Quoted from DustinBowcot Code Historical society member’s dream pad. Gothic, baroque, charming, menacing, all at once. Expansive dwelling framed amid a wooded area. The first sentence is missing an 'A' at the start. The second sentence describes several things so we already know it looks like all of those things at once, we are then told 'all at once' as though we wouldn't already know that from the previous description. The third sentence seems to be about something else. It also tells us we are in a wooded area, which would be better suited to the slug. It reads very clunkily to me. Code An ocean motif, throughout. Why a comma before 'throughout'? OK, maybe it is for effect.. so we see the ocean motif then realise it stretches throughout. I'll buy that, but then... Code Walls papered with tacky zebra pattern. Massive fireplace, the centerpiece. There's another unnecessary comma before 'the centrepiece'. It reads messily as though an afterthought. It's only the fireplace. Where are fireplaces usually? Centre. Never known one to be anywhere else. The first sentence here though really gets me. If this style is all about brevity by missing out articles, then why strip what they believe to be unnecessary words and then actually add unnecessary words? Walls papered with tacky zebra pattern. Becomes... Tacky zebra-pattern walls. Code Cluttered. Moving boxes everywhere. Painter’s easel folded up in corner. Is there any need for 'cluttered'? What's the point in telling us, then go on to describe it as cluttered anyway? Also what's with the moving boxes? Are they possessed? I know what it means, I just had to read it a couple times to get it. Which is fine. I just don't like this style of writing. Missing out articles for the sake of brevity then adding unnecessary words anyway is also not the correct way to go about things. Who is Painter? Was he introduced without me realising? Surely they mean, A painter's easel... what's so wrong with using 'A'? Code Framed snapshot of father and son goofing off. Ratty shirt drops over it. I just hate it. I could pick on every single line. The ones I've left out to get to this point are only because I believe the method used adds mood. Which is what this style is all about. It's a tool that adds atmosphere to writing and something to be used sparingly, not throughout an entire script. Especially if you're going to omit important words and then add unnecessary ones anyway. Writing like this slows a read for me because it results in too many instances where clarity isn't 100%. There isn't anything wrong with using articles.

Ok, I do agree with that. He got to characters quickly and the way they reacted to what was happening is what drew me in.

An interesting discussion.

I read through the critiques and in generally agree with the specific points made. Yet, somehow I still am a fan of how the script was written. For me, it jumped off the pages and I did not notice at all the missing word here and there (again, I have no disagreement with the specific edits recommended as I believe they are correct).

That being said. I still like it a lot.  Maybe it's because I have read so many over written scripts lately (and hence a little brevity is refreshing). Maybe the style of this writer just created an appealing cadence for my mind's eye. Maybe it is why some folks like Picasso (note: I am not one of them) and others think his work looks like grade school art class rejects.  There was just something about the style that worked for me. I didn't even notice the missing words until they were pointed out.

So, yeah - I think most of the technical notes offered are dead on correct. I just don't know if corrected, the script would have the same pace for me.  

I don't think it would actually take any longer to read. We tend to read groups of words at once, sometimes even whole sentences. It's also known that things like, he said, she said, are read without really reading them. When used properly they will not be noticeable at all to the reader. I believe the same is true of articles. Without them clarity becomes an issue.

I'm all about brevity. Most of my scripts are tightly written and I've been accused of being too tight in the past. However, all of my scripts use articles most of the time and only don't when I feel that it adds atmosphere. It's a tool, not a style.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I don't think it would actually take any longer to read. We tend to read groups of words at once, sometimes even whole sentences. It's also known that things like, he said, she said, are read without really reading them. When used properly they will not be noticeable at all to the reader. I believe the same is true of articles. Without them clarity becomes an issue.

Don't disagree with the above. My point really dealt with the illusion of speed/clarity and how it might play tricks on the mind. i.e., some (e.g., yourself, Jeff, etc.) read it and spotted frequent and obvious errors which I am sure serves as an immediate derailment.

