Pia

Thank you for taking the time to read this, it's been knocking around the site for awhile. I haven't looked at it in ages but planning to tackle a revision soon.

I agree with the "too talky" comment, I realise 15 pages is a tad long for this type of dialogue driven scenario. It would be better suited within the confines of 10 or 12 pages.

"John comes off in the  beginning as a nice guy. I found it a little unbelievable he wouldn't tell her he wasn't going to the wedding... no?"

-- I see what you mean, but I envisaged John as essentially a good person, who just got a case of cold feet on the day and bottled it. Unlike Mark, he realises what he done was wrong and displays some remorse at least by apologizing (I know, not much but its something) It was just one of those regrettable acts that can't be erased. This is why he's never told Elaine about it either, he's ashamed of himself.

I think its fair to say that even inherently good, decent people make poor choices from time to time that they wish could be undone. I'd like to think of John as one of those cases.

"Helen also seemed like a nice woman. I had issues with her boyfriend being an a**hole abusive guy and her acting submissive to Mark. It didn't fit her character IMHO"

-- Again, a perfectly valid point. But you forgot to include "manipulative" as one of Mark's traits. We learn of the kind of power he possessed of Elaine, who is to say the same thing isn't going on with Helen.

Also Helen's view of men might be askew, her judgement or instincts way off after her experience with the supposedly "nice" John. Someone like Mark could definitely capitlise on that sort of vulnerability and use it to his advantage.

Good call on the "altar" correction.

Don't worry about not saying enough, glad to hear your opinions. I'm happy you liked some elements of it but more importantly your criticism are taken into account and will be referred to along with the rest on the board when I go to revise this.

Cheers.

Col.

Good title Colonel, I flicked through the comments after to see the meaning, a better one than I imagined.
I can't say I was a fan of the logline though. Mine aren't great, so obviously my advice should be treated with a little suspicion, but I'm sure you could do a better one.

It's a good little story too. I got a little with who was who, you didn't visually describe the characters (apart from age) so I had a bit of a job who was where when, if you follow.

You do have the knack of describing a lot in a scene visually very well with relatively little wording. I see in other comments that people say to 'tighten up' and shorten it. I ain't so sure. Certainly, every script can be improved in some way but I think your way works well, for me at least.

I was discussing that writing style subject on the Found thread the other day. I can see similarties in style here.

A few niggles...you're using...that...quite a...bit here. It works, but after a few it did kinda annoy me.
Ice heeds breaking? Not a phrase I've ever heard. I kinda got the meaning but what does it actually mean? I googled it to no avail. Your script came up No 5 in the list!

I liked the end, I like it a lot. I'm not sure how 'the big meet' would play out on screen, it would either be great or a disaster. Might need some subtle foreshadowing. Still, that'd be the director and editor's problem.

Rendevous

Thanks for the read, I just completed a review of you "attachments..." script, which I meant to do a while back, it will be posted up pronto.

Yeah loglines are a scourge for me too, this one is a little bit laborious (in a bad way) to say the least. I will look to rewrite  it when I revise this script in the near future.

I'm not one for going into much detail in characters, only name and age I feel is essential. Mainly because if it did happen to pick up some attention, I wouldn't want specific character appearances restricting the casting process since at the end of the day you don't know who is going to play a part. Only if a certain feature of a character is pivotal to the plot or has some greater meaning should it be detailed, other than that I reserve the space on the page for something more important. I see your point all the same though about the confusion, one might have to read back to confirm as the situation comes to a head.

You must be the first person to say I write with few words, I'm flattered. I tend to agree with the detractors though as my prose can always do with some serious tightening up from time to time. Check out a script from Jayrex if you get a chance, they will teach you a thing or two about minimal writing, I’m like friggin’ Dumas in comparison.

Yeah I use ellipses a little too freely also. It’s just like to convey the phrasing of the dialogue accurately, or at least how I imagine it to be delivered. I'm looking to cut that down in my writing too, thanks for the tip.

"Ice heeds breaking" – It’s a transposition of "to break the ice" as in to break an uncomfortable silence in conversation between people. Probably not grammatically correct but I thought it got the point across in a short sentence. Ha, I'm chuffed mine was number 5, what crafty basta?ds were ahead of me?

Good point about the ending. I know exactly what you mean, I’ve referred to it on the board a couple of times in response to comments if I remember correctly. Your dead right, it would hinge largely upon the actors, editor and director whether it could be pulled off or not. It’s a difficult scene to imagine but I think if handled right it would be a “path less travelled” in terms of a finale for such a piece, complete diffusion of a situation coming to a boil but more importantly, I genuinely think that’s realistically what would happen if such a confrontation was put in front of  most of us...Of course not everyone will subscribe to this opinion.

Thanks again for the read, man. Glad you liked it and really glad you dug the title as most don’t seem to. Cheers.

Col.

Hey col, not sure if I've commented on your previous stuff but I quite enjoyed this.  The reason I went for this was I liked the title alot, though after reading the piece I'm not entirely sure what it has to do with it.  Not that that's a bad thing.
I didnt read all the previous posts, so sorry if I'm repeating.
'Aforementioned'  seems a little stiff for regular conversation, but I guess that's kind of on how the actor plays it.
'He hasn’t even bought the loaf yet'  funny line.  I like the insertion of him being witty within the drama.  It kind of shows how they could of been attracted to eachother before, and at the same time highlighting the awkardness now.
Helens long speech about how hard it was could probably be cut down a bit.
It gets a little confusing when they’re all meeting each other and waving, then looking at eachother.  Then the others meet and wave, etc.  Might be explained a little better.

