Hi folks,

It's time to get Script Club XV going. Everyone was given  the chance to recommend and agree on a script in the other thread. There were only a few responses for the script choice and ultimately, for better or worse, the script that got the most votes was the pilot for Arrow.

Click here for a link to the script

It can be a good idea to also watch the pilot for comparisons, but it's not necessary.

If you're not up to date, script club is like a book club. We will have one week to read the script and afterwards we will share what we thought of the script and dissect the plot, scenes, characters, writing etc. Since it's a pilot, we should also be looking at how well it does to set everything up. Ultimately the main point should be to have fun and see what we can learn from it.

As mentioned above, everyone will have a week to read the script. Next Saturday, I'll kick off the discussion. I thought about whether the thread should be locked until next week and came to the conclusion that it's a good idea if we can slip in what we think during reading as well. Although, it should be kept brief and, most importantly, spoiler-free until next Saturday.

Remember that this is supposed to be a friendly event. Be respectful, be constructive and try not to get into fights.

Is anyone else reading this one? I just started and I'm ten pages in. I don't know why, I can't pinpoint why, but pro scripts just pull you in so much better than amateur scripts. Why is that?

So far so good. I hope lots of you will give this one a try.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear Is anyone else reading this one? I just started and I'm ten pages in. I don't know why, I can't pinpoint why, but pro scripts just pull you in so much better than amateur scripts. Why is that? So far so good. I hope lots of you will give this one a try.

I read a couple of pages yesterday and was pulled out a couple of times. I was going to write why in here but I thought that I would come across as being a bit dickish.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I read a couple of pages yesterday and was pulled out a couple of times. I was going to write why in here but I thought that I would come across as being a bit dickish.

No. No. It's totally fine. I would like to know why. There were a lot of things that we harp on here at SS a lot as not being correct for screenwriting, but the story definitely pulled me in right away.

Code A RUSTLE of leaves. Disturbing. Urgent.

Rustle doesn't conjure up urgent or disturbing. What could possibly be urgent and disturbing about a rustle? At worst it's going to be a stiff breeze.

Code Leaves and vines and green rushing past.

Perhaps a deliberate style choice to emphasise, but it fails for me. The extra 'and'. The not so active 'rushing' as opposed to rush. It's also awkward in that it reads as though the leaves, vines and green are rushing past and not we past them as is the intention.

I've also noticed a lack of commas. There are quite a few. Not that I'm not lazy with them myself sometimes.

Code More rustling and the CLIMBER EMERGES. But it’s no animal. Impossibly -- this is a MAN. His face obscured by a GREEN HOOD cut from a sail’s muslin. TATTERED CLOTHING over a taut frame. He wields a COMPOUND BOW. A QUIVER FULL OF ARROWS slung around his back.

This took me straight to Assassin's Creed. There are certain video games I will play for the story, Assassin's Creed and GTA. Then I thought, Assassin's Creed/Robin Hood hybrid. Which is fair enough. Bearing in mind, I don't have any idea what this is about. I've never heard of it, never seen any promotional material... so I'm basing this off what I read alone. The writing in the above is fine. I don't like the... But it's no animal. Impossibly -- this is a MAN... part. Bit CS Lewis for my tastes. But that's being pedantic.

I'm just saying why I was pulled out. The writing itself is fine and it does pull me in.

Just some info if you're interested– I researched what a network draft is, didn't know it myself. As the name says, it's when the script is given to the network. Especially to check LEGAL AFFAIRS and stuff before they go on the air.

Means the production company's producers have already given their input toward the writers before. The network needs to give their okay now.

Then, after the network gave their notes on this network draft, the "Showrunner" checks it last time and finishes the shooting script/production script.

Really didn't know that stuff. So, it's not an early draft and far away from a spec. We shouldn't see it as such. Everyone already knows what to do without that paper. It's not the voice of one writer or a story that tries to impress on the page. They all know what it's about. There must be an agreement between those writers involved on a certain kind of format. It seems no one of them had a problem how the words are brought on paper. Imagine how many writers plus development team are involved at this stage.

Does anyone else know something about the process? Do they already have a storyboard at that moment? I guess the whole season's on paper... Interesting stuff to get to know about it.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Is anyone else reading this one? I just started and I'm ten pages in. I don't know why, I can't pinpoint why, but pro scripts just pull you in so much better than amateur scripts. Why is that? So far so good. I hope lots of you will give this one a try.

Read to page 8 for now and I'm enjoying it more than I expected, reads visually and I'm interested to find out what will happen next. The continuous intro is an interesting touch, set to hold attention, moving from scene to scene without a break. Definitely not bad.

These type of CW shows haven't really been my kind of thing, so it might just be interesting to read something different. So far, the stereotype of everyone being described as rich and beautiful/hot is holding up.

Okay, finished Act 1.  I've heard of this show from someone I know.  They like it.  I like the story they've put together in such a short amount of time.  Even though a lot of characters are introduced, I was able to follow everything.  Interesting so far, and yeah I want to keep reading.

So this is my first time in any club like this.  So we're not supposed to talk about the writing necessarily but more about the story and characters that the writer puts together?  Because if we can talk about the writing, I've got some things to say.  If it's just about the story and characters, sure I'll do that too.

Oh yeah, there's no initiation to this club is there?  Nothing sexual I hope.  If there is, will they send me some place special?  

I know that someone mentioned not to focus on the writing, but that's difficult for me. It's impossible to separate the style and quality of writing from the discussion on characters, story etc because they are so inter-linked.

Initial thoughts:

Classic "blockbuster"  story components. The events deal with the super rich, the powerful, the beautiful. This is almost always the case in blockbuster films.

Perfectly constructed conflicts: Pampered rich kid, stranded on a deadly island. Rich vs Poor in the city. Conflicts in relationships...new husband, separation between Oliver and Laurel, the vacuousness of rich life etc

It knows what it is. A light hearted action flick with elements of soap opera, but a lot of effort has gone into making it a decent one.

The pros write in exactly the right tone, at exactly the right speed for the type of story they are working on.

The writer is very skilled at presenting both audio-visual information and acting direction through his words:

For instance: A RUSTLE of leaves. Disturbing. Urgent. SNAP INTO:

He is describing the style of the sound, setting the tone, setting the speed at which we "hear" things. He's also directing the speed of the action and even the speed of the cuts/editing style, telling us this is a fast paced action story from the very first line.

Or this:

"Oliver’s REFLECTION in a WINDOW. A city’s SKYLINE beyond.
He’s clean-shaven now, hair cut. His face angular, still
handsome. But those eyes, still an enigma... "


It's a cliched image of the city through a window, but he uses it to show how time has passed, how he's part of the city again, but still separate from it....and still deeply haunted.

It's all done very economically and efficiently. Highlighting inner conflict and conflict to come without needing to bash us over the head with it.


Characters are established very well, and very quickly. You get the sense of Oliver's past, and his present state and his future. Tommy is expertly handled. There's nothing particularly novel about any of it, but it's done at speed...keeping the attention focussed.

Each segment ends expertly, giving a kind of mini cliff hanger. Asking subtle, dramatic questions. All the transitions are handled to a degree I've never witnessed in an amateur script.

"Tommy bolts out the door, SCREAMING down the hall.
MOIRA (PRELAP)
Tommy Merlyn is dying to see you.

INT. LIMOUSINE - MORNING
Oliver in the backseat. Moira sits opposite him. She’s
unnerved by his silence, talking for both of them --"

A great transition from one scene to the next.

"Oliver’s look alters as he considers another question. His
eyes flashing their first look of genuine concern.
OLIVER
And Laurel... How’s Laurel?

