I lived on an island for 26 years and I raised my kids there...I know small towns.   In rural areas things do tend to move slowly...but kids are kids...especially in small towns they would want and use cell phones and have a cool car...they aren't exempt from any of that...

I believe Pia mentioned that it would be a big deal if someone was raped and in a comma...and I agree...it would be in the local paper...it would make it to the Seattle Times and every kid on the island would be aware of it because they don't have much else to do   

The believabilty is so "key" to a story of this nature...and I think it is missing the mark...it's like the story is there, but all the details to tell the story right are missing.

George...I would be happy to help on a rewrite as well   

Okay, I think most of the participants have responded... let me know if I'm wrong.

Let's move on to
Characterization/arc/journey

I am a bit removed from the script now so I can't remember what the characters were like but here it goes...

I didn't have issues with the characterization of the characters. I think George did a good job distinguising each character in their own unit. Some of their decisions that they made, were unrealistic. I think that word has been overused but I can't think of another.

Laura

I think I mentioned before I thought it was strange that the begining of the story Laura stood watching some guy getting his butt kicked.

It was a unrealistic that she managed to hold on to the watch after she got knocked out.

You never explained how a cheerleader like her would like a geek like Alex in the first place. You did mention as a matter to the fact she knew him from the past. Perhaps insert a flashback to explain the backstory between these two characters.

Also I felt you could have developed the relationship between Laura and Alex alot more. Laura by and large remains somewhat of an enigma.  

Alex

He was the protagonist to be but came across as a secondary character to all the rest. The relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist drives the story. If one is weak, it is hard for the audience to care about what is going on with the rest.

Alex's character was okay. He wasn't a likable progatonist for me because of his selfish and naive nature which is strange for some one you proclaim to be brilliant.

He started off as a push over and through trials and tribulations he learns how to push back and send a hellish boy to hell.

Okay that works as an arch but IMO I think he wasn't push nearly enough. This script lacks tension because of the characters shallow personalities. And as one person here put it, the story was trying to be something for everyone.

Brad

He is a cliche bad boy, nothing remotely interesting about him. I can tell you hated this character while creating him because you gave him nothing of depth. He was what he was, and it is for this reason why the protagonist wasn't pushed hard enough.

The "greaterness" of the protagonist is determined by the greatness of the antagonist.

Brad was a dumb, selfish, and naive, badguy. Killing him off at the end was really an insult to the audience because he never suffered for his crimes. It was a cop out.

A good writer loves all of his characters, especially the bad ones. As an audience member I want to love to hate the antagonist, I don't want to hate him period.

The Joker in the Dark Knight was one of the greatest written bad guys of all time. I was mesmorized by his dark side because I connected with him on some dark level.

I could not connect with Brad at all and wished he got hit by a bus as soon as he appeared on screen.

In story there is a prinicple called the "negation of the negation". Which means that: a double negative.

ie.  Love              apathy         Hate            Self hate or hate masquerading as love
      Postive           contrary       contridictory      Negation of the Negation  

  
A strong antagonistic force is usually a double negative not just a negative to the positve.
  

Another principle of story is the stronger the forces of antagonism the stronger the forces of protagonism. If the bad guy is shallow then so will the protagonist be.

Story

Your inciting incident occures on page 30 on a 78 page script which is kind of weird because if you were to modify it to feature length which is normally 120 pages, then the first major turning point of the story hits around page 50 wihch is usually the domain of the second act.
Hence you reached Act 2 on page 50 which is aproximately page 85 on 120 page script, then finally hit the second turning point which is Kelse coming to Alex to confess her secret which progresses us to Act 2. Your rush through Act 2 and virtually skip act 3.

You need a minimum of three reversals to complete a story and you only have two.

Eric,

thanks for your great post. Pretty well thought out, especially since you are now removed from the story. All points you made, made sense to me too and I agree with them.

In addition I'd like to add...

As mentioned earlier by several people, Alex is introduced as a nerd who is brilliant, but also smokes and deals pot and drinks vodka. This combination doesn't work for me at all. That was my main problem with him. Him videotaping out of his window seemed too much like American Beauty.