Definately enjoyed it.  Like some others thought, the pacing was very key, you took your time and it was worth it.  Also I was afraid of some goofy twist at the end, 'Mark and John walk up to eachother and kiss, theyre the ones that are married'  something like that.  Glad you kept it straightforward.
Enjoyed the end where they all parted way, showing us how little we actually know about eachothers past.  Good stuff.

Ophelia

Thanks for taking the timesto read this, glad you enjoyed it for the most part.

The title refers to the worst hand you can get in poker, statistically. It's a pretty vague title I know but I envisaged John to be the seven and Mark to be the two. Both bad cards next to one another with Mark obviously being the worse of two evils. I realise a two can be used for a straight but generally speaking the higher card is of more value in poker. I know, its hazy but you get the idea, I'm happy it reeled you in just the same.

I hear what you're saying about the use of "aforementioned" but in the context of that particular part of the conversation, I think it fits. Its the only part of the script where John and Helen seem to relate to one another on a civil level and even share a smile of sorts as they're talking about mutual aquaintances. Its John's attempt to generate a bit of humour and familiarity between the two. The same applies to the "hasn't even bought the loaf yet" line.

As you rightly said yourself -- "the insertion of him being witty within the drama.  It kind of shows how they could of been attracted to eachother before, and at the same time highlighting the awkardness now." -- I couldn't have put it better myself, thats exactly what I was going for. This echoes what I was rattling on about above in regard to the "aforementioned" and "loaf" lines.

"Helens long speech about how hard it was could probably be cut down a bit."

-- Yeah, a fair point, I've been meaning to give this a re-read anyawy, haven't looked at in a few months. Going to try and cut down on that among other passages.

I see what you mean about the confusion at the end, you're not the first to touch upon it. It's a difficult scene to script but I think on screen it wouldn't be a problem. I'll be looking at it again though when I revise it, thanks for the reminder.

I'm happy you liked the ending, its the most important part for me. Some had problems with it, but my simple defence is thats probably what would happen in real life, tongues would be bitten in order to prevent a scene. I always felt sure that stark realism over drama was the right path to take with such a scenario. I think there is enough dramatic twists in between without having some explosive, head turning conclusion, again I'm delighted you appreciated that.

Thanks again for taking a look at this, if you got anything you'd like me to read, let me know, cheers.

Col.

Hey Col, for some reason I was sure I'd read this already.

I love the awkward conversation between John and Helen, and then how it turns from what seems an embarrassed meeting of ex-lovers to something more complicated.  Helen's change from what appears to be subtle flirting to achieving her goal of making John feel guilty is really good.  On the flip side Elaine and Marks meeting is similar, Elaine now has the confidence to tell Mark exactely what she always wanted to say.

I really liked how the characters evolve and come out of their shells but also when given the chance to tell their ex's who they are really dating/married to, don't.  I think this is very realistic, given the opportunity to be truthful but hurtful, most will lie.

This was a great short Col, it read easily and quickly, and there wasn't anything I could think of to improve it.  Nice work mate.

One last thing though...I don't get the title?  Maybe I'm being thick?

Alffy

Thanks for the read, man, glad you liked it. I was going to pm you to check out something else of mine cos I haven't looked at this in a while and have been meaning to give it a rewrite/clean up. Either way, I appreciate you taking the time and chuffed you understood what I was trying to achieve with it.

As for the title, its pretty vague but just came to me when I wrote it and I've never bothered to change it.

Basically, in poker, "A Seven Backed Up By A Two" is statistically the worst hand you can be dealt. This is what I've heard anyway and I realise its debatable but you get the picture if you know the rules of poker, it a pretty shi?t hand for obtaining something decent form the flop.

So in relation to the script, the men represent the poor hand, both have their flaws in different, varying way (as do the women to a lesser degree) with Mark, most would say, being the bigger pri?k thus he symbolises the two, with John being the higher card, a seven. Still not a great number but at least better then Mark.

I know its pretty broad, as I said it just came to me and it stuck.

Cheers again for the read, buddy.

Col.

I thought it had to do with poker.  I'm happy to read another of yours, just let me know chief.

Hey Col.,

I thought this was very nicely done.  Your writing (�Rid of Guilt�, �Golden Years�) has a very subtle vibe to it, and I really enjoy it.  

I�ve not gone through all of the posts as of yet, so some of these may have already been touched on.  Nothing major, just figure I would point them out:

P. 8: �Helen cold eye doesn�t falter.�  S/B �Helen�s� I believe.

P. 9: �How little you used to make feel in front of your friends.�  S/B �make ME feel�.

p. 9: �Arrivals stream through, unite with the waiting people.  John scans the crowd gingerly, Helen admonishing gaze remains locked on him.�  S/B Helen�s admonishing gaze.

