All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Does anyone have this script? I've read some mini reviews for the script as well as reviews of a screening and I'd like to read the script. My email is NightSlash53@yahoo.com.
may i ask this? i go on IMDB and see people writing about reading scripts for movies that arent out yet or that are hard to find, etc. Where do they get them from?
Wow, disappointed is putting it mildly. What an amazingly poorly written script! I only got through 4 pages and had to stop. So many problems, issues, etc. Really shocking how amateurish this pile is. I'd have a field day with ti, if I were tor eview and edit it.
Wow, disappointed is putting it mildly. What an amazingly poorly written script! I only got through 4 pages and had to stop. So many problems, issues, etc. Really shocking how amateurish this pile is. I'd have a field day with ti, if I were tor eview and edit it.
WOW, What the FUCK?????
You're not kidding, Jeff. That is a terribly formatted script. How they made a good movie (or at least what early reviews are saying) out of it is beyond me.
It will be interesting to see if the script matches the film. This may be a draft that has nothing to do with it. Struggled through first ten pages. done. Like to see someone post after they see it. If it's right, I'll finish it.
I can't believe all of the stuff written into action that you can't see. Very amateur.
Only read the first 15 pages so far and I have to say that I'm enjoying it a lot.
The characters are good and their actions realistic. I thought the opening scene was interesting and really set the mood. The script is building the mystery around the crazy outbreak very effectively.
There are some very interesting visuals and you can tell the writer is experienced at working on film...the transitions and the flow are spot on.
It's extremely well paced so far and it kicks into gear brilliantly around page 14...
I'm torn between stopping reading so I can enjoy the film without knowing what happens, or carrying on.
I'm perplexed by people finding it amateur.
There are a few unfilmmables, but most are actors directions. There's only a couple that are completely silly, and they don't affect the story in any way.
I read the first ten pages. I thought it was written pretty well. Yes, it was thick. But I thought it at least stayed interesting.
I didn’t see any “unfilmables” but I realize there are a lot of writers who think things like, “David is the last person she expected on her doorstep this morning,” are unfilmable. I don’t agree. I think touches like that can really spice a script up. And I absolutely think that’s filmable.
There are a few things the writer does that I don't like, such as calling characters TOWN PASTOR or PRINCIPAL instead of giving them names, or calling Russell by his full name in dialogue attributes when the character goes by Russ the whole movie. And then the Becca character for some strange reason gets her first and last name used all the time.
He often doesn’t give ages for characters but if he was hired to write it, they may have had certain roles filled and didn’t care.
There were a few silly things like the text messaging thing on page ten. Who the hell wants to watch ten seconds of someone text messaging? We don’t even see what she’s writing.
Other than little things like that and description that’s too dense, I thought the portion I read was very well written. I certainly didn’t see anything I would consider poorly written or amateurish. I like what I’ve read so far.
I'm certainly not going to get into the whole unfilmmable thing again...but there were a few lines like this:
"He sits down in the yard and watches it burn. Devoid of emotion. The house his grandfather built. His wife and son SCREAMING from within as blue flames scurry up the inside walls."
The house his grandfather built? That's too far for my tastes. It's not even relevant to the performance because he's crazy at this point, so it's not like he's watching it burn down unwillingly, which might make more sense.
But, like I say, it's very far from amateur. My favourite part was the big cow tongues licking each other...what a great image.
I'm certainly not going to get into the whole unfilmmable thing again...but there were a few lines like this:
"He sits down in the yard and watches it burn. Devoid of emotion. The house his grandfather built. His wife and son SCREAMING from within as blue flames scurry up the inside walls."
The house his grandfather built? That's too far for my tastes. It's not even relevant to the performance because he's crazy at this point, so it's not like he's watching it burn down unwillingly, which might make more sense.
Rick,
I haven’t read past page 10. And believe me, I have no intention of getting into the “unfilmable” debate.
All I’m saying is that there are descriptions like this:
“David is the last person she expected on her doorstep this morning.”
Instead of the above, most writers would write something like this:
“She looks at David in shock.”
They’re both basically going to look the same on film but the first one (from the script) is far more colorful and interesting. The second one is typical and boring and has been seen a thousand times by the average reader.
As with your example about the “house his grandfather built,” the only thing I would point out is that I think you make a mistake a lot of people make when they’re adamantly against “we sees.” You assume that because it’s irrelevant to the character, it’s irrelevant to the reader/viewer.
