiper, that could be scary. But unless one also has such a grandfather, this story does not cause them any fear after they leave the theater.

The Exorcist, on the other hand, is scary because if little innocent Regan can be possessed, anyone can. That's what made that truly terrifying to a generation.

I also wanted to tap into childhood fears. Monster in the closet's been done to death. And no adult thinks there's a monster in their closet. But the idea of someone or something watching in your bedroom window I thought could resonate. Even adults can go home after the film, look at their window, and get creeped out.

So the hope was to come up with a story that people could on some level buy into the notion that maybe something watches them. In the original version, entities were assigned to every human born. They watch you at birth, watch you walking home from school, they watch from your window. And they build their strength, bide their time, look for a moment of weakness.

I dropped that part as it was too difficult to explain of come up with a reasonable mechanism. So now it's more that there COULD be an entity watching you. That's why I did not want to have just one entity that stalks Kara. There has to be a legion of them out there that plague mankind.

I would like to be able to frighten people to the edge of their seat, but that is beyond my talent at the moment. But I do have a thought on that, and Rick might recognize I have said this kind of thing before. For something to really scare someone, whether it's a story told by a campfire, or a film, I think it has to create some credibility in your mind where you say to yourself, "hmm, maybe that could happen." At least a little part of your mind anyway. That to me is why The Exorcist is effective. And if you ever told stories as a kid to scare people, you know that if you make the story too unbelievable, you won't scare anyone, no matter how horrible.

I don't see enough movies, but the modern horror I do see usually has the problem of no credibility. It has gore and death and horrible monsters, but it's usually not even remotely believable.

I am not saying I achieved that here, not at all. But I was trying to construct something that had some plausibility that one could buy into. I had to construct something that stalks from the window, that could stalk any of us. This was what I came up with. Because I sandwiched to scripts together, and because it is two genres, and because of my limited talent, it comes of as disjointed. I'm not sure if I will rewrite, because I might be better off just spending my time and energy developing simpler premises rather than trying to fix older, more complicated ones.

One last thing. It seems to me the formula for most horror, and this is also a reason many don't like horror, is to spend 3/4 of the script building questions with the audience that feeds its imagination. Even horror novels work this way. You create questions the audience wants answered: what haunts those dark woods, what are those voices on the wind, what do those dreams mean, what killed the young woman with the long legs. The really good horror does an outstanding job of creating those questions, of capturing our imagination. However, even with the good horror, very seldom does the resolution or explanation of events live up to the build up. A Sixth Sense is awesome because it achieves that resolution and leaves us satisfied, but this is the exception. In fact, the better the build up, the more disappointing the resolution usually is because it's so hard to match the build.

I think if you can get an audience to the end of the story, drive them their with enough intrigue, as long as the resolution is not terrible, you have something. That is not the case here, it seems, as people have trouble much earlier. But I think a successful story can be built that way, especially if you have enough trailer moments.

Thanks for the discussion, ladies and gentlemen!

You have the elements, all of them. The first pages are intriguing and build very well. This sense of mystery and foreboding. I got that. Because I don't do horror you did a good job of drawing me in.

If I recall corectly, it's in a dream that Kara defeats her sister's demon?

Yes, correct Clorox(sorry, I don't know your first name). She defeats the demon in a dream. The demon was trying to trick her into sacrificing herself by its pretending, in the dream, to be her sister. I was thinking that might be tricky to understand, but if I've lost the reader before that point, I guess they are unlikely to want to figure it out.

I think an interesting thing about scripts is they can appear 'talkier' than they are, generally speaking. For example, let's say we have a horror story where two characters talk for a minute about a ghost legend with the house they are in. That dialogue could take 2 pages of script. Then they hear a noise in the cellar. They creep down the stairs with a lantern. In the dark reaches of the cellar...tap, tap, tap. They navigate piles of junk and reach an old wooden bulkhead. Behind the bulkhead...tap, tap, tap. Steeling themselves, they rip open the bulkhead...