Brad was an all around unpleasant guy. I was somewhat intrigued by the mirror image talking back. Is he schizophrenic or something? Even if he was, him shooting himself still doesn't work. It doesn't fit the character we have got to know up until then.

Laura seemed okay, but like Eric mentioned, what does she see in Alex? My biggest problem with her though is the fact that she was raped and beaten into a coma, yet as soon as she's back home, she kisses Alex and seems to want to have a relationship with him. I don't think so! Something traumatic like that would take a looong time to get over IMHO.

I guess Kelsey is okay, don't really have a problem with her other than I think it would work better if she was younger. Perhaps 14 or so.

Jenna seemed really dense to me. I understand Brad is supposed to be charming to the point where all girls fall for him. Problem is, he doesn't come across like that and Jenna just seems really dense for not seeing him for what he is. Apparently everyone knows or has at least heard all the rumors about Brad. I didn't believe that she would close her eyes to that issue.

Those were some of my thoughts on the characters (plus what eric said).

Eric, I feel compelled to respond to part of your post yesterday...sorry, I just can't help myself.

Quoted from eric11 Dreamscale, you and I will part on this issue too because IMHO mediocrity  isn't something writers should want to aspire too, but you are right it's a personal choice on how hard a writer will work. BTW show me one script that was rehashed from another script that was any good.

Eric, I never said anything about aspiring to "mediocrity".  I'm a perfectionist at heart in everything I do and even think.  That's probably why many in here think of me as a "harsh" or tough reviewer.  There's not a single script or movie that is "perfect".  Even my favorite movies of all time have scenes that didn't need to be there, characters that weren't as developed as they could have been, or just things that could have been done better.  It's the way it is, and there's just no getting around it.

In response to your question of showing you a script or movie that is rehashed from something else and still being "good", I guess we would need to come to an agreement of what "good" means.  For example, there've obvioulsy been literally thousands of movies that are semi-clones of "classics" like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Scream, Alien, etc.  I'll completely agree that the vast majority of these movies are downright terrible, and purely "ripoffs", but there are numerous examples of such movies that not only did well at the box office, garnered critical praise, and were enjoyable, "good" movies.

I have a feeling that you're not going to agree with this, but for me, it's common knowledge.  

Quoted Text Eric, I feel compelled to respond to part of your post yesterday...sorry, I just can't help myself.

No worries I don't mind.

Quoted Text Eric, I never said anything about aspiring to "mediocrity".  I'm a perfectionist at heart in everything I do and even think.  That's probably why many in here think of me as a "harsh" or tough reviewer.

I must have got confused when you said, not all music needs to sound like Mozart. You are right, but my analogy was in respect to the ideal that succeeding in your craft you must master it like anything else in life. That's what I meant...

Being harsh is what sensitive people say about learning the truth. How can one sugar coat truth? So be as "harsh" as you can be as long as you are justified. I would appreciate it all the more when you review my scripts, because I disregard praise. It teaches me nothing.

Quoted Text There's not a single script or movie that is "perfect".  Even my favorite movies of all time have scenes that didn't need to be there, characters that weren't as developed as they could have been, or just things that could have been done better.  It's the way it is, and there's just no getting around it.

I know, perfection is an ending point, not a starting point. Writers will strive to be as good as they can be and that's what matters. I have meet screenwriters that tried to convience me that it was okay to be lazy, or mediocre.  

Quoted Text In response to your question of showing you a script or movie that is rehashed from something else and still being "good", I guess we would need to come to an agreement of what "good" means.  For example, there've obvioulsy been literally thousands of movies that are semi-clones of "classics" like Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, Halloween, Scream, Alien, etc.  I'll completely agree that the vast majority of these movies are downright terrible, and purely "ripoffs", but there are numerous examples of such movies that not only did well at the box office, garnered critical praise, and were enjoyable, "good" movies.

Okay I see what you mean. I will get out a better response in a bit, but I need to leave work now? : )

Not a lot of comments today...  

Where are you guys?

