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.
These sleeping Gods used to walk the earth and fight amongst themselves. It's kind of a parody of H.P. Lovecrafts Cthulu mythos mixed in with the old tales of the Titans and such.
I don't see the Lovecraft influence. Lovecraft's gods were completely indifferent to human existence and tended not to coexist with them. The Titans stuff sounds more on point.
I don't see the Lovecraft influence. Lovecraft's gods were completely indifferent to human existence and tended not to coexist with them. The Titans stuff sounds more on point.
Yeah...I was just thinking about the whole sleeping Gogs thing...reminded me very much of Cthulu and his band of Monks who were awaiting his awakening..
These Gods don't seem to like to co-exist with humans either.
maybe this is intended to be watched at home with some friends while drinking...it could be kind of funny then, but personally I would prefer that they went for straight horror. Maybe Rick is right though. As a horror, it is unfixable in it's current stage.
I think if we were going for straight horror..the reality TV angle and the mental manipulation apsects would be the ones to really strenghten. That was quite good. Very good in places actually.
There's enough in there that you COULD turn it into a serious horror. However, I don't think it's that kind of film at all.
I made the mistake of reading the scriptshadow review before I read it, so I had it in my mind that it was rubbish and I took it all at face value.
For instance the part where Curt clotheslined the mummy zombie and says "Dead Bitch!". If you read that seriously it's like something out of the Cabin on here...if you imagine an over the top WWE move with this saggy titted zombie somersaulting through the air and a good actor overracting the line "Dead Bitch"...it's very funny stuff.
I think if they film it in a very intense, but over the top manner it should do well.
Will be interesting to see the end product. If this was am attempt at comedy, horror satire, I think it pulled it off pretty well...
As i said in my review. There were a few scenes in here that were laugh out loud funny. It just seemed like it tried to take itself seriously at the same time though. Normal horror with comedy peppered through out.
It will be fun to watch it hit the big screen... What will the Critics and public think of it???
I remember reading about the development of Scream and the Weinstein brothers...they asked "Hang on...are we making a scary movie with laughs...or a funny movie with scares?". I think at one point that film was becoming too comedic and they wanted it to be scary but funny.
This kind of thing is always on the edge. The Weinsteins are very good at understanding films..hopefully there will be similar minds on this.
I would have thought Dead Snow would have been a suitable template...over the top violence and gore with a very comedic undertone.
Mate, I will read the script. Calm down. I am exceedingly busy right now and my SS time is taken up with this thread.
Quoted from James McClung
The average movie goer is not so much some who will watch anything so much as someone who doesn't care what they watch. Not specific enough for you? How about someone who'd watch Norbit and like it?
About as clear as mud. I do no think someone who watches 'Norbit' and likes it can be called 'retarded'. If this is actually what you think, it's better you stand by your convictions than to try and weasel out with that explanation.
Quoted from James McClung
You must've wanted to ruffle my feathers with this one. Seriously.
I really wasn't. I am just confused as to why you want to make films if you view your potential audience as 'retarded'. My post isn't designed to annoy you or ruffle your feathers. I always try and understand people and their motivations. Everyone has a reason for wanting to get into film. Me asking you isn't me suggesting it's for anything in particular - it was simply a genuine question.
This part sounds like the real answer, to me:
Quoted from James McClung
I want to write for people who actually care about films and can take more from them than someone who goes to see Watchmen and gets made that it wasn't a "real" superhero movie
Where you want to make films that people care about, I want to make films that touch people, irrespective of how much they care about film generally. I think an audience largely watches films for some specific want or need, and in your case it's is 'cos you care about film - I do not think, however, that one need is superior to another. I also do not think that because a person doesn't see movies as a statement of who they are, it instantly qualifies them as how you perceive. Film is more multi-faceted than that. And so are people. It seems you are not perceptive about people if you can compartmentalise them so easily.