The dialogue took 2 pages of scripts and less than a minute of film. The trip to the cellar took 2 minutes of film and a half a page of script. If a much of a script looks like this, at a glance it will seem very talky, but not so much in film.

Clorox is good

That's why I say Kara is not active. Dreams are an easy way out as they are not reality in a sense. You have to REALLY establish that things can be done in dreams as in INCEPTION. In your case dreams don't work. All demons previously are taken care of by Conner and his motions. That is the set up.

Your script does not come off talky except when expanding on the science of the events or the break through. Speaking of break thoughs, the break though and the little critter really don't do anything for the story, do they?

All these cool elements but getting them together in the best way is the challenge.

I make a damn good martini, but not with Clorox!

I think Kara is active because she aggressively pursues the answers and a way to fight back. Passive would be if she sat back waiting for events to unfold. She does not. She faces the threat head on, even though it turns out what she can do seems to be limited.

It is the only dream sequence shown, but not the only time it is used. There are two others, both with Father Conner, though it's kept purposely vague. First, when Conner interrogates the imprisoned child, he sits in the chair and allows the entity to hunt. The idea is he is opening his mind. Later, he does something similar when he shows one of the weaker entities how to open the electronic lock. But I agree, since we don't see those, it could be seen as out of left field. I could not come up with a better resolution, to be frank about it. Ran out of ideas.

You are partly right about the critter. In my first draft, that did not take place. I added it so the scene would be a little more visual since the scene is very expository.

BTW, the science behind this is not completely crazy. I actually researched it. I'm not saying I believe it, but it is not the case that I completely invented it. Ervin Lazlo's Akashic Field Theory is behind much of it, and a few others.

It's a challenge to make expository scenes feel less expository. I wanted the scene to explain just how it is their research could be used to bring back an extinct species. It's Jurassic Park, but a different science used. I also through in Melissa and James to try to reduce the expository feel to it. I guess it's considerations like that which force me to do things that I otherwise would not.

Hey Kevin,

Sorry for the delay, I have been reading this over the last couple of days when I found the time.

I honestly think the overall problem with this script is the structure of the story. Characters seem to come and go throughout so it's very difficult to feel anything for them.  

Characters such as David and Bonnie came and then disappeared as quickly. Some we never saw again as in Justin or the first Entity (little boy) Conner went to see.

Some scenes also felt out of place. The first scary incident and one of the best parts for me was the skype scene with Kara, that was tense and spooky. We then went to Marcus and had a little backstory for him. This killed the tension you had set up excellently in the previous scene.

Conner was another character which had great potential, he seemed like the only one who could fight these entities. But again after a good intro in the bar, he disappeared for long sections and only really came back in the final third.

I don't how to explain this but the first half felt like a mysterious horror with demons and exorcism. The second part turned into sci-fi horror with reptilian creatures and dreams. This became quite confusing for the overall plot and again another reason why some scenes felt out of place.

Also one scene at the bar ended too soon for me. They were fighting over Kara when Frank pulled a sawed off shotgun and suddenly we jumped to another scene before it had played out to it's entirety IMO.

The child dying also felt superfluous to me, it could have been just as scary without having to kill him. While i am not bothered, i think a few people will be but this is a risk you take i guess.

The conclusion also felt unrewarding, there was a lot happening but for some reason it didn't quite work for me.

And the pub scene at the end just doesn't do it for me I'm afraid to say. In saying that, it was an intriguing ending with Kruger, leaves it wide open for a sequel.

I won't go too much into formatting or grammar as i am nowhere near experienced enough to have gone through a whole feature length script and spot everything. A few things i did see.

Page 2 - DAD, 40,  intro then used Mr Coughlin in dialogue. I would just use Mr. Coughlin or give Kara's parents first names.

Page 7- " David passes a bottle of tequila" I'm not sure where he's passing it? I thought they were drinking beer?

Page 14 - "stairs" should be "stares"

Page 17 - A lot of "We" in the description which reads awkward IMO.

I noticed you change (o.s) to (o.c) a few times. I don't think this really matters but it helps to be consistent or do I just find the most pettiest things to complain about? Probably the latter.