P. 11: �Yeah...I never got the chance before with your mother was being sick.�  Strike the �was�.

P. 12: �The four meet. All eyes curiously size each other up for a brief moment. Ice needs breaking.�  I liked this line � ice needs breaking.

Now to the fun stuff.  As I said, I really enjoyed this.  Obviously relationships are chock full of material for a good writer and I think you touched on some good stuff here.

For starters, I like how this story is really centered on the woman.  One of the guys seems like he may be an all right guy, but he did a cowardly thing.  The other guy is just a total A-hole.  In some ways, I think what you have here is almost a woman�s empowerment story.  

Helen gets all the pain and heartache about John off her chest.  Not because she expected it to make a difference, but rather just because it would make her feel good.  Elaine on the other hand, stands up to the oaf that used to beat her.

That said, at least in the case of Helen, we have to wonder if she is going through the same thing that Elaine went through.  I know Mark claims to have changed, but he certainly didn�t seem that way at the end, and yet Helen�s actions (i.e. going up to John and telling him off) were not necessarily the actions of a battered wife/GF.  In the end I like that we are left wondering about this.

As far as all of these ex/current lovers meeting up at the airport, yeah maybe it�s a bit of a stretch, but it didn�t affect the reading for me at all.  

I thought the dialogue was well paced and nicely done.  Particularly the woman, as you really got the impression that these ladies have been put through the ringer.

I realize that some people may feel a bit let down by the ending, but I didn�t mind it.  Sure, some stories deserve that ending that ties everything up in a nice bow and others don�t.  I think this one is in the latter category.  I mean that�s life, isn�t it?  You run into an old girlfriend at the mall, and all of these memories will come flooding back and you might even discuss some things that happened in the past, but after a while, you both go on about your day and your lives.  Maybe you tell your current girlfriend. Maybe you don�t.  In short, I thought the ending was apropos.

I did have one question about the title.  I kept thinking, what a great title, but I have to admit that the relevance has gone over my head.  I'm going to go back and check the comments; maybe you already touched on it - never mind.  I see that you've addressed this a couple of times.  

Anyway, as I said earlier, I enjoyed it.  Great job.

Craig

Craig

Thanks for the read, dude. Good catches with the typos. I only recently submitted this and thought I had it pretty clean. My proof reading sucks ass so I appreciate you detecting them.

"For starters, I like how this story is really centered on the woman.  One of the guys seems like he may be an all right guy, but he did a cowardly thing.  The other guy is just a total A-hole.  In some ways, I think what you have here is almost a woman�s empowerment story. "

-- I'm delighted you touched upon this. It is something that no one else has ever mentioned but I always found it to be one of the most prevalent themes in the piece. It's funny because I'm not some sort of girl power or "all men are bastards" advocate. In fact, people who know me would probably say I'm the opposite, a bigoted, sexist pig! > or something along those lines. It’s just the way the script panned out as I wrote it, Men are cu?ts, women are the victims.

"That said, at least in the case of Helen, we have to wonder if she is going through the same thing that Elaine went through.  I know Mark claims to have changed, but he certainly didn�t seem that way at the end, and yet Helen�s actions (i.e. going up to John and telling him off) were not necessarily the actions of a battered wife/GF.  In the end I like that we are left wondering about this."

-- A good question. As you correctly surmised, Mark has definitely not changed so it is well possible. I think what John did on their wedding day has buried so deep inside Helen that when she sees him, everything is put to one side and settling old scores is all that’s on her mind. Plus, I would figure Helen for a tougher woman then the old Elaine anyway so who knows what kind of a relationship herself and Mark have. Ever since John stood her up she may have been purposely dating pricks, the whole rebound phenomenon that woman, in particular, seem to experience in situations like that.

"As far as all of these ex/current lovers meeting up at the airport, yeah maybe it�s a bit of a stretch, but it didn�t affect the reading for me at all."

-- True but a significant majority of the drama you watch or read feature situations that probably wouldn't happen in real life or could be deemed as mildly implausible. Such is the nature of trying to create an engaging story, one needs to dramatise and embellish ordinary situations into extraordinary ones.

I'm happy you like the ending. I've always stood firmly behind it as I think that is what would happen if this were to occur in real life. I reckon most people, if possible, want to avoid making a scene in public places. I would imagine they will fill each other in once they got to their respective cars or whatever. I think the ending suits the piece and I've never considered changing it since I wrote this over 18 months ago. Not to everyone's taste I'm sure but I can live with that.

"I did have one question about the title.  I kept thinking, what a great title, but I have to admit that the relevance has gone over my head.  I'm going to go back and check the comments; maybe you already touched on it - never mind.  I see that you've addressed this a couple of times."

-- You are not the first person to ask this and methinks you won't be the last. I've copy and pasted what I said to Alffy a couple of posts back:

"As for the title, its pretty vague but just came to me when I wrote it and I've never bothered to change it.

Basically, in poker, "A Seven Backed Up By A Two" is statistically the worst hand you can be dealt. This is what I've heard anyway and I realise its debatable but you get the picture if you know the rules of poker, it a pretty shi?t hand for obtaining something decent from the flop.

So in relation to the script, the men represent the poor hand, both have their flaws in different, varying way (as do the women but to a lesser degree) with Mark, most would say, being the bigger pri?k thus he symbolises the two, with John being the higher card, a seven. Still not a great number but at least better then Mark.