In other words, although the character may be crazy, I, the viewer, can appreciate that it’s the house his grandfather built.
Just as with “we sees” (another argument I will not get into), although we, the audience, may be seeing everything, the characters in the film may not.
Just some thoughts. I don’t personally have a problem with the description. However, I totally see your side of it and I completely respect your opinion.
As I read further, I may see your point more clearly. And of course, I reserve the right to be wrong.
Neither of you see any amateurish writing in the first 5 pages? I think I quickly noted at least 20 things. Unfilmables galore, which do not offer anything at all except extra lines...poor, clunky writing, tons of 5 line passages, long blocks of dialogue for no reason. Characters frost intro'd, not CAPPED, the cop talking to someone who wasn't even intro'd, so we'd have no clue who it is he's even talking with...the list goes on and on.
I haven�t read past page 10. And believe me, I have no intention of getting into the �unfilmable� debate.
All I�m saying is that there are descriptions like this:
�David is the last person she expected on her doorstep this morning.�
Instead of the above, most writers would write something like this:
�She looks at David in shock.�
They�re both basically going to look the same on film but the first one (from the script) is far more colorful and interesting. The second one is typical and boring and has been seen a thousand times by the average reader.
As with your example about the �house his grandfather built,� the only thing I would point out is that I think you make a mistake a lot of people make when they�re adamantly against �we sees.� You assume that because it�s irrelevant to the character, it�s irrelevant to the reader/viewer.
In other words, although the character may be crazy, I, the viewer, can appreciate that it�s the house his grandfather built.
Just as with �we sees� (another argument I will not get into), although we, the audience, may be seeing everything, the characters in the film may not.
Just some thoughts. I don�t personally have a problem with the description. However, I totally see your side of it and I completely respect your opinion.
And of course, as I read further, I may see your point more clearly.
Breanne
How, when it's never mentioned in the dialogue? For all you know he might rent the house for the summer, no?
As a Director I don't like lines like that because it gives the script an emotional resonance that is impossible to convey with the camera. If it's important, it's got to be mentioned...simple as that.
Writing like that guarantees the script is better than the film. I don't think that should be the point.
But yes, let's not get into that...
Finished the script. It was OK. Reminded me of two films, the Happening and Return of the Living Dead. There's absolutely nothing new here, but it's a fun enough horror story, with a predictable outcome.
I think it could have been better if the reason was more inventive...or if there was no reason at all. People just went bat shit crazy and all hell broke loose. The military angle was very cliche and a pretty dull aside. Might have played better in 1973...but it was more than passe now.
How, when it's never mentioned in the dialogue? For all you know he might rent the house for the summer, no?
Like I said, I haven’t read to that point so I had no way of knowing it wasn’t mentioned earlier. Assuming it was made known earlier, then yes, I would think that line was perfectly acceptable.
As a Director I don't like lines like that because it gives the script an emotional resonance that is impossible to convey with the camera. If it's important, it's got to be mentioned...simple as that.
I don’t agree that it’s impossible to convey that type of emotional resonance on film. Had it been conveyed earlier that there was some significance to the house being built by his grandfather, then I do believe that emotional resonance could have been captured on film.
Who knows? It may have been different at one point. Some executive may have come along and said, “Cut that part about the guy talking about how his grandfather built the house. I don’t get that part. We don‘t need it.”
Quoted from Dreamscale
Oh you guys...c'mon now...
Neither of you see any amateurish writing in the first 5 pages? I think I quickly noted at least 20 things. Unfilmables galore, which do not offer anything at all except extra lines...poor, clunky writing, tons of 5 line passages, long blocks of dialogue for no reason. Characters frost intro'd, not CAPPED, the cop talking to someone who wasn't even intro'd, so we'd have no clue who it is he's even talking with...the list goes on and on.
I'm amazed...
Dreamscale,
This is a current revision of a script from a different writer. We don’t know what the original script looked like. We don’t know what production notes the revising writer was given. We don’t know what draft this is in relation.
When you work on assignment, an executive can request your script at any stage and you are contractually obligated to submit it, even if you’re in the middle of it. Scripts can often look kind of rough in the middle of the process. This one looks like maybe it’s unpolished.
It’s easy to judge this script from the standpoint of a writer who essentially writes at his own leisure. It’s different when you’re in the hot-seat.