I mean, 'Watchmen' was a pile of shit in my view, and that's not because it was marketed as a heir to 'Spiderman' or 'Dark Knight' but because it failed to put together a cohesive story, which largely owed to its content being unsuitable for a 3 hour movie. Someone who doesn't like that film and perhaps just watches mass market stuff, is not necessarily 'retarded' or incapable of reaching a simple conclusion: that 'Watchmen' was more than a 'superhero' movie. That's pretty basic, I think and it's as though you are trying to intellectualise something that is very basic, which leads to the 'us' and 'them' attitude - i.e. the film appreciators and the 'retards'.
Quoted from James McClung
Because I love film and I have a fire in my belly and I can do better than the bulls*** Hollywood is feeding to me. Why else?
What can I say? I'm the wrong person to be talking to about this. I have no interest in the Hollywood system and I know that I can be successful without it. You can pass judgement on my "lack of success" (if that's what you want to call it) all you want. I don't give a f***.
You must be taking it too personally. This is an internet forum of people who are largely passionate about film, so points of view differ and egos will be bruised if we cannot accept that others may find some of our views to be a little wonky, shall we say.
I think your intentions of wanting to not work in Hollywood are very noble (considering you view it as a cesspool of money mad hacks), and I wish you luck with it; however, you must concede that enjoying Hollywood product, no matter how frivolous you consider it doesn't make someone a 'retard', or a filmmaker some type of talentless sellout, or whatever you would term it.
Would you concede that point?
Quoted from James McClung
. But to say the industries outside of Hollywood are exactly the same... no, just no.
I never said that. I said it's essentially a microcosm, and this was in the context of money. It was referring to the bottom line. I don't see how you can debate this point. Indie or Hollywood blockbuster must generate income, otherwise the whole system becomes unsustainable - that was my point. I don't think you willfully ignored the point, but maybe you think I am attacking you when I am not, so you invert my comments to you as personal.
Quoted from James McClung
I know this wasn't for me but then it sorta is. Why not snipe and b****? Why shouldn't I snipe and b****? I'm 23. I've got the rest of my life to be "reasonable" and I think I stand a better chance in this business than someone who's all bright-eyed and hoping for the best. They're gonna get their hearts broken in the end. Besides, I think I'm a better writer because I'm unhappy with the current state of things. I push myself harder because of it. I understand my own weaknesses and I'm flexible when it comes to the business side of things. But I'm never going to put someone over me just because they have success. Can't you see the bulls*** in that? It's important to be humble but it's important to have some self worth and, more importantly, some gd confidence as well.
James, I like that you have fire in your belly. So do I. I am not suggesting people cannot give honest views on a script, but can it not be done respectfully? Are we really that insecure? I don't think so, so I don't know why some of the views manifest as bitchy comments - it's just plain unnecessary. Do you not agree?
I am also not saying you should 'put someone over yourself'. Having belief in yourself is a prerequisite to break through in a competitive industry. However, my main point is that channelling your energy in a different, more considered way is likely to yield more for you and anyone else. Never lose the fire, but don't let it fuel potential arrogance.
Quoted from James McClung
What can I say? I'm not in this for the same reasons as you but I can tell we both genuinely love film so we can go our divergent paths. I wish you the best. I just can't believe you asked me why I want to be in film? Obviously, it's not money and obviously, I'm here on SS talking to you. WTF do you think?!
You made me chuckle there. Good form. I read and subsequently recommended your script 'Complete'. It was a good script and demonstrated you have talent. It also showed that your writing skills are sharper and more focused than mine currently are. My goal is to primarily produce work and I am getting on that road now, so perhaps our views come down to what is a difference in function; however, like you said, we are both genuinely in love with film, so it's hardly irrevocably different views in play. No, I would much rather try and reconcile and arrive at some form of consensus than to antagonise and flail around arguing.
I do no think someone who watches 'Norbit' and likes it can be called 'retarded'. If this is actually what you think, it's better you stand by your convictions than to try and weasel out with that explanation.
I do and I will. I'm sure there's people out there who like it ironically or thought it wasn't "that bad" but that still puts a damper on their tastes as far as I'm concerned.