Before Moira can answer, we go...

Or

"JOANNA
Laurel. You need to see this.
Right now.
SMASH TO:"


The writer is continuously moving the plot forwards, foreshadowing events and dropping subtle dramatic questions to the reader to keep your interest throughout each disparate scene.

It's very clever. Something dramatic is happening almost every minute. It makes for addictive reading and addictive watching. It's really a master class in how to keep an audience engaged and really reveals why TV is so much more fun than most movies these days.

In films you generally have to sit through 30 minutes of intense boredom while characters are slowly and clunkily introduced and their blindingly obvious arcs are set up. It's totally unnecessary.


The FLASHBACKS are very effective. They are fast enough to not disrupt the narrative and reveal a lot of his character and conflict. They also hint at interesting stories to come. It's very well handled indeed.

Not the most amazing story in the world, but a fun one.

Rick

Quoted from PrussianMosby Just some info if you're interested� I researched what a network draft is, didn't know it myself. As the name says, it's when the script is given to the network. Especially to check LEGAL AFFAIRS and stuff before they go on the air. Means the production company's producers have already given their input toward the writers before. The network needs to give their okay now. Then, after the network gave their notes on this network draft, the "Showrunner" checks it last time and finishes the shooting script/production script. Really didn't know that stuff. So, it's not an early draft and far away from a spec. We shouldn't see it as such. Everyone already knows what to do without that paper. It's not the voice of one writer or a story that tries to impress on the page. They all know what it's about. There must be an agreement between those writers involved on a certain kind of format. It seems no one of them had a problem how the words are brought on paper. Imagine how many writers plus development team are involved at this stage. Does anyone else know something about the process? Do they already have a storyboard at that moment? I guess the whole season's on paper... Interesting stuff to get to know about it.

I think Arrow just ended season 3 this year. Interesting information on the network draft, thanks.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I know that someone mentioned not to focus on the writing, but that's difficult for me. It's impossible to separate the style and quality of writing from the discussion on characters, story etc because they are so inter-linked.

That's a great point and we definitely should focus on the writing. I believe I may have made that comment and my main point was the we shouldn't get bogged down by word syntax, rules, and formatting, so we can focus on how it works for this script in particular, instead of getting into the same old arguments about the universality of it. Or at least, before we get into that. We should definitely bring up the writing.

Excellent analysis on the intro by the way. I liked it a lot, too.

Quoted from Jeremiah Johnson Okay, finished Act 1.  I've heard of this show from someone I know.  They like it.  I like the story they've put together in such a short amount of time.  Even though a lot of characters are introduced, I was able to follow everything.  Interesting so far, and yeah I want to keep reading. So this is my first time in any club like this.  So we're not supposed to talk about the writing necessarily but more about the story and characters that the writer puts together?  Because if we can talk about the writing, I've got some things to say.  If it's just about the story and characters, sure I'll do that too.

Right now, we're still giving everyone a week to read it. After that we'll start dissecting the script. So, comments until next Saturday should be brief and without real spoilers. Lets have the bigger discussions once everyone's had time to finish and think the script through.

I also agree with Dustin, the first half of page 1 made me read the sentences over a few times.

This SC is off to a good start! Good to see!

I still haven't had the time to read past page ten, but probably will today. What drives this one so far for me is that I want to know what happened. What happened on that boat? What happened to his dad? What has he been doing for the last five years? Those questions are what keeps me reading. This is something for us to remember, mystery is a good thing. Feed your readers/audience only little clues at the time. Keep them wanting to know and they'll keep turning the pages.

Dreamscale would have a field day with this script, lol.

No FADE IN:

I find Rick's point on TV shows versus feature films interesting... because I find most TV shows unwatchable, whereas I love sitting down to a good film. I couldn't watch Breaking Bad... it was TV trying to be film. I was repulsed by it. Instant reaction... maybe because I'm getting older and more averse to change, but that was my genuine reaction, like an 'ew' moment. I can do TV comedy (although rarely American)... but not TV action or drama. Even Peaky Blinders that my gf loves was Eastenders with the occasional fight. TV lacks the necessary grit. The drama and the action can all be there, but it lacks that extra little bit of grit for my tastes.

Quoted from DustinBowcot I find Rick's point on TV shows versus feature films interesting... because I find most TV shows unwatchable, whereas I love sitting down to a good film. I couldn't watch Breaking Bad... it was TV trying to be film. I was repulsed by it. Instant reaction... maybe because I'm getting older and more averse to change, but that was my genuine reaction, like an 'ew' moment. I can do TV comedy (although rarely American)... but not TV action or drama. Even Peaky Blinders that my gf loves was Eastenders with the occasional fight. TV lacks the necessary grit. The drama and the action can all be there, but it lacks that extra little bit of grit for my tastes.

The opposite for me. It's been a while since I've really wanted to watch a movie. Maybe it's playing it safe to what you grow used to, but I like the long journey a lot more. I like the smaller details. Watching characters grow, following character relationships, no matter how brief, watching storylines play out and interact -- plus having time to anticipate and guess what happens next, between episodes. I suppose in a way it's the same with books, there's just usually more time to get into it and more to explore. Although shame as it is, I haven't been much of a reader for quite some time either.

Quoted from DS The opposite for me. It's been a while since I've really wanted to watch a movie. Maybe it's playing it safe to what you grow used to, but I like the long journey a lot more. I like the smaller details. Watching characters grow, following character relationships, no matter how brief, watching storylines play out and interact -- plus having time to anticipate and guess what happens next, between episodes. I suppose in a way it's the same with books, there's just usually more time to get into it and more to explore. Although shame as it is, I haven't been much of a reader for quite some time either.

Sounds like an argument for watching soaps; they run for years. All of those things happen in film too and plenty of TV shows can be a series of two, therefore a mere two hours and possibly less time than a film in a similar genre.

Would you not find a TV show as attractive if it only ran for two, one hour shows?

Quoted from DustinBowcot I find Rick's point on TV shows versus feature films interesting... because I find most TV shows unwatchable, whereas I love sitting down to a good film. I couldn't watch Breaking Bad... it was TV trying to be film. I was repulsed by it. Instant reaction... maybe because I'm getting older and more averse to change, but that was my genuine reaction, like an 'ew' moment. I can do TV comedy (although rarely American)... but not TV action or drama. Even Peaky Blinders that my gf loves was Eastenders with the occasional fight. TV lacks the necessary grit. The drama and the action can all be there, but it lacks that extra little bit of grit for my tastes.

Movies at their best are great...but there are so few decent movies made these days.

There are very few decent scripts written, and the top stories they buy from novels and such, they tend to make an absolute pigs ear of when they make them, or just bury them so no-one else can make them.

Look at the cinema at the moment: Jurassic World, Fast and Furious 7, Mad Max, Terminator Genysis...it's all so hackneyed and boring. Aimed at the average sixteen year old, big movies are becoming almost un-watchable for adults. Further down the chain, most of the movies are just outright boring.

There's no Fantasy film close to the Game of Thrones.
No Action film as fun as Daredevil or Marvel Agents of Shield.

There's not even a Horror film from the West as good as American Horror Story.


When film is done right it's still the best, but the standard of TV is generally higher in terms of maintaining interest, I find.

Finished reading and my prejudices have been quashed, the pilot script was enjoyable no holds barred fun. I think there's plenty to talk about here. Will be watching the episode for the on-screen comparison soon, too.

I've only read the first 10 pages so far.  I decided to stop at the first flashback for now, because of the god damn italics.