I know its pretty broad, as I said it just came to me and it stuck."

Cheers again for reading this, Craig. Let me know when you put something new together, I'd love to take a look. Email it to me if it’s not ready for the boards or if you just want a prior opinion before posting it.

Col.

Col, my friend, returning some favors for you here, in reading and reviewing your script from quite awhile ago.  Looks like literally nothing but positives on this script, which is great…But…here comes that 1 lone not so great review, sorry to say. I took page by page notes, and I actually read through all the feedback before posting this portion of my review.

OK, first things first…the title.  As I said at the end of my page by page notes, I had no clue what the title meant after reading.  I now see what you were inferring with the title, but I have some comments on the actual title, as well as your reasoning behind it.  Check this out…

I play some poker, and also watch all the World Series of Poker shows on ESPN, each and every year.  Statistically speaking, you are correct that a 7 and a 2, off suited, is the weakest hand you can be dealt.  BUT, in terms of actual poker for money, it’s far from the worst hand to get.  Here’s why.  If you’re dealt this crap hand, you fold, no questions asked.  Easy decision, easy out for no money risked, no money lost.  If you’re on the small or big blind, it’s still a relatively simple choice…get the fuck out once someone raises that blind you already had to put in.  Much worse hands are weak “stay hands”, in which you pretty much have to stay and ride it out, but most likely will lose against a much better hand, and lose a hit load of cash.

In terms of how it relates to this story, I don’t see it at all, nor did I as I read.  Without any references to poker in the script, I just don’t think it makes any sense at all, and I highly doubt literally anyone will catch on to why it’s called this.

OK, let’s move on…

I think you know this isn’t my cup of tea in terms of a script, story, movie, what have you.  It did very little for me, because there was literally ZERO action.  It’s all dialogue (basically).  Nothing interesting happens at all.  The scenes are all the same, meaning it’s the same visuals for the entire run-time.  OK, maybe not quite…we have 2 different scenes playing out over and over, but the visuals are the same…flat line, IMO, sorry to say.

Story/plot – Although your script “talks” of literally many years of relationship, and loads of characters that we don’t know and never meet, between 2 couples (4 individuals), in reality, it plays out in real time.  15 pages, means about 15 minutes of screen time, obviously.  But, this isn’t actually 15 minutes in the lives of 4 people, cause the first 11 pages are basically occurring at the same time, for 2 groups of 2 people.  So, we’ve got a story that literally takes place over about 6-7 minutes of real time.  What happens in that time?  A lot of talk.  And pretty much all of it refers to events that occurred long ago.

I have a problem with this, as all I see is chatting about history that I’m not privy to.  Sure, we learn a lot of each prior relationship and why it went south, but that’s it.  I need a lot more, personally, and because of that, I was very bored and hoping for some sort of twist or revelation that would spark this into the here and now.  It didn’t happen, and I do understand why, but for me, it was very, very dull because of this.

Characters – So, we’ve definitely got a character study going on here, but without interesting, likable characters, again, it did nothing for me.  Who was I supposed to root for?  What should I take from this?  I don’t know.  I didn’t like anyone, really.  All the chat was of prior events, nothing came of any of it, and I was, again, left pondering…so what?  Sorry, but this is honestly the way I felt…and still do.

Dialogue – Everyone has been praising your dialogue.  I’m not going to knock it as it was pretty good, IMO.  But it didn’t go anywhere.  It didn’t mean anything.  Nothing changed because of it.  It didn’t make a difference what the characters said, because nothing happened, nothing mattered, and nothing changed.

Action – Well, as I’ve said, there literally wasn’t any action…at all.

Overall – I think this was fairly well written, other than issues I brought up below, but the bottom line for me is that it did absolutely nothing for me.  And, maybe it’s just me, cause again, every single person who read this seemed to love it.  Take that to heart and be proud of this, based on that alone.  But take what I say to heart as well, but take it with a few shakers of salt.  I’m on my own island here, so my view is obviously not the norm or popular belief.

Col, you know I think you’re a great writer.  This is well written and there is obviously thought in here as well as nice dialogue exchanges.  For me, though, it just didn’t go anywhere, didn’t tell me anything, and didn’t give me anything to think about when it was all said and done.

Hope this helps and makes sense, and I apologize for the brutal honesty and harshness in my words.   You know it’s just how I feel, and I’m always going to let that be known.  Take care, bud!  

Page by page notes

Page 1 – Lots of unnecessary stuff in here so far…not doing much for me, sorry to say.

POV – Not sure what makes this a POV, or whose POV it is.  IMO, this doesn’t work here at all.

“SAME” in Slug – huh?  If it’s “CONTINUOUS”, then just use it, like your did above.  Stay consistent in your Slugs.

Page 2- “Pause” – Huh?  I don’t get it…

“Helen” – “Helen’s”

Page 3 – Don’t use “MAN” in your dialogue box…this is obviously “Mark”, as we soon find out.  Why clutter your character list with an extra person?

Page 4 – I don’t see any reason for the intro of “ELDERLY WOMAN”…unless she comes into play later.  EDIT – she doesn’t…get rid of her!

Way too much dialogue going on here, IMO, and no action going on at all.  The stuff they’re talking about doesn’t mean anything to me and I don’t know anyone they’re referring to.