I really wasn't. I am just confused as to why you want to make films if you view your potential audience as 'retarded'. My post isn't designed to annoy you or ruffle your feathers. I always try and understand people and their motivations. Everyone has a reason for wanting to get into film. Me asking you isn't me suggesting it's for anything in particular - it was simply a genuine question.
I overreacted. My apologizes. But I still think "what a question to be asked on a screenwriting board!" At least in this context. Not all of us are here to make a career out of screenwriting but I think all of us are here because we genuinely love film.
Where you want to make films that people care about, I want to make films that touch people, irrespective of how much they care about film generally. I think an audience largely watches films for some specific want or need, and in your case it's is 'cos you care about film - I do not think, however, that one need is superior to another. I also do not think that because a person doesn't see movies as a statement of who they are, it instantly qualifies them as how you perceive. Film is more multi-faceted than that. And so are people.
I think that's fair enough. I didn't mean to say that I only want to make movies for film buffs or however you may have interpreted it. I don't know. I don't think you have to be a film buff to appreciate film. I just don't like to see it treated as a disposable entertainment. It's purely emotional. I can only see the world through my eyes, right?
You must be taking it too personally. This is an internet forum of people who are largely passionate about film, so points of view differ and egos will be bruised if we cannot accept that others may find some of our views to be a little wonky, shall we say.
I was. Like I said. "What a question!" It's cool though. Clearly you didn't mean offense.
I think your intentions of wanting to not work in Hollywood are very noble (considering you view it as a cesspool of money mad hacks), and I wish you luck with it; however, you must concede that enjoying Hollywood product, no matter how frivolous you consider it doesn't make someone a 'retard', or a filmmaker some type of talentless sellout, or whatever you would term it.
Would you concede that point?
I will and I enjoy a fair number of Hollywood films as well as Hollywood directors. In fact, I would wager that Jaws is the greatest film of all time. Not my favorite but just the same. I think the place is host to a number of talented people as well as people who genuinely care about the work they do. But I also think it's full of "mad money hacks" as you say as well as whores and fake writers and filmmakers. I'm saying this of sound mind as well.
I never said that. I said it's essentially a microcosm, and this was in the context of money. It was referring to the bottom line. I don't see how you can debate this point. Indie or Hollywood blockbuster must generate income, otherwise the whole system becomes unsustainable - that was my point. I don't think you willfully ignored the point, but maybe you think I am attacking you when I am not, so you invert my comments to you as personal.
Okay. So you didn't say that and I understand your point. I still think Hollywood is an exceptionally soulless entity in the industry.
James, I like that you have fire in your belly. So do I. I am not suggesting people cannot give honest views on a script, but can it not be done respectfully? Are we really that insecure? I don't think so, so I don't know why some of the views manifest as bitchy comments - it's just plain unnecessary. Do you not agree?
Alas, we come back to the subject at hand. Good. We should stick to the topic.
And with that said, I understood the point of Script Club to discuss the script in a frank manner. Could I be more frank?
If I were to review this script, I might be a little more objective. Maybe even clean up my language. But not much. I backed up everything I said about the script and a lot of others did too. That's valuable feedback if you ask me.
Besides, Whedon's not here to read our comments and I don't he cares what we think anyway.
Here's my thoughts. It was fun; bit bizarre and left of center, but entertaining. I liked the guys placing bets in the control center, especially the running gag with Hadley and the merman. I fully expected the "Director" to be the professor that Dana was screwing around with, and this was his idea of vengeance...otherwise, how the heck would the prep team know that Marty was coming, and even further to mess with his secret, secret stash? (I concur that stash jealousy is a conflict best avoided.) The whole stable of supernatural creatures living under this mountain, although visually cool, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Character voicing, I thought, was difficult to distinguish, with the exception of Marty...
The tunnel explosion was thwarted by someone upstairs? Who? God? Why? Understood the red phone due to Marty (the Fool) failing to get dead, but don't know how or why the tunnel thing would have corresponded to that. Might have missed something.
