Seems like most people didn't think much of this script. This is great cuz for once I won't be that cynical person craping on everything. Instead, I will be defending this masterpiece from all the evil meanie faces picking it apart!

Okay, fine, maybe not a masterpiece. But above average!

In terms of the writing, it is pretty basic. But I'll take visual, clear, concise any day. I guess it could be considered the bare minimum for professional description writing. I'd be happy with that.

Final verdict for me: The writing is not the reason this script sold for tons of money. It was professional quality, good enough not to hinder the read, but probably did not "wow" the reader. Other factors are afoot.

Oh, and thanks all for those links on writing. Good stuff. More to learn!

The more I think about it, the more Rick’s point sounds true - geared towards a certain demographic. Tough female characters are all the rage. For now. Factor that in with the podcast angle, social media, throw it together with a good old fashioned murder mystery...

Think about it. Is this script as good or better with say, Seth as the lead? I don’t think so. I think, to pull that off, you might have to have more of a back story for Seth.

Sorry. Back to the writing.

Looks like so far, we can all agree, that the simple and basic writing works even if barely at high school level. That's fine with me. Gives me hope since I only have a nineth grade education and in a non English speaking country to boot, lol. Maybe there's still hope. It does explain though why I couldn't get through A Killing On Carnival Row.

Looks like we can also agree that the writer skillfully planted cliffhangers at the bottom of every page. Especially in the beginning.

Dave liked that the most memorable scene is right at the beginning. That particular scene did not work for me at all and almost made me quit util I hit Why? at the bottom. IMHO, it was a scene I've seen so many times before and I also felt the dog mask was unnecessary. Even after I finished the script, I felt the dog mask did not fit.

Keeping it with the times and giving it a modern feel seems to also be important.

So,

clean easy reading to make early readers flip pages.

Cliffhangers at the bottom of the pages for the same reason.

A scene that grabs you right off the bat.

Keep it contemporary unless you're writing a period piece.

Tomorrow, we'll move on to the characters.

Finished.

Discussion seems to be way more structured than I expected. I guess I'm late to the party if we're already changing the subject tomorrow.

Quoted Text I will lock the thread until 2/14 then we'll start the discussion.

Okay, okay. I am late to the party.

Anyway, I'll be brief as far as the read. It was quite smooth and compelling in the sense that each scene more or less ended with a prompt to the next. I'm lazy, so I'll usually read a script in 10-20 page sections, with amateur scripts tipped very much towards the 10-page end of the spectrum. This one was mostly 20 pages or more at a time, so that's good. Didn't care for some of the asides and showing off, but none of that got in the way of the read.

I wouldn't say the writing is leagues better than scripts I've read by members here though, even though the writer is clearly experienced. I'm talking about scripts by folks who are super disciplined, committed, and have been writing for a long time. I've been here (at SS) 15 years now and can tell you said folks are not as rare as one might think. In fact, I've seen many come and go during my time. Not to say I can pick up any given amateur script and find the same quality of writing, but surely non-produced writers aren't the peons some think they are just given the fact that they're not produced.

What made this one sell and others not? Basic shit. It's a simple plot with a well-established goal that's consistently driving the story. The main character is well developed, driven, and proactive, whether you like them or not. There's some world building in there with the WV setting, the fish-out-of-water adventure, and the podcast minutia. And there's some trendy shit to give it a boost as well; i.e. podcasts, true crime, strong female character, etc.

Ultimately, it's professional, easy to follow, and has its target demographic in mind. Very synced up with the current content out there these days. Wouldn't be surprised if I saw this (or something like it) on Netflix down the line.

And yet I wasn't that impressed. Admittedly, I've always been something of a grumpy pants. In my old age, sometimes more, sometimes less (yeah, I know I'm not that old; fuck you ). Will save some of that curmudgeonry as we delve into the details a little more. I'm also sometimes a liar; earlier, I said I'd be brief .

Quoted from James McClung Finished. Discussion seems to be way more structured than I expected. I guess I'm late to the party if we're already changing the subject tomorrow.

I was personally really interested in this script and I really wanted to try to dissect it and why it caught the interest it did. I looked at some of the old SC discussions and sometimes it turned into more of a script review thing rather than a serious discussion.

Super happy your taking part though. Great comments!  

Dave, I’ve only read the first few pages so far but your review of what you have read - and the ideas you got from it - are damned concise!  