Page 5 – comma after “most”

Again, because all of these characters that are being discussed haven’t been intro’d, it doesn’t mean anything at all, and I’m not sure where this dialogue is going.

“They eyes…” – “Their eyes…”

“SAME” – again, use “CONTINUOUS” or an actual time frame.

Page 7 – “SAME” in Slug.  Get rid of these!

An awful lot of dialogue again with literally no action or even breaks in the dialogue text.

Page 8 – “…Helen cold eye doesn’t falter.” – No clue what this is supposed to mean.

“WALKWAY” – I think you mean “JETWAY”

“any more” – “anymore”

Missing a period after “handle”

“bachelor’s quay” – should be “Bachelor’s Quay”, no?

Page 9 – “How little you used to make feel in front of your friends.” – Missing “me”

“You too pissed to remember and I too chicken shit to leave you.” – This line doesn’t make sense to me the way it’s written.

“SAME” – again…

“Helen” – “Helen’s”

Page 11 – Missing a period after “me”

Don’t like the “CUT TO’s” – IMO, not necessary in a spec script unless they really do something, and here, they sure don’t.

Page 12 – “DITTO:” – Huh?  I don’t get it…sounds like an aside, and I think you know how I feel about those…

“Ice needs breaking.” – oh boy, there’s an aside for sure.  Don’t like it…no reason for it at all, IMO.

“Will she hang him?” – Col, c’mon now, man!  What’s going on all of a sudden with these asides?  Get rid of them!!!

Page 13 – “…we have a long journey ahead of us.” – this line sounds completely false.

“Yeah, we have to be somewhere too (ushers to Helen) Will we make a move, pet?” – Missing a period after “too”.  Also, really don’t like or understand the 2nd line here.  Doesn’t sound good at all, IMO.

Missing another period after “Helen”

Page 15 – “Both sets of people…” – Doesn’t sound good at all.  Not a good way to end this.

I don’t get it.  I don’t get anything from the title…what am I missing?  I’ll read the other comments and post my overall feelings up front.

Jeff

Ah yes, another ecstatically positive review from the scale(r) of dreams I see. Nice one, dude

As always, thanks for the read, Jeff. I really appreciate the time you take in your analysis, good bad or indifferent.

As you've learned (the hard way) my caveat of "not your cup   of tea I'm thinking" was not to be taken lightly.

I response to your comments:

The title: So you agree that it is statistically the worst hand? I’m not too bothered about its application within the context of a game, being on small or big blinds or the amount of money that may be won or lost. I was only concerned about it being “statistically” the worst hand, which is true.

In regards to the meaning of it in relation to the script No, your correct there is no mention of poker, it’s meant to be a (albeit scant) metaphor for the two male characters, John & Mark. Both of them have their flaws (like us all) but it’s fair to say, Mark is the bigger prick when comparing both. Thus he represents the two with John representing the seven as within that hand the seven is a better card for the hope that you might get a “straight” or “run”. As I say, it’s pretty vague but (with the risk of sounding pretentious) such is the way of metaphors.

You say “highly doubt literally anyone will catch on to why it’s called this” I have no problem with that whatsoever, in fact the less that get it the better because when the ask I know I can tell them straight off, and they can either go with it or not.
I’m a firm believer that titles don’t have to be intrinsically related to the content of the script. I’d much prefer a cryptic, partially relevant one at some obscure level that sounds cool or eye catching then a blatantly obvious one. I don’t always come up with those but I wish I could. I mean, think of “Reservoir Dogs” great film, great title but it has no meaning within the context of the film. Yes, I know the group of thieves are referred to as The “Reservoir Dogs” in the opening credits but it’s never mentioned again. Tarantino got the phrase from a customer misinterpreting the title of Louis Malle’s “Au revoir les enfants”. He has said himself he went with that handle because it sounded cool, no other reason. He liked the sound of those two unrelated words juxtaposed together, figured it would make an interesting and provocative title and I totally agree with him.

I’m not saying this title is any of those things but it has sparked the interest of a few readers in the past to check it out, it’s something I’ve been asked time and time again and I don’t mind explaining it.

To explain myself and the reasoning behind writing this was simply the idea of two pairs of ex’s where things had ended badly, meeting again, by chance after some years. I thought of a way to tie them together, place them in a scenario where they would begin apart but could be brought together over a short period of time, hence the airport. This, although it didn’t work for you, was to create the drama since the audience knows within the opening exchanges that John and Helen are waiting for Elaine and Mark respectively. It’s an improbable coincidence sure but that the beauty of drama, random sh?t is allowed to happen.

The climax or anti climactic ending as it turns out to be was completely intentional. My aim was to let both scenes build and build, let the tension rise and rise before both injured parties have their freak out, say their piece just before being reunited with their current loved ones. I ended things the way I did because I believe that’s what would happen in real life if such a situation was to occur. I know there are people who would lay it all out there, cause a scene, expose the men for their past shortcomings/atrocities but I think it’s fair to say that the overwhelming majority would bit their tongue, avoid a confrontation, save it for the car or when they get home and that’s what I went for here. Might not be the most satisfying conclusion for some but I was determined to stick to my guns with this one. To create this growing sense of unease, this steady build of animosity before diffusing the whole thing right at the moment of eruption and revelation. It didn’t work for you, it’s not your thing, that’s totally cool.