Holden was supposed to be the scholar, according to his marble etching. He doesn't say anything scholarly (Curt does in the beginning while talking about one of his professors, but he's already set up as the Jock, so...) I'd think that the fact that Dana wasn't exactly virginal should have proved to be an even greater conflict between the Corporation and the demons that they are working for..."We work with what we have" blows apart the whole meaning of the ritual...They are going to this length, they should have made sure that a virgin sacrifice requires the participation of an actual virgin. This discovery could have been a real "Stop the Presses!" kind of moment as they all realize they were screwed from the very beginning? The solution? Find another virgin, in which case Sitterson could have been a good candidate with much more comic results. (He would have suffered as the result of his choice to work for a shadowy, super-villianesque organization.)
Definitely should have gone the reality show route.
Liked Mordecai the Harbinger, probably the most memorable character in this piece...Agree, he does need a banjo playin' blind kid.
Jules and the wolf...silly, but somewhat in character. At least Jules got nuded before she got all spaded, bear trapped and deaded. Curt and Holden seemed interchangeable as characters; nothing unique about them other than being dudes for the ladies.
The latin would have been funnier if it had read "Lorem ipsum sit doler amet," but that's just my opinion.
Formatting? Bit confusing how they do the scene breaks with only a general INT/EXT Slug and then multiple locations in that general area. I suppose it is different for the pros, though, as well as the "we see's", audience asides and camera directions. Same with the lengthy, overly visual descriptions. But, that's life.
Works as a horror comedy in the Evil Dead vein, with Marty and the control room guys being the main source of comedy. The zombie family could have been funny, too, especially if they reverted back to their old personalities.
The naming conventions seemed odd. Wasn't sure who Wendy was (It was Wendy LIN as introduced, but LIN also being a woman's name, confusing where it didn't need to be, especially towards the end when they were yelling for Wendy.)
I don't think I'd pay to see it, especially in 3-D...(although Jules in the woods may be worth it), more so a Netflix rental.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
You made a lot of good points there. Especially about the virgin part. They should have made sure she actually was one and then find out she wasn't and have to scramble to insert a real one.
Works as a horror comedy in the Evil Dead vein, with Marty and the control room guys being the main source of comedy. The zombie family could have been funny, too, especially if they reverted back to their old personalities.
Father: Now Maw, ya'll go'an dispatch that purty lil' blondine an' me'n Matt'll work on taken' down them fellers...
Mother: Aw, The hell i will, Paw! Sides, I cain't run no fast since ya done pu' all these rawks in muh belly.
Father: Curse ya had ta bring that up...
Prudence and Matthew : (chanting) Jer-ry! Jer-ry!4
Could also have one of the kids be a mole for the corporation (like Ash in the original Alien). Thought they might have gone that route when someone says "I don't even think Curt has a cousin (who bought the cabin in the first place).
Also, none of the characters seem driven by anything substantial; Jules wants to have more fun, Dana wants to forget about the married boyfriend, Marty wants to stay high and the boys want to get laid. Pretty weak in terms of heroic journey. At least Tallahassee was on a quest to find the last twinkie (rule# 32...enjoy the little things.)
I think that this is a project that got greenlighted only because of the past history of the writers- if it was anyone else, probably wouldn't have gotten past the circular file. But, that's life.
Failure is only the opportunity to begin again more intelligently - Dove Chocolate Wrapper
Hmmm, what happened here? Are we done already? That didn't last too long...
We can go on and discuss this one if you want. What would you like to talk about?
Btw, I just read Hunting Humans (on the home page). I thought it was loads better than this one. I read it in one sitting. Didn't want to stop.
It reminded me about that HBO show (I think) about a serial killer. It was WGA registered in -99 so I wouldn't be surprised if they got some of their ideas from this script.
Lots and lots of V.O. but it work well. IMO.
It's sort of a cat and mouse game between two serial killers. It's a good read.