I liked it, and I certainly wanted some answers by the end of those first 10 pages.  How did the guy survive? What happened to him? How did he get those wounds?

Btw, before I say anymore, is this the right thread to be posting in? Or are we going to have another thread?  I don't want to post too much either if we're having another discussion thread, otherwise I'll end up spoiling things.

Quoted from Max I've only read the first 10 pages so far.  I decided to stop at the first flashback for now, because of the god damn italics. I liked it, and I certainly wanted some answers by the end of those first 10 pages.  How did the guy survive? What happened to him? How did he get those wounds? Btw, before I say anymore, is this the right thread to be posting in? Or are we going to have another thread?  I don't want to post too much either if we're having another discussion thread, otherwise I'll end up spoiling things.

This is the final thread, but as mentioned above, you should keep comments brief and spoiler-free until Saturday. The one week given for everyone to read the script will be over then.

Hey all, I'm on page 35. It's a very enjoyable read so far, holds attention nicely. I hope to finish soon and find it on itunes or something - we don't get netflix (or hulu or any other good medium) here.

Interesting questions Max - not the ones I have on mind though, but I have plenty as well. I'm curious to see how far they'll let us in with the pilot.


And yes, DS, I've heard of the spoilers. Not going to include any till Saturday.

I'm no "Expert" like most, but I think being a HUGE fan of this show and also the DC comics character that it is based on makes me a little.. what's the word.. Bias towards the script.

Though still in learning phase, and reading different scripts to know more, I can clearly see the differences between this to say the Superman Returns script. Though both based on DC comics characters they are both for different formats, one movie, one television. The lack of commas made me want to physically draw them in on my computer screen. But I guess that comes from me being a creative writer and not a script writer.

Adored the pilot of the show - make that every episode of the show, and reading the script has given me a whole new respect to the show and the writers. It must be hard to take a previously written character that has been around since 1941 and create a show that would be this popular.

It's very unusual for me to finish the read this early - great script. THey changed it quite a bit when shooting, but the changes make sense.

Hey, got any more Arrow shooting scripts? I'm hooked on the show I guess but I liked the exercise - anything that makes reading more of a pleasure. Please let me know where to find the shooting scripts for Arrow if you know the place. I looked but managed to find only transcripts.

@SoullessDragon: Welcome to the thread! Hope you'll join in on the discussion.

@khamanna: Nope.

And it is Saturday. That means we can kick things off properly now. Let's start with giving everyone the change to summarize their thoughts on the read first. What was your overall opinion? What do you want to highlight? What did you like the most and what did you dislike the most?

Overall opinion: Good. Perfect for Television watching...fast paced and entertaining.

Things I liked the most: Pace, the constant posing of dramatic questions, the conflicts that were readily created between characters and on a larger scale.

Dislike the most: A little too much soap opera. It's there for a reason, I suppose, but a story focusing more on the darker, realistic elements of the script would be even better for my particular tastes.

Overall thoughts:

As I mentioned above, I was skeptical when I started reading. It looked usually soapy with rich and beautiful people, and superheroes, which I didn't really consider a positive thing either. All of that held up, but it was suprisingly enjoyable. I was most impressed by how everything in the script was just set to grab attention. It was hard to take a break, the plot moved fast and the writers just kept dropping in clues, questions, well timed answers to previous questions and lots o' twists. The action-packed, unrealistic, fun tone certainly helped, but I think the execution here is worth a look for writers from each genre.

The pilot really managed to set up a lot in a brief amount of time and I found mostly all of it interesting. It's apparent that there are going to be plenty of storylines to follow. I won't stop on them all right now as it would take a lot of space. The business aspect didn't get much screentime for the pilot, and understandably so, but I liked how it was handled. A reason for his family's wealth and their positions in it was actually shown and handled believably, instead of sidelining it almost completely and just having everyone be rich. I don't know how much focus it will get in future episodes, but I liked it here.

The two sides to Oliver, as usually for superhero stories, were also interesting. He's not just an average guy, he's a rich spoiled brat -- seeing him swap between the two was great to follow. Tommy was a fun representation of that side, the comedical character. I didn't enjoy his entrance scene at all, but warmed to the character later on. The choice for him to be the first to find out about Oliver was a very good one imo.

What didn't sit with me was the reveal of the kidnapper. It just seemed out of place that Moira's first move to find everything out would be to order a violent kidnapping, when she could have spied on him -- or hell -- even tried to ask what happened. She was just too close to Oliver for it to feel necessary. Maybe it'll be explained better in future episodes, but I wasn't a big fan of that reveal. It was important for the superhero reveal and for Tommy to find out, too, but still.

I liked how Thea fit into the equation, too, kind of a mini-Oliver who he'll have to protect for becoming himself. Not so sure how interesting this story-line would be in the long term, though.

Intriguing decision to name the detective "detective" to avoid the surname reveal too early. With all his witty lines, I found it odd that he was only called that... and then later realized that there's a big reveal going to happen. Looks like he will be the one mainly in the way of Oliver/Arrow's goals. A lot established quickly for his character, stand-out lines.He doesn't seem like a traditional antagonist, nor the traditional good guy, he has his own reasons -- as understandable as Oliver's, so this stand-off looks very promising. Laurel's character is stuck in the middle of all that and the story surrounding her, I found interesting. Her character itself, contrastingly bland. A smart, sexy, good girl who's a professional and good at her job, with conflicted romantic feelings against the protagonist - rings a bell.

Sorry for having been absent here. Been busy lately and this is also a holiday weekend here in the US. I'm taking it easy today though and will park my flat but poolside and just read today. I will finish up the last 15 pages of Arrow and give my input later today.

Good script, btw. Have not seen the show, but I definitely dig the script. Good choice.  


PS: I've had a hard time pulling up the SS site lately. I don't think it's on my end since it's the same when I'm far away from home and using my phone. Anyone else had that issue lately?

It's been fine here. There was an issue yesterday but it didn't last long.

I had no trouble with the site.

About the Arrow - I liked it a lot. It's been an extremely smooth read. I got lost at times but still kept going - for example I had no idea what Tommy was doing when Oliver went for those guys.

They cut the part where Oliver delivers the speech to the guys by the way - I think that was smart of them and it's obvious to me why they had to do it. They don't want us to be sure that Tommy heard it all.

I also liked the fact that in the movie he doesn't hear his mother's last lines. From the script it seems ike he does.

Overall - they earthinized the superman idea. It's like Oliver has super powers but they are not super and everything is not a fantasy. And it's believable.

It's a bit melodramatic - I have to agree with most of you here. But I'd watch the first season and see where it goes.
Can't still find the scripts. If I was in California i'd go to the library of Congress for this one. Because it pushes me to read and it's a super light read for me. At least the pilot was. Great choice.  

Quoted from DS As I mentioned above, I was skeptical when I started reading. It looked usually soapy with rich and beautiful people, and superheroes, which I didn't really consider a positive thing either. All of that held up, but it was suprisingly enjoyable. I was most impressed by how everything in the script was just set to grab attention. It was hard to take a break, the plot moved fast and the writers just kept dropping in clues, questions, well timed answers to previous questions and lots o' twists. The action-packed, unrealistic, fun tone certainly helped, but I think the execution here is worth a look for writers from each genre.

That, to me is what separates pro scripts from amateur. They know how to keep us turning the pages with characters, info/clues, mystery and pacing. I found this an enjoyable read as well. I was really really busy last week and that kept me from reading the entire script in one sitting, but if I had had the time, this script would've been a breeze to read through.