Neither of you see any amateurish writing in the first 5 pages? I think I quickly noted at least 20 things. Unfilmables galore, which do not offer anything at all except extra lines...poor, clunky writing, tons of 5 line passages, long blocks of dialogue for no reason. Characters frost intro'd, not CAPPED, the cop talking to someone who wasn't even intro'd, so we'd have no clue who it is he's even talking with...the list goes on and on.
I'm amazed...
The thing is...it's a film. The cop is talking to Kev, the coffee vendor. It's obvious what is going on.
I don't know...it's like you are so obsessed with technical details that you can't see the woods for the trees at times. Not having a go there, it's just that your desire for absolute regulation to a certain standard seems to prevent you from merely enjoying the story.
A lot of the unfilmmables in the opening part are for the sake of clarity. EG Second generation sheriff, pillar of the community...this gives us the reading for how he acts and leaves no room for doubt as to how people are responding to him...as one of them and not as an outsider.
I dun know bout the script, haven't read it, but the movie is fucking awesome!!!
Haha. Doesn’t this justify the script? I mean, no matter what anyone thinks about the script, if it translates to a successful film, who cares, you know?
I definitely agree with what decadence and Breanne said about the script being well-written. My opinions on unfilmmables lean towards what Breanne is saying.
For me, the "house his grandfather built" line gave the house more texture. You could say it works from a set design perspective. The image of the burning house became more ominous and vivid as I personally pictured a WIDE of Farnum silhoutted before the blazing house. Something about it being his grandfather's house would encourage certain choice of shots in my mind.
Haha. Doesn’t this justify the script? I mean, no matter what anyone thinks about the script, if it translates to a successful film, who cares, you know?
I do find it pretty amusing when people start nit-picking a produced script and talking about "the rules".
I finished the script and it got much better as it went along. It also seems to be a recent draft because it's almost dead on the finished film(from what I've seen of it). Going to go see the movie tonight!
Wow, disappointed is putting it mildly. What an amazingly poorly written script! I only got through 4 pages and had to stop. So many problems, issues, etc. Really shocking how amateurish this pile is. I'd have a field day with ti, if I were tor eview and edit it.
WOW, What the FUCK?????
Not trying to get one over you here, but it seems you get more fun from 'tearing a new one', than trying to get the essence of the story.
Just reading the script now, and to call it 'amateurish' is absurd, frankly.
I agree with Breanne regards the lines adding emotional resonance. Anyway, a script is a blueprint, and shouldn't the script try to convey as much emotion as possible. Subtle descriptions really help to do that.
You guys are aware that this is a remake from a not so famous 70's movie by George Romero, right? This is not new stuff here...it's a remake, modernized and with a much larger budget that anything old George could put together way back then.
I think the trailers look great and critical word of mouth says the same thing. I will see it soon, and it's exactly the type of movie I love. That has nothing to do with how the script was written.
If something in the prose is unnecessary, it's unnecessary...PERIOD. What's not to understand or agree with about that?
The scene with the burning house is a small one. It has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's Grandfather. PERIOD.
Just read through the first couple of pages and this must be a rough draft cuz its a bit different then what i saw, the first scene in the film is the town on fire, then a scene at a doctor's office, then it gets to the baseball game, plus some of the dialog is different. anyways the end result was a kick ass film so it really didn't matter how it was written!
Not trying to get one over you here, but it seems you get more fun from 'tearing a new one', than trying to get the essence of the story.
Just reading the script now, and to call it 'amateurish' is absurd, frankly.
I agree with Breanne regards the lines adding emotional resonance. Anyway, a script is a blueprint, and shouldn't the script try to convey as much emotion as possible. Subtle descriptions really help to do that.
Andrew
It adds emotional resonance that will not make the final film. That's the point.
Watch it, you'll see that the burning farm scene plays out as purely violent and creepy. There will be no nostalgic feeling coming from watching the house burn (if there is , it will only come from your memory of this thread).
You can't portray an abstract thought about it being his grandfathers house without setting it up and certainly not when it is a scene about a deranged guy who has just killed his wife and kid. And not just deranged...but toxically insane.
Andrew, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. PERIOD. I'm not ripping anyone a new one and it has nothing to do with that. You seem to take delight in trying to rip me a new one again and again.
I really don't get it, and it's a bit irritating, to tell you the truth.
Andrew, I calls 'em as I sees 'em. PERIOD. I'm not ripping anyone a new one and it has nothing to do with that. You seem to take delight in trying to rip me a new one again and again.