Quoted from stevie Dave, I’ve only read the first few pages so far but your review of what you have read - and the ideas you got from it - are damned concise!

Thanks,  mate

I pretty much concur with what others have said here. Yep, the opening scene is as standard as they come, (gratuitous masturbation aside) the story beats are familiar, it moves along at a pace, its focused, sharp, the goals are set out early. I'm not as down on it as some folks are though, it’s a perfectly serviceable little thriller, well written and it kept me reading. It achieves what it set out to do.


Some pithy notes as I read:

I thought people would criticise the opening long VO but it seems to have hooked people in instead. I would defend it on the basis of context, she is a podcaster so her voice is her currency,. It’s a pretty talky script in general but as I said, its focused and rarely spirals off in tangents. I don’t mind that if its entertaining/interesting/humorous but for this type of script its best to stay on course.

I loved her transition to an advertisement after such grave, heavy material. Funny and true to anyone who listens to podcasts.

Ana’s crassness is comic and OTT. Reminds of Jeff Bridges in The Fisher King. I liked her unabashed, naked ambition and snobbery. It stayed consistent throughout, I admired that.

I was little put off that we enter proceedings after the podcast is already established and winning awards. It seems like a shortcut but I guess we don’t have the screen time to enter at the ground level. Also, I questioned how popular this podcast would get. As cold as this sounds, it’s just your run-of-the-mill murder...but then again, look at Serial so, what do I know? Presumably this is where the idea of the script came from. How viral that podcast became.

The certainty that’s its one of three subjects is so obviously a red herring. Anyone who has ever seen a movie will see that coming.

While I enjoyed Ana’s character sometimes her “attitude” is a little overkill, intentionally provocative and abrasive.

The all-evidence-points-to-Ronnie-Burnett is too heavy handed, again obviously a red herring.
Ana’s naivety on page 56 goes against her savvy-ness up to this point. As if they will just extract a recorded confession from Ronnie Burnett and solve the case no problem.

Ronnie’s house is way over the top. Reminds me unfavourably of Out of the Furnace. Porno playing idly the background? Really? Too much.

Good opposing rapport between Ana and Seth. One brave, the other chicken.

A slow burn in away, it’s not really until page 88 that we actually see a murder (other than the opening scene) and some forward movement on the case. Still, the writer sprinkles enough breadcrumbs throughout to keep us interested.

Bit silly to go to Ronnie’s house after Lynette’s murder and that Seth would agree to it.

Pretty obvious Ronnie’s video confession was coerced. Would Joe, acop, really fall for that?

Do the twists come a little too thick and fast at the end? I mean Tony is pure left of field. A bit too random. Also, the Cody intervention was predictable.

The masturbating seems a bit incongruous at the end given Tony’s reasons for killing. He talks of trash, pill poppers and fornication as sins yet wanks in front of his kills. Huh?
Anna escapes too easily.

Interesting ending. Has Ana really changed? It doesn’t seem so.  It’s curiously melancholic and gives one (a little) food for thought.

I liked it overall. Its pa pretty standard mystery thriller what gives it the edge is the podcast milieu that feels fresh and modern even if podcasts have been around for awhile now. Has there been another film like this? I liked the Ana character despite her callousness. She’s driven, tough and most important, genuinely witty.

Most importantly, my answer to Pia's original question as to why it sold:

I think its the podcasting factor. That is the main reason why it separates itself from the pack. Its a modern, topical, relatively fresh angle, even if podcasts have been around for awhile now. You take that way and it really is just another thriller we have seen many times before.

A secondary factor would be Ana. Strong female lead is important in today's marketplace of course but to the script's credit, it's pretty bold in her characterisation. She's an unapologetic opportunist throughout, not a nice person and the writer follows through with that. It doesn't hold her up as someone to be admired, it depicts her behaviour and lets you decide. She is challenged numerous times (mostly by Seth and the locals) for her exploitive nature, pays the price in a way but is also rewarded her for her endeavour i.e. she solves the case. It straddles that fine line very well I feel. I mean, she only really takes stock of her choices when Seth gets injured. Which I thought was effectively called back to in the closing scene.

Easier said than done I know but add good prose, witty dialogue and a generic (relatively decent) constructed plot, and you have a marketable script.

In terms of characters:

In general.

I can't say I liked any of them, and I can't say any of them interested me in the slightest. The only time I experienced any kind of emotion during the reading was when we met Dora's mother. That was the only scene that had any power at all, for me.