I too, was a bit turned off by the cliche* billionaire beautiful, blah blah people, but the mystery of what had happened was interesting enough to override that. Btw, I HATE superheroes!!!!! I had not seen the show and I had no idea Oliver is supposed to be one. If I had known, I would've lost interest right away. In this pilot, that was not an issue however as the superhero stuff didn't really come into play until later on.

Quoted from DS The pilot really managed to set up a lot in a brief amount of time and I found mostly all of it interesting. It's apparent that there are going to be plenty of storylines to follow. I won't stop on them all right now as it would take a lot of space. The business aspect didn't get much screentime for the pilot, and understandably so, but I liked how it was handled. A reason for his family's wealth and their positions in it was actually shown and handled believably, instead of sidelining it almost completely and just having everyone be rich. I don't know how much focus it will get in future episodes, but I liked it here.

I thought that was a good set-up for a bigger plot later on. Not enough room for it in this pilot. Here, we're just introduced to the main characters and the mystery of what happened to Oliver during those five years and what the hell happened to his dad? An accident or something more sinister? Enough to keep me reading.

Quoted from DS The two sides to Oliver, as usually for superhero stories, were also interesting. He's not just an average guy, he's a rich spoiled brat -- seeing him swap between the two was great to follow. Tommy was a fun representation of that side, the comedical character. I didn't enjoy his entrance scene at all, but warmed to the character later on. The choice for him to be the first to find out about Oliver was a very good one imo.

I haven't warmed up to him yet.

Quoted from DS What didn't sit with me was the reveal of the kidnapper. It just seemed out of place that Moira's first move to find everything out would be to order a violent kidnapping, when she could have spied on him -- or hell -- even tried to ask what happened. She was just too close to Oliver for it to feel necessary. Maybe it'll be explained better in future episodes, but I wasn't a big fan of that reveal. It was important for the superhero reveal and for Tommy to find out, too, but still.

I agree with this 100%.

Quoted from DS I liked how Thea fit into the equation, too, kind of a mini-Oliver who he'll have to protect for becoming himself. Not so sure how interesting this story-line would be in the long term, though.[quote] I liked their relationship. Sort of a special close one. I imagine they will share a lot of things between each other in future episodes. [quote=MarkoMalling]Intriguing decision to name the detective "detective" to avoid the surname reveal too early. With all his witty lines, I found it odd that he was only called that... and then later realized that there's a big reveal going to happen. Looks like he will be the one mainly in the way of Oliver/Arrow's goals. A lot established quickly for his character, stand-out lines.He doesn't seem like a traditional antagonist, nor the traditional good guy, he has his own reasons -- as understandable as Oliver's, so this stand-off looks very promising. Laurel's character is stuck in the middle of all that and the story surrounding her, I found interesting. Her character itself, contrastingly bland. A smart, sexy, good girl who's a professional and good at her job, with conflicted romantic feelings against the protagonist - rings a bell.

I thought of House of Cards...

One thing I noticed in this script, which I do see a lot in pro quality scripts was the use of "prelap" dialogue. I don't use this myself in scripts. I always thought of it as an editor's job in post. However, it does make for better transitions, IMHO.  

Okay, I just vaguely skipped through some comments, yet I got the feeling I'm going to be in the opposition here

I don't watch the series btw.

Overall thoughts:
Because of this script I don't watch many series. I didn't like, can't even remember the trailers; then there's that production design which doesn't look high end when I zap around for a second. The story mirrors that whole impression.

What do you want to highlight?
At page 7 I'd almost laid it down. Gruesome introduction of characters, scene after scene. Most of them had even been introduced off screen within dialogues by characters that I only just had discovered. I don't know.  

It felt like five times a TV Voice or whoever on TV repeated Oliver had vanished at sea for 5 years.  Methodically treated like an idiot I guess. V.O. and flashback alert too.

The whole characterization was **** - Here an example I want to highlight: The detective being the father of both sisters is a good plot ( p58 ) – it is, no doubt—BUT then, after five years, the writers want to tell us, that for the first time the detective describes Laurel, what he did the day her sister, his daughter, got lost at sea; he explains everything in detail, just to tell us stupid folks an emotional journey. No, it's just cheating for plotting emotions in there.

What did you like the most:
I think it's interesting to experience how the protagonist's senses and wits have sharpened during his island stay; realistic or not but that's interesting. I think Diggle and the Detective are the only interesting characters to build up on story wise.

what did you dislike the most?
It all felt like a mix of Batman Begins, a bit of Spiderman and what else is on the market. The characters are cardboard stereotypes, developed weak and treated superficial just to force and manipulate the viewers' emotions when needed.


When I read the writers credits so far, it has matched with my personal taste to dislike this pilot. Still I respect them for being successful with other viewers of course. So, that's my first impression. Now I read what you thought exactly and will interact if possible.

Quoted from PrussianMosby Okay, I just vaguely skipped through some comments, yet I got the feeling I'm going to be in the opposition here I don't watch the series btw. Overall thoughts: Because of this script I don't watch many series. I didn't like, can't even remember the trailers; then there's that production design which doesn't look high end when I zap around for a second. The story mirrors that whole impression. What do you want to highlight? At page 7 I'd almost laid it down. Gruesome introduction of characters, scene after scene. Most of them had even been introduced off screen within dialogues by characters that I only just had discovered. I don't know.   It felt like five times a TV Voice or whoever on TV repeated Oliver had vanished at sea for 5 years.  Methodically treated like an idiot I guess. V.O. and flashback alert too. The whole characterization was **** - Here an example I want to highlight: The detective being the father of both sisters is a good plot ( p58 ) – it is, no doubt—BUT then, after five years, the writers want to tell us, that for the first time the detective describes Laurel, what he did the day her sister, his daughter, got lost at sea; he explains everything in detail, just to tell us stupid folks an emotional journey. No, it's just cheating for plotting emotions in there. What did you like the most: I think it's interesting to experience how the protagonist's senses and wits have sharpened during his island stay; realistic or not but that's interesting. I think Diggle and the Detective are the only interesting characters to build up on story wise. what did you dislike the most? It all felt like a mix of Batman Begins, a bit of Spiderman and what else is on the market. The characters are cardboard stereotypes, developed weak and treated superficial just to force and manipulate the viewers' emotions when needed. When I read the writers credits so far, it has matched with my personal taste to dislike this pilot. Still I respect them for being successful with other viewers of course. So, that's my first impression. Now I read what you thought exactly and will interact if possible.

Sounds like your average TV series to me. They're all the same, IMO.

Agreed. It's a TV show.

If you approach it expecting Hitchcock at his finest, you'll be disappointed.

It's for people to watch after a day at work. It's not even a Breaking Bad type affair...it's like Stargate or something like that. You watch it whilst eating pizza.

Arrow is very successful and popular. It's not trying to be hugely emotional or deep, but it clearly "works" on some level...so what is it that is working?


What, outside of our own subjective likes and dislikes does the script do well that helps it find an audience?

I find it helps to get the most out of Script Club to focus on why something works for the audience it is intended for...and to identify the techniques they used to hit that target audience.

You are then adding to your own arsenal as a writer. You don't need to employ every tool for every script, but you are aware of how the different tools work so you can utilise them for specific effect when you need them.

For instance: Prussian makes a good point about the way the backstory with the Detective, Oliver, Laurel and Sarah was handled. For him it was too artificial. He's right, it is. But it works on one level...which is to instantly create a square of conflict between four major characters, and allows for multiple story-lines, past,  present and future. If you are writing a story that relies more heavily on plot than it does on deep emotion, clearly that kind of thing has its uses...even if it's something subjectively you don't think is actually very good writing.

Sometimes tell and not show, does work.