"It did very little for me, because there was literally ZERO action.  It’s all dialogue (basically)."

-- I have no problem with dialogue heavy films as long as it’s going somewhere and we are learning something about the characters. In the script, I attempted to have both sets of ex partners go through the motions of small talk, being civil, showing face, considering they haven’t seen each other in so long before it gradually takes a more sinister tone and we find out the past between them. Slowly the frivolities are cast aside, the act can only be kept up for so long before your emotions will get the better of you. Although, in Elaine’s case she doesn’t entertain him from the get-go due to how badly he treated her, which is understandable but I tried to pace in such a way that we don’t find out the extent of things till right before they are passing into the arrivals lounge.

You see, as I’ve watched films over the years and (hopefully) become a more discerning viewer I have definitely swayed to a character driven film goer as opposed to a plot driven one. I know they are joined at the hip, can’t have one without the order but in terms of action films over a straight drama/character study, gimme the drama any day. They tend to stick with me longer, leave a greater impression then all the explosions, gun toting set pieces will ever do. I generally tend to approach the word “Action” in films with caution, too much of it has a disengaging effect on me. Case in point, when I was younger “Aliens” was my favourite film for a stint, I thought it was the fu?kin’ bomb. While “Alien” I could take it or leave it. Such reactions as “too boring”, “too much talking” and “not enough action” were my staple gripes...Oh, how that’s changed. I mean, I still enjoy “Aliens” but it doesn’t have sh?t on the first one, in my opinion.

"The all dialogue and no “action” done nothing for you here (as I expected) and that’s ok. Nothing interesting happens at all”

–- For you maybe but I was intrigued by the idea of two pairs of estranged ex partners meeting each other, having it out before realising the connection to their current ones and gauging the reactions when they collide.

“The scenes are all the same, meaning it’s the same visuals for the entire run-time.  OK, maybe not quite…we have 2 different scenes playing out over and over, but the visuals are the same…flat line,”

–- So what? “12 Angry Men” takes place in one room and it’s a masterpiece, completely gripping from start to finish. “The Dial M for Murder” again predominately set in one room, with a couple of different locations. Same could be said for “Rear Window”. And whatever you & I may think about these films, they are much loved and considered classics so they must be doing something right.

For me, in most cases, what goes on in the scene matters exponentially more then where it’s set. Also, Mark and Elaine are constantly moving so the backdrop will always be changing. The scenes may be all dialogue but they don’t repeat themselves or go over the same ground. Both sets of characters have different wounds, different situations and factors which gave rise to their past strife. I tried to keep each scene fresh, progress to a point, a common “getting it off ones chest” scene before all four come together

“Although your script “talks” of literally many years of relationship, and loads of characters that we don’t know and never meet, between 2 couples (4 individuals), in reality, it plays out in real time.  15 pages, means about 15 minutes of screen time, obviously.  But, this isn’t actually 15 minutes in the lives of 4 people, cause the first 11 pages are basically occurring at the same time, for 2 groups of 2 people.  So, we’ve got a story that literally takes place over about 6-7 minutes of real time.  What happens in that time?  A lot of talk.  And pretty much all of it refers to events that occurred long ago.”

-- This brings me back to the matter of authenticity, of portraying a realistic set of events. If you hadn’t met someone in a long time, someone you had a history with, you were once close but something happened and you drifted apart, what would you talk about? At a chance, unexpected meeting like this the all too familiar small talk would be resorted to first, reminiscing of old times, people and places you both new to achieve some sort of middle ground or parity with the other whilst trying to stave off the uncomfortable situation.

This is why they talk of Dave, joke about his attitude and the predicament he’s in. It’s a way of connecting with the other person...or just having something to talk about. And it works, they share a reserved laugh, there is some fondly remembered nostalgia there which quickly dissipates at the mention of the bracelet.

And I wasn’t going to riddle the thing with flashbacks just to abide by the “show and not tell” rule. What’s going on here is going on now, it just happens that the implications of the past are informing what is been said, these confrontations being a direct consequence of past actions.

When you say “and loads of characters that we don’t know and never meet,” Who are these “loads of”? I don’t constitute Dave, Caroline, her father and mentioning that they are going visiting Mark’s parents as “loads”. And John’s Mother attributes to their break up because of her illness so mentioning her couldn’t be avoided.

"I have a problem with this, as all I see is chatting about history that I’m not privy to.  Sure, we learn a lot of each prior relationship and why it went south, but that’s it.  I need a lot more"

-- What “more” do you want to hear. As you say, we learn how each relationship went tits up, what else do you want to know about them, within the context of their meeting like this?

“and because of that, I was very bored and hoping for some sort of twist or revelation that would spark this into the here and now.  It didn’t happen, and I do understand why, but for me, it was very, very dull because of this.”

-- You’re right, there is no twist for the audience as we know the connection between the four from the early stages. The twist is for the characters as they don’t know this until they meet. This is where I hoped the interest would be generated from. The fact that we know Elaine and Mark will reach John and Helen in a matter of minutes given the location, how will they handle the situation? As it draws to a close we learn more and more sh?t about the men which in turn raises the stakes of their impending meeting.