Page 103 - "Melissa opens her eyes, finds herself standing with Melissa" should be "Kara opens her eyes"

I think your writing is good overall and you have a lot of talent (jealous) and if I'm honest, i have turned to the "Untouchables And The Undead" on many occasions to help with my own work so I know how good your writing is. I think a complicated story with too many characters is the problem. It does have potential and some very promising things going for it. I just believe it needs to be more simple than what it is at the moment.

I think i need to give this another read in one sitting. I think doing this over a couple of days hasn't done it justice and took me away from the story a bit, so that's what I'm going to do.

Hope this helps.

All the best and a happy new year.

Steve

Thanks Steve, appreciate it.

I wouldn't worry about putting another read into it, seems this needs some big issues addressed. I have another feature posting soon, maybe you'll be able to glance at that one.

I use O,C. when the character is in the room but off camera. O.S, would be when the character is off screen, so for example, up the hall, in the room next door, that kind of thing. V.O. is more like a narration.

I avoid using we's, and I think there are only a couple here. I use them when it's the most efficient way of describing a shot. Directing a shot in itself is something to generally avoid, but it's sometimes necessary for the way a scene plays out.

I never really could think of a decent ending. Actually, there's the ending, and then the ending, if you know what I mean. The second ending is that final twist where Kruger is revealed for what he is. I like that part. But the resolution of freeing Marcus and Melissa was tougher.

Thanks Coop!

Made it to 75.  Gotta say, the structural problems continue to plague the script.  Your first act ended on page 36, as I saw it.  That's just too long and it gave the first part of the story a very bloated feel.

On page 35, I'm not sure of the significance of the "Moments Earlier" in the slug line.  Why not just show that scene beforehand?

No mention of how they fix Marcus' car.

On 37, this read awkward: "She senses something, a sixth sense."  

The baby in the fridge is a memorable visual.  Creepy.

Typo on 43:  "They stand their staring at her."

Not sure about the child killing, mainly because I'm still not sure exactly what these entities are.  I understand now that they're the spirits of bygone predators that once roamed the earth, but I'm still not sure how they're hanging around.  If you do keep this particluar scene, definitely ditch the french kissing line.  Really sounded out of place.

I understand now that Sharon is the sister who died along with the father in the car accident, so I'm hoping this has a payoff further down the road.

But speaking of roads, the Sacred Heart church is back in Groton, right?  So, how did Kara get there when she was just back in Boston?  Does she have a car now?

Father Conner disappears for a full 35 pages, making him a virtual nonfactor in the script.  By the time he shows back up, it's hard to remember what he was doing last we saw him.

David doesn't feel like a necessary figure in that bar scene.  It seems like Kara should have sought out Conner by herself, and also gotten to him much quicker to bring his character back into the story.

On 64, "they that cannot be mentioned" sounded too Voldemorty.

The five page flashback beginning on 69 is about five pages too much.  Right when Marcus' reality finally starts to get interesting, as he winds up in the nuthouse with the self-pleasuring possessed people, this extended lesson on the history of voodoo in Haiti pops up.  You give us an interesting bit of history, but at a major cost to your momentum.  Narrative pit stops like this really grind your story to a halt.

So, stopping on 75.  I wish I could say the script drew me in more throughout this second act, but in some ways I'm more confused than ever.  The story has a real scattershot feel, and the pacing is very unsteady.  It doesn't feel like it's building toward anything and I'm not sure what the stakes are here.  Between the metaphysical stuff and the scientific jargon in the lab scene, this felt like a swirl of ideas in search of a more cohesive story to bring them together.

Will finish up in the next reading.

Hey Kevin,

No worries mate, I would be only to happy to look over more of your work.

Thanks for clearing up the (O.S) and (O.C), that helps me a lot.

Steve.

Not to start up a debate or argument or anything, but Kevin's use of "(O.S.)" and "(O.C.)" is not standard, nor is it something new writers will want to do.

First of all, standard procedure is to use "(O.S.)"...period.