Rick

I think it's down to wanting to know what comes next. People are too easy. That's why we have soaps. Same story lines over and over again, usually with the same characters too, yet people watch time and time again. It's easy watching, I suppose. Not too taxing on the mind.

I'm the same with novels... there was a time where I would read sometimes three at once (but not all at the same time, obviously). I'd have an easy reading novel (I'd class Stephen King here), then something a little more taxing (usually modern fiction) and also a biography or something historical. These days I can't do easy reading at all which is also why I can't watch the average TV series.

The last TV series I enjoyed was The Wrong Mans, but that was a comedy. I also liked, Utopia. A thriller, but British. It takes a lot for me to get into a US TV show. I went off the US shows when Friends came out. Before that though, I liked Cheers and Frasier et al.

Received an email from Leitskev about this SC. He told me I could add this to the discussion.  

"From Leitskev

I've been following the discussion and wanted to make a small contribution.

Arrow was not the best script to choose for this because it's pretty far from a spec script, I think. This looks like a late draft produced by Warner Bros and it was no doubt worked on by teams of writers through a long process. That's hard to compare to the spec scripts we work on.

There are a lot of TV pilots on the Tracking Board if you can get on there. Many of these have more of a spec feel, though I can't say for sure what production went into the drafts. I think these are better models to inspire or learn from. I'll post one below.

Another problem for me with the selection of Arrow is that I had seen much of the pilot last year on Netflix, and I hated it. I really don't care for these simplified views of the world where all rich people are completely cold hearted and oppressive and all poor people are pure and saintly. I prefer my evil to be a little more nuanced, I mean at least a little. In general I found the whole thing silly, though it's been a while so I can't remember all the reasons.

For 20 years I didn't watch TV and shows like this were part of the reason(the other was I was never home at night). This is the kind of stuff you find on network TV and I just don't care for it. It's very dumbed down. In the last year I've begun watching TV again, but not network stuff. HBO, Showtime, Netflix, BBC...those shows work better for me.

I opened the script and read about 10 pages. I echo Rick's opinion that the writing itself is purposeful and effective...though that should be a given since this was worked on by teams of writers.

Some things to note for the rules people:

Something climbing its way up

Leaves and vines and green rushing past.

A QUIVER FULL OF ARROWS
slung around his back

we FLY WITH THE ARROW

For the first time in months, Mrs. DiDio feels a smile blossom
on her face

The "rules" are broken in virtually every action description.

Now, one can take the position that many amateur writers for some reason take on this rule breaking: that the pros break it because they can, but that doesn't mean they should.

That's always been a strange and illogical position considering that literally every pro script breaks these so called rules. Every...single...one.

So a wiser approach is to realize that these "rules" are being broken purposely, not to be a fly in someone's ointment, but because it allows techniques which are more effective.

If you take that approach, you ask yourself why the writers use something climbing its way up over something climbs up.

Or let's look at the aside: For the first time in months, Mrs. DiDio feels a smile blossom on her face

I mean we have no way of knowing she hasn't smiled in months, right? But it's a way of describing the kind of smile.

I have loaded a TV pilot here for people to check out: Penny Dreadful

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzy0LIsk-c2ca3c1Ni14eUZLZzQ/view?usp=sharing

I enjoy this series so I checked out the script recently. I found it to be very effective. But it's loaded with unfilmables, I mean the kind even I don't usually recommend, such as ones that describe a character's past or specific things that are on his mind. The whole script reads like a very efficient and concise little novel. Are there advantages to using this technique? And if so, who among us doesn't need advantages? Check out the script.

What I think might be the case is this: a pilot is setting up a series, and it has to pitch it in such a way that we get a fuller sense of the character...where the character has been and where it can go in the rest of the series. It's hard to do this in the pilot merely with the action and exposition. So it's worth giving people a little taste. It was done very effectively here. I have no idea if this was a spec script...but I CAN say this: if producers read a script like this they would be eager to buy it. And isn't that the point? Or would you rather get a good review from a rules person who has never and will never ever be anywhere near the production of a film or tv show? I don't say this to flame...I say this because I think as writers we need to examine what works best to sell a work and why. When you read this script(Penny), it's enjoyable and it really sets up the series in a way that intrigues and entertains, and makes clear its potential as a series. Unless I'm wrong, that's what a pilot script should do. Any tool useful in doing that is worth keeping in your toolbox.

Last thing I'd like to contribute is also off topic. Unless Bert knows where I live, I should be safe!

I was a big fan of True Detective last year. And having watched episode one of TD2 I am extremely disappointed. I think it's illustrative of some problems in storytelling.

TD 1 used a strange technique of telling the story in two timelines, I think about 15 years apart. This was not to be cool or innovative. It was done for a very simple reason: to set up the main story engine.

There are two big questions established in TD 1
- one is the mystery of the weird cult doing ritualistic killings, a cult which has connections to powerful people
- two, and this is the main story engine, is the central relationship of Rust and Marty, the two detectives. By telling the story in two timelines, we know that they become close partners, and we know they have a falling out so that they have not seen each other in many years. So we get to watch their partnership and friendship grow from the beginning, at the same time we wonder what went wrong, and a great anticipation is made of seeing that bond repaired. That drives the story.

And of course we also have two very unforgettable characters in Rust and Marty.

TD2 took a different approach(and the same problem occurred in Netflix's Sense . TD2 has decided that "character is everything"...so they've put plotting so far in the background you almost can't see it. But they don't understand a) that character should reveal itself through plotting, and b) plotting is needed to hold our interest while we get to know those characters.

What they do is introduce us the characters assembly line style. And they go through a checklist. Character flaw, check. Character quirk, check. Tormented by demons, check. Meanwhile, there are no larger questions created, things we need to see answered.

The only plot engine is the disappearance of some city manager we never met. Who cares? He turns up dead at the end, and this brings many of the characters into a connected story line...but again, who cares? This nothing compelling about the death of a guy we never met. Meanwhile there are no relationships set up between the main characters that we care about. So nothing compelling anywhere as far as the eye can see. That's shit poor storytelling.

And the characters are boring. In TD 1, you could watch those scenes over and over. In TD2, there is not one scene in the pilot you would ever watch again. They try to put in conflict, but it's empty and the dialogue is stale and boring. Is it organic and real? Maybe, I don't know, who cares. It's not interesting. I can give you a video tape of my family having breakfast and talking about the weather. There will be conflict and subtlety and it will be organic and "real". But you'll be bored to death, I promise.

There's a scene where the female detective confronts her new age father about her sister. It's so uninteresting you'll wish HBO had commercials. I mean there is literally not one interesting word of dialogue, and you have 2 characters that you have no emotional investment in whatsoever. That's not good story telling. Try watching this with your hand on the remote. It takes and act of will to not change the channel. When it comes down to it, the only rule that matters is to grab and hold an audience's attention. That's all storytelling is. If that fails, it's not working.

Rust in TD 1 was not "real". No one talks like that. But you can't take your eyes off him. You listen to every dark word he utters. It's captivating.

Back to Arrow:

Do people care about any of these characters? I can't say. I found it hard. You get the kid who is found on an island and it turns out he was a rich scumbag girlfriend cheater. He has been given a chance to change through this. But do I care? Does it even make sense? Is there something interesting about the bad guys that makes them worth defeating? Or are they just more comic book cliches about evil rich people setting out to destroy the environment, oppress the poor, and pile up nickels?

Script club is an interesting exercise because it makes me realize, in asking these questions, that I have examples of this in my own work. So I have to work at weeding them out in the future.

If anyone actually read this whole post, I owe them a beer and a shot!