And yeah it doesn’t happen, this, I knew was going to divide readers and what I figured you would have the biggest issue with. Some will go for the low key ending others will be like WTF! and I can understand that, obviously I’m of the former ilk.

"So, we’ve definitely got a character study going on here, but without interesting, likable characters, again, it did nothing for me."

-- True, the men are cu?ts, to varying degrees. But I do believe John is not an inherently bad bloke. He does show remorse, it was a sticky situation he was in. He just handled it poorly. I won’t make any excuses for Mark, he’s rotten to the core.
But the women, what’s your beef with them? They’ve been fu?ked over, treated like sh?t and now they’re granted some vindication of sorts by saying their bit. I think it’s even more admirable that they bite their tongue at the end, it’s like they’re over it, the bitching session/freak out was enough. They’re the bigger women (so to speak) they won’t sink to their level...Although Helen is hinted to show some regret by her expression when they depart.

And Elaine, by right, should let her know what kind of man she’s getting involved with, which I think she will do through John. This is alluded to in the “I’ll tell you in car” line.

“Who was I supposed to root for?” The women of course and that Mark will get his comeuppance. Not so much for John, I do believe he’s not so bad.

If John does act on Elaine’s warning about Mark and tries to contact Helen, possibly getting her out of a hazardous relationship might offer some redemption for him for leaving her at the altar. I left the conclusion open ended for the reader to speculate these things. But yeah, you should be rooting for the chicks here, man, unless bitch slappin’ is your thing. And of course, if it is, that’s cool. Who am I to judge

"and I was, again, left pondering…so what?  Sorry, but this is honestly the way I felt…and still do."

-- I hear ya, an understandable reaction.

“But it didn’t go anywhere.  It didn’t mean anything.  Nothing changed because of it.  It didn’t make a difference what the characters said, because nothing happened, nothing mattered, and nothing changed.”

-- Nothing changed in the airport but this chance meeting has potentially far reaching implications for all concerned. My previous comment highlighted the best case scenario of Helen getting out of the relationship and possibly her and John patching things up, maybe becoming friends again because of his noble intervention.

Or, in a not so happy ever after world, Elaine tells John of Mark, he tries to convince Helen, who doesn’t believe him. Mark might not have abused her yet. Helen could take offense to this, see it as John trying to interfere and tell Elaine of his indecision all those years ago. It’s clear that John hasn’t told Elaine about Helen prior to the airport meeting, thus she doesn’t know he was once engaged.

This is where I left things open for interpretation, to draw your own inclusions. But something tells me you won’t be bothering your ass to do that with this anytime soon

(Cont'd)

(Cont'd)

“Hope this helps and makes sense, and I apologize for the brutal honesty and harshness in my words.   You know it’s just how I feel, and I’m always going to let that be known.  Take care, bud!“

-- I always include these disclaimers with you too as they’re good manners but you don’t have to apologize, Jeff. I crave criticism, the more thought through, truthful and passionate the better and you never fall short in that department. As long as you maintain brutal honesty with me, you won’t hear me complaining. I’ll always contest one’s point of view if I feel I have a case, an explanation which I firmly believe in as to why I done something a certain way but I’m always the better for it and really treasure the feedback you give whether it be positive, negative or constructive.
I must also disclaim too that I merely use the films mentioned above as a reference , something to showcase my point. I am by no means under the misguided allusion that anything I’ve done, most of all this, compares to them, in any way. I know it’s an obvious thing to say but I felt I should include it. I’m sounding like the end credits of a fu?king film myself here -- “All characters depicted...entirely coincidental...etc etc etc ”

In response to your page by page notes, any ones I don’t address, you can take it that I concede and agree with you or I have referred to them already. Again, everyone one of them I’m hugely grateful for, thank you.

"Lots of unnecessary stuff in here so far…not doing much for me, sorry to say."

–- Can you elaborate on what exactly? I don’t know what you’re referring to.

“Not sure what makes this a POV, or whose POV it is.  IMO, this doesn’t work here at all.”

–- It’s Helen as she approaches, John. Is it necessary? No. but it doesn’t take anything away from it either? It only takes up one line after all I included it to give a sense of perspective of this person approaching John until she is revealed when John look her way. It’s done time and time again in films so I though why not include it here. I realise its camera direction but once or twice throughout the duration of a script is no big deal, in my opinion.

“SAME” in Slug – huh?  If it’s “CONTINUOUS”, then just use it, like your did above.  Stay consistent in your Slugs"

-- No, as I picture some of the conversations to be taking place concurrently with one another awhile other scenes will follow on from one another. An audience may never take note of this but why not inform the reader of the exact time frame, can’t do any harm, plus it’s pretty straightforward to follow as it’s written. Having said that I have rearranged a few of them after closer inspection to more accurately document the pacing but I stick by them.

I do recall us agreeing before (I know, shock horror, tell the press!!) that slugs should be as informative as they can possibly be. What happened, brother? You turning your back on me, going soft...going (dare I say)conformist?!!!

"Pause” – Huh?  I don’t get it..."

-- Correct, I see how it could be misleading. I basically mean “silence” or “beat.”