I think the person missing the most from the story was Dora. We never got to know her as a human, even after death, and that fact negated any interest at all for me in finding her killer.

I think back to Twin peaks, where the whole first season was essentially the same story, but that was genuinely gripping. We got to find out about Laura Palmer as it went along, and got to know her and the many facets of her personality and she became a mystery as much as who the killer was.

Here, I never found a reason why I should care about who killed Dora.

The killer and his motivation were particularly weak and underwhelming.

The positive aspects of the characters: Ana has a very clear goal and motivation. Her obsessive interest in murder is very relevant to modern society.

She has a special skill: An obsessive drive.
And a fatal moral flaw: She is not concerned enough with how others are affected by her obsessive actions.


The character's personality directly affects the story and everyone around her, and is also directly tied into the theme, which is overtly stated on Page 14, Blake Synder style.

That central unity of character, story and theme is almost always missing from pre-pro stuff, resulting in a much more meandering and incoherent experience.

This is essentially at the root of why this is a professional script. There's nothing in it that reaches above the mundane, but it is professionally structured. You can clearly see which textbooks he's read and he's used that knowledge to fashion a cohesive story.

Ana's character creates plot, that plot reveals the theme, the theme becomes the central conflict, the central conflict proves the theme and the theme has permanent consequences for the characters.

IE: The central character is obsessive (Character), her obsession leads her to getting actively involved in a murder investigation (character=plot) that investigation then creates the central theme (which is stated Blake Synder style, Theme Revealed, on page 14) by asking how far is it acceptable to push an obsession when other people will suffer, that central theme then plays out as Plot as they all start fighting and people start getting hurt, and it's how the film ends...with her friend broken by her obsession (the theme leads to conflict/plot and that creates a change in character/character circumstance).  

It's crafted properly. That is the only significant difference between this an amateur stuff...but it is a significant difference.

I'll pop in my tuppence worth on the characters as I might not get the chance later.

Ana I thought was a narcissistic bully. Other might read her as focused and driven but I didn't like the way she completely dismisses anyone around her. From Seth, who is relentlessly bullied into doing her will to the point his relationship is in danger to the undergraduate she shouts down when at the panel. She is obsessed with social media and craves to be 'internet famous'. At the end of the script I was wondering if she shouldn't have been charged with being indirectly complicit with the murders of Ronnie and Joe considering the way she accused and hounded them with her podcast.

Seth - weak and in no way a counterpart to Ana, just a foil for her bullying.
Joe - the angry one, seems to suffer from permarage for some unknown reason.
Cody - the loner, unable to interact with society.
Ronnie - the criminal, just to make it look like it was he was the murderer.

All these men to me are stereotypes and not one of them at any time had me thinking could he have done it, it was obvious there was a twist coming so I knew none of them were guilty.

The other characters that flitted in and out of the story were underwritten and under utilised. Even the eventual reveal, while surprising, gave no real indication for the reason for the murders by Tony, no backstory, no rationale, no explanation for a rubber dog mask.

I enjoyed the story, but the characters left me cold and uncaring for them

That's a good call about the absence of Dora, Rick. She really is a non-entity even though the impetus of the story revolves around her.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 That's a good call about the absence of Dora, Rick. She really is a non-entity even though the impetus of the story revolves around her.

1) Add my agreement here.

2) Part of the putting the big bang scene up front. Required for hooking interest. Not natural for the story. This was a story about Ana - Dora was just the hook.

I’d have to check again, but at any point did Ana redeem herself in the wake of everything. I remember her visiting Seth in the hospital and feeling some remorse, but Seth was the one who pushed her on.

Quickly - I liked Ana’s character in spite of her pushiness. She was tough, motivated and had flaws in regards to not being able to drive. I know that came later in the story and might be just a thing working to set the end up. However, at some point, I actually kind of fell for Ana.   I like tough women.

Yeah, the only time Ana exhibits any kind of self reflection (bar the very end) is when Seth gets injured. However, you know she's glad Seth demands she continues, and, more importanlty, as the audience we hope for that too. Otherwise, there is no story, or at least, no conclusion.

That's what works so well about Ana's place within the narrative. The push/pull of even though we don't like her and question her approach we have to get behind her to a degree since we want to know who killed Dora. She seems to be only one who'll get to the bottom of it primarily because of said questionable approach.