I really don't get it, and it's a bit irritating, to tell you the truth.
Come on, Jeff.
If you can dish it out, you should be prepared to take it.
This is hardly an attempt to rip you a new one, it's about challenging your POV, which you so utterly believe in, and yet it is often based on flimsy rationales.
I agree with Breanne regards the lines adding emotional resonance. Anyway, a script is a blueprint, and shouldn't the script try to convey as much emotion as possible. Subtle descriptions really help to do that.
I agree. Film is rich. Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc all create a dramatic underscore. A single frame can communicate so much to the audience. And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word.
All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way. It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA:
"JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into an unfamiliar and hectic world."
I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written. Don't they see the oxymoron? And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.
Andrew, I can definitely take it all. I'm just questioning exactly what you're arguing with, here.
My POV is that scripts need not waste valuable space with unfilmable lines, poorly written, clunky prose, and amateur mistakes, like not CAPPING the initial intro of a character.
Is this what you're disagreeing with?
You are aware that this material is from 1973, right? It's a simple modernization of a script from almost 40 years ago.
It adds emotional resonance that will not make the final film. That's the point.
Watch it, you'll see that the burning farm scene plays out as purely violent and creepy. There will be no nostalgic feeling coming from watching the house burn (if there is , it will only come from your memory of this thread).
You can't portray an abstract thought about it being his grandfathers house without setting it up and certainly not when it is a scene about a deranged guy who has just killed his wife and kid. And not just deranged...but toxically insane.
I get the point you're making, and largely agree with it.
My comment was more about the general, than that specific example.
However, I do believe that WhyOne gave an interesting dimension when they referred to the set.
Regards that particular example, it does help convey a tone and also underlines your previous point about being a local, an insider, and this is a generational thing. The wife refers to why she came back to the town, and how it's people like David being the reason why.
If this is a spec script, that type of line really helps convey the emotional impact to those involved at the back end, even if the shooting script gets rid of such lines.
Bottom line, that type of prose - when not overused - is more interesting to read and helps create more passion than bog standard writing.
Andrew, I can definitely take it all. I'm just questioning exactly what you're arguing with, here.
My POV is that scripts need not waste valuable space with unfilmable lines, poorly written, clunky prose, and amateur mistakes, like not CAPPING the initial intro of a character.
Is this what you're disagreeing with?
You are aware that this material is from 1973, right? It's a simple modernization of a script from almost 40 years ago.
What am I missing here? Please, do tell...
I'm glad you realise I am not trying to get you. This is a forum with many different opinions, and in trying to reach some form of consensus, our end should be that we're improved writers. That's the only reason I challenge. It's not about bickering on the 'net.
Yes, I know that the material is old. However, I am reading the script as a separate entity and disagree with your comments. The main reason being that "clunky prose" is a subjective POV, and yet, you are passing it around like your way is the only way. In response, why is it clunky? It didn't make me re-read, or question what was intended - it doesn't read weird, or poorly constructed. So, really, I am at a loss as to why it's "clunky".
I agree. Film is rich. Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc all create a dramatic underscore. A single frame can communicate so much to the audience. And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word.
All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way. It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA:
"JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into an unfamiliar and hectic world."
I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written. Don't they see the oxymoron? And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.
Excellent example.
Totally agree. Ultimately, it's a case of eeking out every ounce of detail and emotion for everyone working on the film. It's not all about the director.
And that should start with the script. Time and again, I read produced screenplays that flout the "rules" that are bandied around as gospel.
I get the point you're making, and largely agree with it.
My comment was more about the general, than that specific example.
However, I do believe that WhyOne gave an interesting dimension when they referred to the set.
Regards that particular example, it does help convey a tone and also underlines your previous point about being a local, an insider, and this is a generational thing. The wife refers to why she came back to the town, and how it's people like David being the reason why.
If this is a spec script, that type of line really helps convey the emotional impact to those involved at the back end, even if the shooting script gets rid of such lines.
Bottom line, that type of prose - when not overused - is more interesting to read and helps create more passion than bog standard writing.
Andrew
Yeah, I agree in general.
The danger for me is what happens when it's taken to extreme. In the burning farm example, the script has a double meaning/power. Not only is it horrifically violent, there is also the tragic element of the father who has destroyed all he loved.
That wouldn't come across in the film if you shot it as it was. It would just be one dimensional...a guy kills his wife and kid and stands watching his handiwork. There would be the shock and you'd be asking the dramatic question Why did he do it? But that human tragedy element won't come across.