Some read it and thought it was crisp and quick paced and most certainly to get to that conclusion we were subconsciously filling in the missing words as we read - creating an illusion of brevity. For me - it worked. I do agree that adding the articles would result in a better script. But for whatever reason, I enjoyed it without them - weird I know. That being said, I cannot leave this thread without posting my favorite movie dialogue of all time regarding the proper use of language from "Murder by Death."

Sidney Wang:
What meaning of this, Mr. Twain?

Lionel Twain:
I will tell you, Mr. Wang, if you can tell me why a man who possesses one of the most brilliant minds of this century can't say his prepositions or articles. The, Mr. Wang. What is the meaning of this?

Sidney Wang:
That what I said - what meaning of this?

The complete set can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znS3gXjGCiU

Apologies for not jumping on here sooner, my new job has pretty much neutered my free time. I want to thank you guys for checking out my screenplay, even if it's just a page or two. This is my first script and your feedback has been truly indispensable in helping me rethink certain aesthetic choices I went with. Dustin, you definitely opened my eyes in regards to finding the right balance of style without compromising a clear narrative. The sample sentences you critiqued were excellent examples of tightening prose to the detriment of storytelling clarity.
It seriously never dawned on me that this style choice was going to be polarizing to certain readers. This discussion board is a really cool asset for new writers who are experimenting with informal techniques that may or may not be successful. Eldave 1, I appreciate the warm words, sir and I'm thrilled you enjoyed the story... even though it's not your preferred genre.

Cheers,
Scott  

No problem -best of luck with this.

WHITE SPACE IN A SCRIPT...mother's milk to the perpetually burdened reader!

That said, if your staccato style of writing keeps interrupting the reader's flow by forcing them to backtrack for clarity, it will undermine your script by not only killing the mood/ambience of the story, ultimately it will frustrate the reader to the point they'll gladly toss your script aside.

Case in point:

Quoted Text BEDROOM Cluttered. Moving boxes everywhere. Painter’s easel folded up in corner. Framed snapshot of father and son goofing off. Ratty shirt drops over it. From behind, a mane of blonde dreadlocks. Rummages through drawers, tossing clothes aside.

  

Where in the room is the framed snapshot of father and son? Is it levitating in the air, resting on the folded painter's easel or what?

Now what really got me was the following "From behind, a mane of blonde dreadlocks. Rummages through drawers etc...."

From behind what? The easel?  

You haven't even introduced Tree (and remember this is a horror script) so don't color me foolish if I literally think that "a mane of blonde dreadlocks is supernaturally rummaging through clothes - before a little clarity seeps in via the following line.

But still there's that "From behind..."

What I do like thus far (gotten to page 14) is the dialogue and the direction thus far. It's too soon for me to decode the Inciting Incident and end of Act I. I will endeavor to complete the script soonest and pen more thoughts.

On a parting note, bear in mind that your staccato phrases (definitely not sentences) turn what could otherwise be an enjoyable fast read into a cumbersome labour of struggle.

That said, it is way better to have a poorly-written script that oozes potential than a polish-perfect script that has nothing going for it save its concise grammar and flawless formatting!

Guess which one has a better chance of production?

Okay here are my 2 cents worth after completing the script. Much already has been said about the writing style so I'm not going to reiterate much on that.

ACT I: It isn't clear here who the protagonist is. We have two parallel narratives (Tree/Holly side vs. Tiffany/Shantel side).

Later on of course it becomes apparent Tree is the protagonist. That said there is no direct or indirect Inciting Incident that relates to him.

My biggest contention with ACT I is its lack of clarity. It is not until page 24 that we realize that we are/were dealing with two different timelines. And even then your point of clarification comes across as little more than an afterthought:

Quoted Text PARLOR ROOM She dead bolts the door. Grips her injured arm, inspecting the area. It’s completely empty. Trendy zebra wallpaper, absent. This IS the Guthridge home, at an earlier point in time. Right now, it’s Miscio’s domain.