The way Kevin is describing what he's doing, is admitting to totally trying to direct the shot, which again, isn't something new writers want to do, and something established writers should only attempt very infrequently, and only when it really makes a big difference.

When a character is in the scene, they;re dialogue should be normal, like every other character.  There's no reason to play director and tell your readers that the camera is not on the speaking character so the dialogue is "(O.S.)".

Just a heads up and clarification for those who're interested.

Ryan

Hey, you caught the car thing! I'm impressed. I caught that myself after I finished and mentioned to someone who gave a private read, wondered it anyone would catch it here. Pretty good eye for detail that you caught it.

Jeff

Not sure if we should have a format for new writers and a format for veterans. Like many aspects of screenwriting, such as wrylies, asides, close shots...they should only be used when needed. But that is not to say they should never be used. If they increase the writer's ability to tell his story, and make for more effective story, then they should be used. Rules don't exist for their own sake. They exist to guide story making.

Let's look at the example in Tap. Marcus is asleep on the subway. He wakes up to see Jamaal across the way. After a brief exchange, James interjects. This is also James introduction to the script.

Is it directing the shot? You bet. I don't want the initial focus on James, but on Jamaal. And, importantly, Marcus does not see James until he speaks. So James speaks(O.C), then his character is introduced.

Could (O.S.) be used? I don't know. Sure. I suppose it doesn't matter. I think this is technically more correct, however. (O.S.) would be used, I would think, if James is not on the subway car and then enters it after he speaks. That's the what makes sense to me, anyway.

A writer does not want to do much of this, as it certainly is directing the shot. But it's important to how the scene plays out here because Marcus has been asleep and did not see James board the train.

In the end, Coop, it's up to you to weigh the various approaches and decide what's best for your script.

Thanks, gentlemen!

Kevin, we're talking about a Spec script here (as we're always when it comes to SS'ers).

Directing what is on camera is not a Spec writer's responsibility in any way.

Using a seldom used abbreviation for a character's dialogue we haven't been intro'd to yet, is asking for trouble and confusion on the reader's part.  There's just no way around it.

My point for the initial reply was because Coop was asking for clarification, as he is a new writer who's trying to learn.  Obviously, anyone can write any way they choose to, but we need to be clear on what's proper screenwriting format, what isn't, and why.

Rules exist for numerous reasons.  The reason one should follow them is twofold - because it's expected and understood, and/or because it makes sense.  And really, many discussions and debates aren't really over "rules" per se, but what makes sense, what doesn't, and why.

It is the goal of every Spec screenwriter to write a script that is simple and enjoyable to read and easy to visualize.  If you can do that, you've already won half the battle.  The other half being a plot/story, and everything else that works for each individual reader...and I say "each individual reader" because we all know no one can please or satisfy everyone with plot, story, characters, and everything else that goes into a script.

Strong, effective writing is tough to discount or argue over...either it is, or it isn't.  Why make things more difficult on yourself?

Kev, I only just noticed you had a new one up! You shoulda emailed it to me bro!!

I'll give it a read in the next few days.

Due to the holidays and my sister been up here, my own new script has fallen to the wayside. Its been busy!

But things will be back to normal tomorrow - Saturday - and i can catch up on stuff.

I still my Xmas present to watch yet - the 12 disc Lord of the Rings extended edition!!!

Incidentally I've been watching the Scorcese doco about George. Its great from a Beatle nut POV but not sure why a well known film director did it. The clips and interviews are not 'movielike' in any way and its just like watching 'Anthology'...

Hey Stevie

12 discs? Man, that's a lot! What the heck is on those? Behind the scenes stuff?

Jeff

I made the best case I could in my previous post. I'll leave it there and let Coop choose his path. Doesn't matter to me whether OC or OS is used in that instance, but one of them must be. I want the reader to experience the scene that way because Marcus does, waking up. That's not just an issue of directing the camera, but if how the story itself plays. And there definitely is no clarity issue there. But thanks for making your case!

Off camera (O.C.) is used when a character speaks off camera in a television show.  Off screen (O.S.) is used for the same reason in a movie.  Both can be used in their appropriate mediums.


Phil