Twilite Zonish. Nice.

Still a bit shell shocked about this being selected as the Writer's Choice, did not expect it at all. Thanks to everybody who voted for it. I'm afraid this'll be a pretty epic message where I'll go over the feedback in detail. Nobody's probably quite this interested, but I hope you'll allow me to indulge myself in a bit of narcissistic fun just this once.

What makes the result the most surprising is that for me, this was more like the 12 Hour Challenge. I have been away from the community for the past 5-6 years and just made my return on Wednesday, two days before the deadline. But even then I didn't notice this thing until Thursday morning and saw that I only had like two days to get anything done. And to add to that, I was going to be busy all day Friday so I had just the one day to do anything about it.

I decided to give it my best shot anyways and started working on an idea. It all came from the twist, I worked that out first and then built the thing around it. Nothing spectacular since this really is just something thrown together in a panic. I'm actually really surprised that people liked the twist as much as they did, since I saw it as a really routine scifi-hook. But I'm glad to see that I apparently underestimated its effectiveness.

So, now I just needed to write it.

Which briskly made me clean my stove and wash some dishes. Then watched some QI. Lurked and wrote to some discussion forums about fairly inconsequential things. Watched some more QI. Surfed around YouTube for a while, followed by more QI.

Suddenly I realised that 6 hours had passed since I had launched my trusty Screenwriter and I had nothing but "FADE IN:" to show for my truly herculean effort. Such being the case, I briskly watched some more QI. Finally, I decided to give up.

Time for food, was my thinking. Need to make some. Couldn't be bothered, so I wrote the movie instead. Funny how things sometimes work out.

I'm really thankful of all the and comments that people have made. I'll definitely work on another draft and post it to SimplyScripts proper incorporating some of your excellent suggestions. Now to respond to the feedback:

Quoted from Reef Dreamer # what happened to the payment for the first customer? Went missing. Not sure ED would agree to that.

The implication is that that was sorted between the last lines between the two and the spiffy montage. I guess I forgot to imply it.

Quoted from grademan The writing was a bit prose like with words like eclectic. Also avoid descriptions like �other standard neurological procedures� damn hard to visualize.

I have a tendency to play around with language and write somewhat prosaic passages to my action elements. I assume that's why some people have called the writing stilted and awkward as well. I usually allow myself to go wild with my action elements when I write the first draft, just for laughs. Then I edit it down to more functional and straightforward form. However, this time I didn't have time to go back and do it and even though I tried to avoid it when writing the draft, old habits die hard. I guess some of it slipped past me.

As for "other standard neurological procedures", yes that was a bit of a cheat. I mean, we've all seen on hospital shows and movies what they do, it just seemed clunky to describe it all.

Quoted from Ryan1 Try to break up those big opening paragraphs.

I've read in several books about screenwriting and some interviews that 5 lines of opening description is something that is still acceptable as long as it's the absolute hard limit. But since so many people have commented on that, I'll definitely break it up more in the revised draft(s). Essentially, I weighed the option of making the individual paragraphs a bit long as opposed to filling most of the first page with description and action. I wanted to get to the dialogue as soon on the page as possible.

But yeah, I'll revise that.

Quoted from mcornetto There were a couple of oddities in here that I thought I would bring up.  The first was "rocky chair".  I wasn't certain what you meant by that, at first I thought rocking chair but I don't think so after looking at it again.  Now I think you mean unsteady office chair.

This was just a result of the extremely fast schedule. I usually pick up things like these in editing and make them clear and consistent. The same goes with 'peep hole' vs. 'peek hole' that someone else commented about.

Quoted from Dreamscale OK, so the title was misspelled, correct?  It's been changed now.

The title was always spelled correctly in the title page of the script itself. For some reason, it was misspelled here on the forums. It might've been my fault if I messed up the submission form. I did it pretty late in the day.

Quoted from Breanne Mattson I think there�s some good writing here but the end twist is implausible. Ed would be an idiot to conduct business in this manner. It would only take someone like Steve going to authorities to ruin him.

Ok, this is a point that many people brought up and I was actually very surprised to see it. I mean, this is how conmen work in my understanding. They go somewhere to practice their fraudulent trade, make as much profit as they can before they alert the attention of the local officials and then move on. Then they repeat the process. I was thinking of it to be similar to the fake doctors of old wild west that went about cheating people out of their money with fake elixirs and potions. That is also why the base of operations was so run down. And that is why Ed had to use scouts to get the customers to him.

Quoted from Andrew Does the software insert that or is that the author's contribution? It's just very formal, which is obviously fine, but it spoke to me that this person means business.

It wasn't the software. I'm a very formal person.

Quoted from Andrew This draft needs work but suggests to me the writer is someone who doesn't just dive straight onto the page. [...] Seeing only such a small window of this world - laden with all its thematic potential - left me a little unsatsfied. Ultimately that's a compliment as much as a slap in the face criticism.

I don't. I outline furiously before I do anything. I need to let the world come alive in my head before I can write a word. That's why the world is pretty over-established and worked out for just one scene. That's what I really like to think about.

Quoted from greg The second is that the twist doesn't really work IMO because Steve is described to be in "bad shape, physically weak" due to heart failure.  Even if Ed were to put a bunch of makeup on the body I think it would be evident that this body is not healthy.

Somebody else commented on this as well, which was another surprise to me. Surely someone who can transfer consciousness from one body to another has the technology to make even a sick body appear to be in a pristine state. Also, the reason why the people don't realise immediately that there's something wrong with their new bodies is that the implication is that you'll feel like crap for a couple of weeks after every transfer. It's like after surgery, you'll feel like shit even the operation fixed the problem you had.