The loss of his sanity prevents even any kind of performance from the actor to convey it.
You could try and play some nostalgic type music over the image...but that will then interfere with the dark, foreboding tone of the film. This is, after all, a THE SHIT'S ABOUT TO GO DOWN moment.
That's why that kind of writing is potentially dangerous. Literature can jump from one abstract concept to the next immediately and be understandable, film doesn't work in the same way. All ideas and emotions can be portrayed equally as effectively, but you've got to follow more of a specific structure IF you want to get a specific idea across.
There's also a key difference between the active act of reading (where you can pause and luxuriate over a line for as long as you want and follow a mood or line of thought indefinitely) and passive film, where it just carries on regardless.
Personally I'd probably want that element in the film, so I'd introduce it as a line of dialogue from the sheriff when he turns up. He could stand in front of the house as it burns and say something like: "Jesus, his grandfather built that house with his bare hands" then turn to Bill and say "What happened, Bill?".
The danger for me is what happens when it's taken to extreme. In the burning farm example, the script has a double meaning/power. Not only is it horrifically violent, there is also the tragic element of the father who has destroyed all he loved.
That wouldn't come across in the film if you shot it as it was. It would just be one dimensional...a guy kills his wife and kid and stands watching his handiwork. There would be the shock and you'd be asking the dramatic question Why did he do it? But that human tragedy element won't come across.
The loss of his sanity prevents even any kind of performance from the actor to convey it.
You could try and play some nostalgic type music over the image...but that will then interfere with the dark, foreboding tone of the film. This is, after all, a THE SHIT'S ABOUT TO GO DOWN moment.
That's why that kind of writing is potentially dangerous. Literature can jump from one abstract concept to the next immediately and be understandable, film doesn't work in the same way. All ideas and emotions can be portrayed equally as effectively, but you've got to follow more of a specific structure IF you want to get a specific idea across.
There's also a key difference between the active act of reading (where you can pause and luxuriate over a line for as long as you want and follow a mood or line of thought indefinitely) and passive film, where it just carries on regardless.
Personally I'd probably want that element in the film, so I'd introduce it as a line of dialogue from the sheriff when he turns up. He could stand in front of the house as it burns and say something like: "Jesus, his grandfather built that house with his bare hands" then turn to Bill and say "What happened, Bill?".
Good suggestion with the dialogue. Would be a good remedy. In some examples, it might be forced to place dialogue in place of the description, and could jar the audience, so it's a difficult one to manage as a writer.
It's about finding a balance, because adhering blindly with what translates to the screen at spec stage can mean missing some of the emotional impact being communicated. Small details like this can be ironed out once all of the creative forces with the project agree with the best way to communicate the script's depth.
Agree with what you say, however, that a spec (or any script) needs to be aware of of the fact it's a visual medium, and there are inherent dangers in missing that point. Overkill of that type of "unfilmable" writing will create a difficult to replicate film - definitely agree.
Ultimately, we're on the same page with it all, by the sounds of it.
I finished the script and yes it’s relatively dense for a screenplay. It was a slow read. And yes it’s fairly standard stuff. It has a few clichés I hate, like a gun that conveniently happens to be out of bullets. I immediately thought of what I believe to be a better way to handle the scene. And the ending is a cliché that’s been done to death.
All its issues aside, focusing entirely on the writing, I thought it was very well done. There’s a lot of great writing here and I certainly wouldn’t call this writing poor or amateurish. Not by a long shot.
Film is rich. Music, choice of shots, cinematography, editing, performances, constumes etc all create a dramatic underscore. A single frame can communicate so much to the audience. And it is up to the writer to express that same level of energy and emotional resonance under the written word.
All of the greatest screenplays in history have been written this way. It's nothing new, and goes as far back as CASABLANCA:
"JAN and ANNINA BRANDEL, a very young and attractive refugee couple from Bulgaria, watch as the civilian passes. They've been thrust by circumstances from a simple country life into an unfamiliar and hectic world."
I do scratch my head when people call professional scripts "amateurly" written. Don't they see the oxymoron? And to basically imply that screenwriting has been wrong all along, since the beginning of film.
I agree. With this and your earlier point about the “house built by his grandfather” description. These things add dimension to a script, provided the writer doesn’t get carried away. They’re the very types of things that make great scripts great.
Pages: 
Author
The Crazies Remake (2010)
Logged
Locked Board