I wanted to contribute, unfortunately this was all I could come up with. Not a very good analysis of the script. "

Thanks, Kevin, for your review - I read it in full, only the part about True Detective went over my head as I haven't watched/read it.
I'm going to read your Penny and see what's it about.



About the Arrow again:

I very much agree with Rick when he says:

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's a TV show. If you approach it expecting Hitchcock at his finest, you'll be disappointed. It's for people to watch after a day at work. It's not even a Breaking Bad type affair...it's like Stargate or something like that. You watch it whilst eating pizza. Arrow is very successful and popular. It's not trying to be hugely emotional or deep, but it clearly "works" on some level...

It's a popcorn TV show that works. They took cliche plot, added nice turns and twists to it, made us come up with questions at the right bits, gave their characters nice lines. Oliver is still in a shadow for me, but I'm interested to see what's he about.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Prussian makes a good point about the way the backstory with the Detective, Oliver, Laurel and Sarah was handled. For him it was too artificial. He's right, it is. But it works on one level... Rick

True that. That adds to the melodramatism, makes it almost a soap, but a superman soap is a new area for me. THe main thing here is not to deteriorate to a simple soap. Once Upon A Time was fresh and fun but I had to stop at season 3 - so soapy it became.

Quoted from PrussianMosby It felt like five times a TV Voice or whoever on TV repeated Oliver had vanished at sea for 5 years.  Methodically treated like an idiot I guess. V.O. and flashback alert too.

Technically, it was just two different news networks that were reporting it and it only lasted about a page. I wouldn't say it was spoon-feeding or anything. It showed that this was important enough to be broadcast on a serious network... and also topical enough to be broadcast on a gossipy one. Both broadcasts gave the viewer information that stayed true to what they would normally broadcast and gave out a different side of the story. This has also been done a fair amount of times in the US version of House of Cards, show different networks discussing the same thing. I've always liked it there, too.


Cheers for dropping in, leitskev. You make some interesting points. I agree that a script that was closer to a spec could have been better, I blame democracy. Although, I think there's still plenty to take from this script.

I finally got around to trying to watch the episode and hell, I didn't enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed the script.

What makes Arrow popular is a great question and probably one hard to answer without having seen further episodes. I think Khamanna brought out a great description with "Popcorn TV". It's fun and light viewing where you automatically suspend disbelief. From what I've gathered so far, the hook is largely the plot and not so much the characters.

I think leitskev brought out a good question to move on to characters from.

Quoted from leitskev Do people care about any of these characters? I can't say. I found it hard. You get the kid who is found on an island and it turns out he was a rich scumbag girlfriend cheater. He has been given a chance to change through this. But do I care? Does it even make sense? Is there something interesting about the bad guys that makes them worth defeating? Or are they just more comic book cliches about evil rich people setting out to destroy the environment, oppress the poor, and pile up nickels?

People make a big deal about caring for characters.

It's one of those things that every screen writing book tells you is so important.

I think I've cared about characters in only a handful of films.


Shawshank Redemption
Jaws
Avatar.
Requiem for a Dream.
Aliens
Terminator.
The Abyss.
Legends of the Fall

And I was a bit gutted when Arnie got killed of in T2.


Which tells me something I didn't really know before: That James Cameron is pretty much the only director who actually makes me give a shit about characters...and I haven't cared much about anyone in a film in decades.

It's great if you can make people care, but I almost never do and the usual scenario is that scripts and films spend 30 minutes trying to make me care...and I still don't, so it's all a waste of time. And a very boring one.

So...Do I care? Not based on the Pilot script, though I cared a little about certain characters in the Tv show itself. Usually minor characters. And it's usually always because the acting is good and I'm drawn to realistic human emotion, not because the writing is especially good.

I do find him interesting. I like superhero stories. Always have. The idea of someone taking on this shitty world by themselves appeals to me.

The villain in the first series, is excellent and like many film/TV adaptations overshadows the main guy: See also Wilson Fisk in Daredevil and the Joker in Dark Knight. That is something that often happens with Superhero adaptations, that NEVER happens in the comic books.

There's often an interesting political reason for that. In the comic books the hero is always trying to change something... usually a crooked, corrupt Political system. In the TV adaptations he is often trying to protect the status quo.

For example in Daredevil comics Hell's Kitchen has been ruined by Kingpin and Daredevil is trying to fix it. In the TV show Hell's Kitchen is already ruined and Kingpin wants to fix it and Daredevil spends his time trying to stop him.

In the comics Superheroes are generally revolutionary in spirit, on TV they are often little more than security for the powers that be.


Rick

Quoted from DS I think leitskev brought out a good question to move on to characters from.

I think, after reading the pilot, I'm still more interested in the story itself. I can't say any of the characters have got me hooked yet.

Maybe Rick is right. Maybe we don't necessarily need to like the characters even if they save a cat or two. When I was watching Sons of Anarchy, I found myself liking Jax and Jimmy Smits. I loved the show, but I honestly hated all the other characters. As the final season came along, I asked myself, why the hell am I even watching this? None of these people are any good. They are all bad people and if this was real life, I wouldn't want any of them even near me. So, maybe the characters don't have to be that likable? Maybe the actors themselves can make us like the characters even when the character is written as a bad person?

I'm with Rick on the character thing. Does my head in when people bang on about needing to like the character or feel something for the character. Just cobblers they've read on the web or in self help books and feel the need to regurgitate. For me, the story is king. The message the story delivers overrides all of the characters. Else it's just a boring bunch of bullshit. Might as well watch a soap.

From Leitskev

It's not about caring for characters. We all use that word, but it's the wrong word.

The objective of story is to grab and hold the audience's attention. Without that, exploring theme or human nature or whatever noble purpose the story may have is meaningless. Because no one is paying attention.

There are, of course, different ways to hold an audience's attention. In sci fi or fantasy, or in period pieces, world building is a high priority. In any story, plotting is important to create questions we need to see answered, or mystery, or tension, or strong story goals, such as with a rom com where we create in the audience a desire to see the destined couple, well, couple.

Character is part of that objective of trying to hold and grab an audience's attention. That can be achieved through making us "care" about a character, but all that is really required is that we want to FOLLOW that character on his journey.

In True Detective season 1, Rust is a dark philosophy spewing cynical character. Eventually we start to care about him as we learn more about what he's gone through, but initially he is compelling for other reasons. One, he is good at what he does. Two, he resists authority. He goes his own way to solve a case and he doesn't care who he offends. We like that. Three, this dude is sooo dark and his dialogue is so interesting and unique that we want to see more of him. The main interest is in watching him interact with his partner, as they have very conflicting views of things. That dynamic is very effective. But Rust is interesting in whatever scene he's in, whether it's being interviewed by the cops or whether it's with Marty's wife. We sense he's a tinderbox waiting to go off. We do start to care for him. His darkness reveals him to be vulnerable. He lives by himself in an apartment without furniture. His flaws and weaknesses make him a character in danger, and we worry about him.

Let's compare him to the Colin Farrel cop in TD 2. This guy was once a straight cop. We learn through flashback that his wife was raped, the boy he treats as his son is actually the son of the rapist, but he treats him like his own, even though he is divorced. And the kid grows up to be picked on in school, while Farrel has turned into an alcoholic and corrupt cop. He's changed for the worst.

These seem like good traits to create some sympathy. With me, they didn't create any interest to want to follow this character however. Why?

He doesn't say much, certainly nothing interesting. There's no reason to think he's particularly good at his job before his wife was raped. We learn he was a normal cop through flash, so we don't really know anything about him before he became the corrupt and drunk cop he is. So we did not go through a process of connecting to him in any way. That's important. Therefore his corruption does not engage us. So there really is no reason to want to follow him into future scenes.