Up to that point this read as just a bunch of disconnected scenes belonging to two disparate timelines to me.

Okay so we segue into ACT II although there is no event (marker) to reflect this.

ACT II

I'm sorry to say ACT II was a real NO NO for me.

This is where your script is supposed to pop-n-snap and explode with action reflective of its genre...Horror!

But what I took away from ACT II was waaaaay too much talk. There is little going on that is scary.

Our baddie/antagonist Miscio pretty much disappears off the script. Also tugging at the back of my mind is the unanswered question of Tiffany.

So we meet Nathan whom it appears was introduced simply as cannon fodder. This becomes readily apparent when he is offed at the mansion. We don't even know why he was rummaging about and all up in Holly's 'bidness' (not to mention the licking and sniffing). Nathan was a weak secondary character whose sole existence was to be sacrificed at the altar of Miscio.

Another thing that didn't really make sense to me was the whole erotica subplot; it seemed contrived. Sure it could make for more interesting viewing but in this case it came off as lemme-toss-in-some-sexual-innuendo to pep things up for the audience.

In my estimate Billie comes off as the most interesting and distinct character.

Tree...well as a protagonist Tree comes off as weak. It's difficult to empathize with the dude. He is just reactive and sometimes if that at all.

What is his goal?
What are the stakes?
Where is the urgency?

I think therein lies the underlying problem with your script it really offers up none of the above parameters.

In fact with respect to 'urgency' and 'stakes' you pretty much shoot yourself in the foot on page 71 following Tree's near death encounter.

When he asks Holly that she book them a hotel room so they can hightail it out of there you yourself spotlight the very same question burning on the audience's lips which is...

WHY THE HELL DON'T YOUSE DOLTS GET OUT OF THERE IF THE PLACE IS EVIL?

Quoted Text TREE It is. Just do one thing for me. HOLLY What? TREE Get us a hotel room tonight. Holly clams up, gazing downward. Her mind’s already made up. Doesn’t want to disappoint him.

But no! Holly really wants to get her freak back on with the unseen (Miscio) force.

Yeah Right! We the audience aren't buying it.

In fact when she goes back into the house we want her to die and couldn't care less about her wellbeing. We aren't disappointed or surprised when bad things happen to her because we knew it was going to happen anwyay.

EVEN THE CHARACTERS THEMSELVES DON'T SEEM SCARED

How are we the audience supposed to feel scared when the characters themselves are not? Throughout ACT II there never seems to be any feeling of foreboding, even after peeps almost get killed.

The conversation, actually banter, always seems upbeat bordering on jovial.

ACT III

Tree is still totally reactive here, in fact right until the very end; poor guy is never once proactive!
The one good thing that does happen is we finally get a feel of Tree's fear.

Tiffany who disappeared in ACT I (if memory serves) suddenly resurfaces on page 102 as a rotting dead bod...

Quoted Text Luminous glow projects across the front of a decomposed corpse. DREAM ON printed on her jammies. It’s Tiffany.

Once again this feels like a hurried afterthought designed to close off the Tiffany saga you started in ACT I.

SUMMARY:

My overall feel for this is that the script has potential but needs quite a bit of work.

You need to clean up the connectivity of scenes and fluidity of the timelines.
Characters need to be more plausible in the way they react and awareness to their situation.
Your protagonist needs a whole rework...more proactivity and less reactivity.

LESS TALK and MORE SCARY...this is a horror movie remember.

Yes...Yes...you wish to keep the budget down by confining the script to a contained environment but that means you need to make it clear to us that something is preventing the Guthridges et al. from leaving the possessed/demonic Victorian mansion.

Otherwise we ain't buying it.

Finally get in tune with the following parameters:

Goals
Stakes
Urgency

Start by getting rid of the word 'patiently' in your logline!

Cheers, Ba