I tried to work in clues about this to it throughout, but I'll have to establish this better in the next draft.

Quoted from Leon Didn't really get the relevance of the title.  A little devoid of emotion maybe.

I'm terrible with names and titles. Basically, it was the first word that came to me and I just used it. It's the same with character names, I just threw something in there.

Quoted from dogglebe The only problem I had with this script was that you were too wordy in describing things.

The verbosity of my writing is something I'm currently working on and trying to find a balance. I'm getting mixed signals from a lot of people. Some people think I use way too many words and some people think that my writing is way too barren. This draft, again because of the quick schedule, is a bit verbose even for my taste, but your example might be taking it a bit too far. I've read many times that one of the signs of amateurish writing is that folks don't establish the character enough by giving a quick overlook to the overall feel to the character with some description about their behaviour.

It's a balancing act and I most definitely am still searching for the right way to attack it.

SPOILERS

Hey - someone recommended that I read this one...and have to say, I enjoyed it!  Good job.

A few nit-picks (minor ones):

* I'd cut back *slightly* on the descriptions in the beginning.  It's a bit too wordy; could be streamlined with more active verbs.

* Got a few stray "Continueds" in there!

* For the record, I guessed the twist when the second guy showed up.  But given the length, that wasn't a problem at all.

Very nice, fresh concept - and good execution.  Cheers....!

Quoted from wonkavite * Got a few stray "Continueds" in there!

Care to elaborate a bit more? There shouldn't be anything except what MMS put there automatically.

As for the opening description, I am heavily revising it for the proper release.

Thanks for the comments.

Well actually - in looking at it - I'm noticing that the Continued's *are* format correct.  

But they tend to be optional these days (Final Draft, for instance, has the option of turning off Mores and Continueds in various ways.)  Personally, I find that it looks much cleaner without them, and even saves a few lines.

Cheers,

--WV

Are you referring to the continueds in dialogue blocks, when a character speaks again, after an action line, before another character has spoken?

If so, yes, you can turn this feature off with MM, but they do not take up any extra space or lines.  Personally, I think they help, as it's not often a character speaks twice (or more) in a row - it makes it stand out, so you definitely know.

Speaking as a voice actor as well as a writer, I do strongly prefer to have them in.

Totally in agreement with you, Henrik.

Eh, I prefer the clean page space, myself.  More room for orphans.  

But to each his own.

Janet, Janet, Janet...damn, girl.  I'm not eve sure if you're messin' 'round or taking another pot shot at me, like a bunch have already today.

So, my response will be equally as ambiguous...well, maybe not completely equal, but...argh...who knows.

You are right, if you omit all the "CONT." from your dialogue boxes, your orphans won't "look" as intimidating...but they'll still waste the exact same amount of lines.  If that's how you want to roll, you go, girl.

Oh Jeff, Jeff.

To be *unambiguous*, I interpreted your "Total agreement with you Henrik" to be a potshot at me (and my generally mild comment on this thread.)  Tell me if I'm wrong.

I therefore responded in kind, and took a gentle jab at the fact that you have a hang-up about orphans.

I stand by my previous comment - that taking out the continueds creates a cleaner page.  What is what we all want in this world, don't we?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...  Orphans are to be avoided when possible.  But not at the cost of writing style and other script details.

But - to get back to the purpose of this board...ie: the honest yet respectful review of other people's work..

Henrik, ya done a good job.  Kudos.

No, Janet.  Not sure how or why you'd interpret my very direct response to Henrik as having anything remotely to do with you.

But on the other hand, for some reason, you responded and included something totally off topic, aimed at me.

Thanks for thinking of me...  

Now, please, there's no reason to get all worked up about this. If you don't like them, don't use them. If you do, then use them. I see no reason to quarrel about it.

The reason why I like them as a voice actor is because I immediately know if I have more dialogue without someone else having a line in between just by glancing at the page. That affects how I deliver the said line, so I find the information to be valuable. If I come across a new line for myself without (CONT'D), I often start to wonder if I missed something. (MORE) at the end of the page if the line continues on the next page is vital to me. The delivery changes drastically depending on if the speech ends or continues.

I personally value functionality of the script way above visual gloss. If the page looks cluttered but all the information is useful, I don't mind at all. But as I said, different people like different approaches and there's nothing wrong with that.

Hey Henrik.

Pretty good story here.  I didn't write anything for the OWC so I didn't get to vote, but this would've definately made my top 3.

I did have some issues with the plausibility of Ed cleaning up Steve's worn body so that the sickness wouldn't have been noticable to Gerald.  In fact, I thought it was the script's only downfall.

But, now after reading your explanation:  that Ed can transfer people's consciousness from body to body, how hard would it be to make a sick body look healthy again?...  I buy it now.  You were pretty convincing there.

After chugging through the opening descriptions, the story flowed very well and at a nice pace.  This story probably could've been hurt by expository dialogue, but you did very good balancing the job of showing us and telling us.

I will say that I wasn't a fan of the montage, but don't have anything bad to say about it, as you showed exactly what we needed to see.  I think I'm just not a big fan of montages in general.  I can't help but hear 'Eye of the Tiger' in my mind whenever I see the label 'MONTAGE' in a script.

But I liked the story a lot.  It was a well-used 12 hours of your time.  :-)

Do you have any other stories, features or shorts, posted here on SS?

- Mark

I thank you for your kind words. I'm not generally a fan of montages myself, but when it's the right tool for the right job, I don't specifically avoid it either.

I do have some things here, most of it rather old and not representative of my current writing. But I did just upload a revised version of an old short that I've had some success with. Can be found here:
http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1271617135/s-0/

Please ignore the existing comments, since they are for the extremely old draft. The one that's up is reworked from the ground up.