As for comic book characters, I am not against making characters unrealistic. We all love Heath Ledger's Joker...because he's entertaining! Because he's intellectual! Because he reminds Batman that they are two sides of the same coin. Because he recognizes himself for what he is! He's not motivated by greed...God, that motive is so sickenly cliche now. He's motivated by an internal need to create the mayhem and suffering that reflects his own inner world. And he's quite self conscious about it. Whereas Batman has channeled his inner turmoil on beating up bad guys, and is completely un-selfaware.  

The Colonel in Inglorious Bastards is interesting because he's not a cliche Nazi, he comes of as a gentleman, but one who actually enjoys his killing work. And he says interesting things. To a certain degree he is unpredictable. We're happy to follow him anywhere just to witness the encounter.

I discussed in my post Penny Dreadful. And I have watched all of season 1. None of those characters do I "care" about in the sense of it would bother me if the character was killed. But most of the characters are interesting enough to want to see what happens to them, what they do, what secrets are revealed. The pilot does a great job of setting that up. The characters are all flawed, tormented by their past and by deep and mysterious problems. But also, and this is important to me, they all say interesting things. Do they talk like real people? Not much. But their dialogue is perfectly consistent with the world that is created, a version of 1890s London. They quote poets and authors and cite artists and they fill their dialogue with passion.

And I'm not saying a character has to have great dialogue or even any dialogue to interest me. That's just one way. But there has to be something that makes me want to spend time with this character, because I am way behind on my reading, and there are many channels online, so that character has to earn my time.

Check out Penny Dreadful. Through a friend I have access to Tracking Board, so if you want a pilot from there just message me and I'll grab it for you.

Netflix has the goal of releasing a complete series every 2 weeks! How many writers does a series employ for a season? A lot I expect. And HBO wants to compete with Netflix. And every channel now produces their own tv series. The need for writers is growing exponentially in TV. Sensible to at least try to jump on that.

Quoted from Angry Bear Maybe Rick is right. Maybe we don't necessarily need to like the characters even if they save a cat or two. When I was watching Sons of Anarchy, I found myself liking Jax and Jimmy Smits. I loved the show, but I honestly hated all the other characters. As the final season came along, I asked myself, why the hell am I even watching this? None of these people are any good. They are all bad people and if this was real life, I wouldn't want any of them even near me. So, maybe the characters don't have to be that likable? Maybe the actors themselves can make us like the characters even when the character is written as a bad person?

Hmp, makes me wonder how to define a "likable" character. Particularly for writing, as the biggest part is the actor's performance. I suppose one way is to give them Hollywood hero/good guy traits, add positive features, and steer them clear from anything big that could change that image -- but doesn't that usually lead to repetitive and uninteresting characters? Another is making the viewer understand the character, their backstory, their reasons, their struggles and the reason for those struggles, actually see them make mistakes, and experience problems that have consequences, which don't magically get fixed by a save the cat moment or a ex machina in the final act.

Maybe a likable character is just a well written one and the reason we can still root for them even after they cheat, lie and/or even murder is because they've been explored properly and we can see why they are who they are, plus why they do what they do.

Although, maybe in some cases a likable character is just mistaken for an interesting character.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films If you are writing a story that relies more heavily on plot than it does on deep emotion, clearly that kind of thing has its uses...Rick

Yes. I agree on that this is what they do. At any time I zap to Arrow, this guy is jumping around through darkness. And I believe all those missions need high intensive emotional "tricks" to get some conflicts about people into the runtime - to keep going a minimum of story. The compression of constructed conflict just serves to achieve the scenario. It works.

But for myself I prefer it different. I think what Dustin says about series also takes its way into genre pieces. Nowadays we have a daily soap composition around any treated subject.

A Burton Batman or the one from the Adam West series connected things different; with humor, colorful settings, perhaps some art, and a unique approach. Lost goes with mystery all the way. Breaking Bad goes deep character etc.

Okay, I made my point about the personal side, so I write a second post about why I think it works to give some constructive input too.

Quoted from DS What makes Arrow popular is a great question and probably one hard to answer

Easy to answer; it's successful because they didn't sell it to the typical superhero comic supporters only. There's a huge target audience here concerning fantasy, medieval flair, gothic styles, and also several video games of those themes do well. Just imagine the huge overlap of different genres and trends.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films What, outside of our own subjective likes and dislikes does the script do well that helps it find an audience?Rick

As said above, I think it was clever to develop a dark mood and tone and make it attractive for the groups I describe above. Just compare the shiny Green Arrow comic hero with this show's protagonist.

Further I'm going to talk about the raised questions of this pilot?

The most emotional ones:  

Did he eat or drink his father at the lifeboat? Honestly?
What is his goal now? What does he try to change in the END?
Why does his mother track him?
Detective, Laurel, Oliver triangle.

Fun questions:

How does he place his Oliver Queen character within society?
How does he expand his superhero infrastructure?

Personally I liked Diggle. I found it interesting that Oliver saved him when his mother wanted to fire Diggle. A sequence before Oliver knocked him out but he seems to like him.

Good post, Prussian, but I'd say we could discuss those questions later and see where the character topic leads us. If there is still interest in that topic, of course. I also liked Diggle, but I don't think Oliver liking him had anything to do with stopping him getting fired. Rather, he found him easy to control and gained an upper hand over him, because Diggle's job was now in his hands.

Quoted from Arrow Script OLIVER Besides,I think Dig and I understand each other. Don't we? Very pointed. Diggle takes a beat, then nods. DIGGLE Yes... sir.

Then, he could go on being Arrow with less difficulties than being assigned a different, better, distracting bodyguard.

Quoted from DS Good post, Prussian, but I'd say we could discuss those questions later and see where the character topic leads us. If there is still interest in that topic, of course.

Please just go on. I only wanted to give some input, man, since I ripped it to pieces in my overall first post. I wanted to show that I'm open for discussion other than only shredding Arrow, what I needed to do when you ask for first impression.

Quoted from DS I also liked Diggle, but I don't think Oliver liking him had anything to do with stopping him getting fired. Rather, he found him easy to control and gained an upper hand over him, because Diggle's job was now in his hands. Then, he could go on being Arrow with less difficulties than being assigned a different, better, distracting bodyguard

I don't think it's that complicated. Those "might" be some minor thoughts of Oliver.
Still with regards to Diggle's skills Navy and all that, who else do they want to hire? Oliver is a killing machine, he doesn't have to fear.

Maybe the word "like" is wrong. I mean that he can imagine to get along with Diggle. Oliver has to choose wisely who he can trust from a human sight now.

For me Diggle is more stable to his new ego    than Tommy is imo.

Sure, he can't blame Diggle for doing his job BUT HE RESPECTS HOW DIGGLE DOES IT imo, and that ethical behaviour Oliver LIKES. Diggle did nothin wrong, he's authentic to him.

Quoted from PrussianMosby Please just go on. I only wanted to give some input, man, since I ripped it to pieces in my overall first post. I wanted to show that I'm open for discussion other than only shredding Arrow, what I needed to do when you ask for first impression.

Oh, I was just trying to keep us on one topic so the order of the discussion doesn't get too messy. Never got the impression that you weren't open to discussion, I think you're overemphasizing the fact that you disliked the script. Or I'm reading your post with the wrong tone. Oh well. Any way, your posts have all been a good contribution imo.