"I don’t see any reason for the intro of “ELDERLY WOMAN”...unless she comes into play later.  EDIT – she doesn’t...get rid of her!"

-- Meh, she is just a prop, a piece of scenery, something to introduce the scene. A minor detail that only takes up a line. As the title of the legendary Hollywood producer Robert Evans autobiography goes “The Kid Stays In The Picture ”

“…Helen cold eye doesn’t falter.” – No clue what this is supposed to mean."

–- It means her bitchy look remains, is sustained, unflinching. I‘ll see about rephrasing it but it does make sense.

“WALKWAY” – I think you mean “JETWAY"

-- No, the “Jetway” is the retractable corridor leading directly to the plane from the terminal, it’s what you step on to immediately when disembarking an aircraft. I will say though that “walkway” could be a bit confusing, I’m thinking of the long passages you find in bigger airports connecting the baggage reclaim to the arrivals lounge and exit. I suppose corridor would do or something to that effect.

"You too pissed to remember and I too chicken s*** to leave you.” – This line doesn’t make sense to me the way it’s written."

-- Why the devil not?! Makes sense to me. Must be the subtleties in our dialect. Translate – He was too drunk to remember beating her, she was too scared to leave him.

"Don’t like the “CUT TO’s” – IMO, not necessary in a spec script unless they really do something, and here, they sure don’t."

-- Fair point, but the reason I included them where I did was because we were going between different parts of the same location (The Arrivals Lounge) and alternating to and fro from Helen and John to Mark & Elaine.  Using the CUT TO: was an effort to establish some clarity within the scene and avoid confusion.

"Page 12 – “DITTO:” – Huh?  I don’t get it…sounds like an aside, and I think you know how I feel about those…

“Ice needs breaking.” – oh boy, there’s an aside for sure.  Don’t like it…no reason for it at all, IMO.

“Will she hang him?” – Col, c’mon now, man!  What’s going on all of a sudden with these asides?  Get rid of them!!!

-- He he, I love how worked up you get. All true what you’re saying, they are asides and they are unnecessary. I put them into to vamp up the confrontation, add something different, for a bit of fun really. I don’t think I’ve never resorted to them besides here, definitely not as obvious anyway.

“…we have a long journey ahead of us.” – this line sounds completely false."

-– Is this a criticism? It can be taken as an excuse from Elaine to get going, to get away from Mark, so it that respect the line is untruthful. Are you saying it just doesn’t sound real anyway? As in not something someone would say?

"Yeah, we have to be somewhere too (ushers to Helen) Will we make a move, pet?” – Missing a period after “too”.  Also, really don’t like or understand the 2nd line here.  Doesn’t sound good at all, IMO.

-- Correct with the full stop. You shouldn’t dislike something you don’t understand, Jeff. Again it’s just our different dialects, that’s all. We live in different parts of the world. That line is commonplace where I’m from, perfectly normal.

“Both sets of people…” – Doesn’t sound good at all.  Not a good way to end this.

--  Agreed, any suggestions (for the line I mean, not the whole script )

As ever your ability for catches is remarkable, thanks so much. If you even get to read this, I know it’s a ridiculously long post, I want to thank you again for your comments, you never disappoint. All are considered and taken on board, salt or no salt.  

Cheers, mate.

Regards

Col.

Hey Col,

Since Jeff bumped this I figured I'd take a look at it...

I can't believe I'm saying this because I'm pretty much the king of dialogue-y scripts, but this was way too talky for me. Not just in the amount of dialogue, but because you had no choice but to spoonfeed your audience exposition because of the one location. It verged on melodrama at times...

The other issue I had is that none of the four characters seem affected by this - perhaps Helen, maybe, as she got to unload on John. Does Elaine feel better though by calling Mark names? I see very little resolution, which is why I need to ask - why are we joining in with these people at this point in their lives?

Scripts are basically stories joined in progress - our characters supposedly have a life before the glimpse we as writers give the audience, and they have one after. The trick in movie making is to join the story at a most interesting part. I don't know if this rises to the level of interesting enough. Add to it the coincidence that each has dated the other in the past and it feels even more forced.

I think you can play with this and make it better by adding locations.  I would add each couple later on at their apartment, talking about the meeting in the airport over dinner. You can flash back to bits and pieces of the airport drama and juxtapose it against the dinner conversation, where each of the four would basically be lying about what was said in the conversation and what happened in their pasts. This for me would be giving the audience a glimpse into these lives, and add some consequences to the action (i.e., they're all keeping something from their significant others).

Anyway, just MHO, hope it helps - Anthony

Though you have some spelling and grammatic errors, the easy fixes, I found this to be a very enjoyable story. I think the imagery is very well given, I like the way it flows a lot, and I never felt any awkwardness about the connecting of scenes. The dialogue is well developed, and I could really see the actions and scenery in my head.

What I liked most about it was that you told a very visual story in retrospect points of view, so you got more than just the sixteen pages of story, and it was very easy to see the differences between the dating couple and the married couple before they even met up. I could certainly see how the couples came to where they are. The married couple being experienced and grown, and the dating couple showing their lesser dispositions. And in that, you also got a bit of a foreshadowing story with the dating couple.

Overall, I enjoyed it a lot, very nice short story. Clean up the grammer and spelling issues, and I think it'd be a great short story.