I'm just not sure what to say any longer on this one, as everything out of my mouth is very negative.  I just don't see any hope for this script at all, and I really don't want to sound so mean and harsh.

The characters are all cardboard cutouts of cliched characters that we've all seen a thousand times before.

Their arc is really non-existant, unless you say that Alex "grew up" by doing what he did, but since what he did is so completely ludicrous, I realy don't think it counts.

As for their journey?  Hmmm, I don't think they went on any journeys that really mattered.

I'll respond to others posts, but I'm going to try really hard to bite my tongue and not continue to throw this under teh old proverbial bus.

Quoted from Dreamscale I'm just not sure what to say any longer on this one, as everything out of my mouth is very negative.  I just don't see any hope for this script at all, and I really don't want to sound so mean and harsh.

Not even six or seven times, as you have?

I wanted to touch a little bit on the believability of the "nerd" characterization.  When looking at in terms of what you would expect from a typical nerd (glasses, pocket protector, just plain dweeby) you're right, it doesn't fit.  But, if you look at it from the perspective that Alex is basically just an outsider, I think it works out.  Not all nerds fit into a certain mold.  Some people get labeled as such for totally random reasons.

Yeah Shelton, I know.  I just can't seem to help myself...

I hear what you're saying about Alex.  He's nothing of a nerd, really.  But if he is indeed this big pot seller/smoker/drinker guy, he's actually a "burnout" or "stoner".  And if that's what he is, and he's selling to various kids at school, he actually wouldn't be considered an outsider, I don't think.  If nothing else, he'd have people in his corner who are "like him", and rely on his services.

The fact that he's a good, smart student, yet a smoker and drinker doesn't really fly either.  Not that it's impossible or never happened, but you don't see this type of person very often, and is again, another one of those unrealistic things.

That touches on one of the problems I had with Alex...he doesn't come across to me as a Nerd.  Nerds usually have a technical side and Alex didn't come across as having one.  As far as the smart guy who smokes pot - I knew a bunch of them in school and that wasn't surprising at all to me.  Alex is pretty shallow actually and he needs much more depth to be a dramatic character (at least IMO).   He has to pull us along on his journey and he isn't strong enough to do it.

The stoners I'm familiar with from High School, were all literally stoners, through and through...but we're going way back in years in what I'm talking about.  As far as I know nowadays, pot smoking...in High School, at least is a completely different thing, as most of the parents (and teachers) know about this stuff.  Back in the 70's and early 80's, it was a different animal.  I know numerous High School kids now and pot isn't even something that is that popular at this age.

Sure, a kid can be a stoner and still be smart, but the way Alex is portrayed...as drinking vodka from a bottle and burning doobs in his room, I just don't see it at all.  He's obviously from a family with money, based on that fact that he has a nice video cam, his own room, etc.  Actually, every character appears to be from money in some form, and the entire town or whatever it's supposed to be, seems nice and upscale.

When a kid's stoned and drunk on a normal basis, people nowadays are going to be fully aware of it.  If we're talking about the inner city or the like, different story completely, but in this setting, I don't buy any of it.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Not a lot of comments today...   Where are you guys?

I think it's time for George to step in. I usually never dwell on a script past one day, and it is already been a week or so.

I think people are losing interest now.

Okay, I hear you.

Before we invite George though...

Can we touch real quick on dialogue and marketability first?

And all of you, please let me know, if you think inviting George earlier than planned is a good idea.  

Yeah..I don't know if "losing interest" is quite right...maybe lost interest immediately

I think it's kind of like beating a dead horse.  Every angle we turn to, pretty much leads back to the same situation...this isn't what we were hoping for, and I seriously don't see how we can "help" here.  There's just WAY, WAY too much that's wrong, that doesn't work, that doesn't make sense, that's unrealistic, etc.

In all honesty and sincerity, to bring this thing to where it needs to be, or should be, we're talking about a complete overhaul, and I'm talking about junking the entire thing and starting over from scratch.

I know how that sounds, and I actually feel quite badly about what I've said and how I've said it, but that's the truth of the situation here.

Comments back appreciated...