Quoted from PrussianMosby I don't think it's that complicated. Those "might" be some minor thoughts of Oliver. Still with regards to Diggle's skills Navy and all that, who else do they want to hire? Oliver is a killing machine, he doesn't have to fear. Maybe the word "like" is wrong. I mean that he can imagine to get along with Diggle. Oliver has to choose wisely who he can trust from a human sight now. For me Diggle is more stable to his new ego    than Tommy is imo. Sure, he can't blame Diggle for doing his job BUT HE RESPECTS HOW DIGGLE DOES IT imo, and that ethical behaviour Oliver LIKES. Diggle did nothin wrong, he's authentic to him.

I suppose he had to like him enough to not play russian roulette with the next bodyguard, but the way I saw it, the main motivation was the control he needed to operate as Arrow. Maybe someone who has seen the next episodes can clear this up for us.

Quoted from DS Oh, I was just trying to keep us on one Topic...

Yeah, understand. The character discussion is interesting. I'm going to reread some input especially Pia's long comment and the others' input about characters in screenplays/movies/series.
I think that Dustin says message is most important is right; it's even our own inner motivation, why we want/need to share, that makes message authentic. I'm not so sure about if story is above character. For me it inaviteably belongs together.

As Pia said about characters, if I understand it right, I reread, she mentions feeling empathy for some villains. I agree, it doesn't have to be sympathy for the characters - somehow you need to be taken in by them no matter how.

Quoted from PrussianMosby I reread some input especially Pia's long comment...

Actually, my long comments are from Leitskev or Kevin. I'm a woman of few words when it comes to typing.  

Oops, thought the second long comment was from you...

Quoted from PrussianMosby Oops, thought the second long comment was from you...

I figured.  

So, any other thoughts on this script? Dialogue? What about the constant use of  CHARACTER (PRELAP)? I don't use it myself. It's an editing choice IMHO. Does it make the transitions better or not?

I liked prelap usage in this script, seemed to fit the style. I think it did three things effectively:

1. Contribute to the reader envisioning the read as more fast-paced.

2. Showing and/or emphasizing the point of the scene with the prelapped line. Like here for example:

Quoted from Arrow Script ROBERT You don't know me. Not really. You don't know the truth. Off father and son, the endless sea all around them... TOMMY (PRELAP) He's not who I thought he was.

3. Adding tension. Like here for example:

Quoted from Arrow Script Oliver opens the now-familiar MOLESKIN notebook. Swipes a pen across a page: ADAM HUNT. Oliver shuts the book. MOIRA (PRELAP) Did you think I wouldn't find out? INT. QUEEN MANSION - SITTING ROOM - LATER Moira is there, chewing out a chastened Diggle.

There's not a lot of thought on the characters and the discussion seems to be slowing down. I think we could ditch the idea of focusing on each topic specifically, I don't feel like discussing everything at length either anymore -- just butt in occasionally. So, in free form, does anyone want to bring out anything else they found interesting or discussion-worthy?

Well, those prelaps. I think most series have a distinctive cutting concept. Kind of helping to produce small cliffhangers. By the way - Did they use it for real?

Quoted from DS There's not a lot of thought on the characters and the discussion seems to be slowing down.

There was a talk about characters in general and I can follow a lot of points mentioned and agree on much about all those movie characters; still, what do we have here, in this script?

What do the characters stand for?

From Oliver Queen's/Arrow's point of view, I see two groups.

His sister, Thea,                - loyal, brings him VISIBLE social problems
Diggle                           - neutral, at least not dangerous towards him
Ivan and Raisa                 - friends???

second group:

Walter & Moira                         - Oliver doesn't know yet but they got shit going on, INVISIBLE problem
Laurel and Detective Lance          - seems they have a lot to work out with Oliver VISIBLE problem
Tommy                                   - most complicated relationship perhaps?????, they are fake friends, both having huge secrets toward each other
Hunt                                           - I think he's just the pilot's villain and won't have any further importance but I'm not sure...

An interesting point in my eyes is: The only characters and conflicts, we don't understand NOW is, what's going on with Walter and Moira.


There's another point, I didn't realize yet, and maybe someone who knows the series can help.

Location and society, seen as character, seen as his obstacle, point to protect, to free, and to improve, whatever: I mean what is this city, this place about? Robert said to his son that he did a lot wrong and his son shouldn't follow his footsteps. What does Oliver/Arrow need to change? The world is quite small yet. There's that lawyer bureau, than the Queen's mansion and Hunt's tower near the closed iron company where the party runs. I think location/world is delivered quite weak with regards to that it seems to be the major need of Oliver to bring justice. To whom? Who suffers and why? Where is it shown?

Maybe there were some hints when they drove through wrecked up neighborhoods; Laurel's work against corruption, or the pressure Adam Hunt puts upon police and Laurel.

Still, where was the disaster, the cancer, the point which is needed to change immedietely? Where are the citizens? I didn't get a clear picture of the city and society. It comes across as a weaker superficial Gotham City, mirrored through bureaus and people talking about what's wrong

instead of that it is entirely shown.


@ Maybe I didn't pay enough attention because I don't even know the name of the city...(checked Starling City.)


DS What do you want to talk about? I'm defenitely open to discuss the script deeper. Maybe some others have some further stuff? I think it went a bit off topic in case of the Arrow script.

Perhaps someone likes to describe how they shot it in the end, what they rejected, what they used or decided to change from the material this script offers.

Damn long post I know.

Quoted from PrussianMosby DS What do you want to talk about? I'm defenitely open to discuss the script deeper. Maybe some others have some further stuff? I think it went a bit off topic in case of the Arrow script.

Nothing I really want to bring out. I'll just sit back and see what to reply to. Was just trying to lead the conversation, since I proposed to run SC. Characters, in specific, haven't gotten posts. I'm not sure there's much mileage left in the discussion here. Let the thread roam free and see if anything bites or whether we can call the script club a done deal. Specific scenes and writing are two shorter topics that pop into my mind, where there could be more to discuss with less effort. It gives the chance for everyone that hasn't read the script in its entirety to have a chance to pop in, too.

Also, that's a really good point about the city. You're right, it wasn't that established exactly what and how had gone wrong with the city, apart from the corruption hints and the conflicting neighbourhoods. I think the reason that it still worked, plus wasn't as noticeable, was the personal connection with the father. That's a good tip I'll consider in writing well. If it's important for the story in hand, not to forget that the location is also an integral character.

Quoted from DS Nothing I really want to bring out. I'll just sit back and see what to reply to. Was just trying to lead the conversation, since I proposed to run SC. Characters, in specific, haven't gotten posts. I'm not sure there's much mileage left in the discussion here. Let the thread roam free and see if anything bites or whether we can call the script club a done deal. Specific scenes and writing are two shorter topics that pop into my mind, where there could be more to discuss with less effort. It gives the chance for everyone that hasn't read the script in its entirety to have a chance to pop in, too. Also, that's a really good point about the city. You're right, it wasn't that established exactly what and how had gone wrong with the city, apart from the corruption hints and the conflicting neighbourhoods. I think the reason that it still worked, plus wasn't as noticeable, was the personal connection with the father. That's a good tip I'll consider in writing well. If it's important for the story in hand, not to forget that the location is also an integral character.

You did a good job as host here and without you things wouldn't have started. Let's see what happens. Perhaps those who voted for the script at first chime in. Nobody's obliged to of course.
Who knows. I'll be around...

Looks like we're done. Thanks for playing, folks - was interesting!

Thanks for running it DS!

I was hoping for a little more participation, but maybe lots of people are on vacation and such this time of year. The script was good and it was good to try a TV pilot.

Thanks again to DS and everyone else who took part!

Pia