All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Seven Backed Up By A Two, A by Howard Jenson (ColKurtz8 ) - Short - Helen is the last person John wants to meet, Elaine can't begin to face Mark. However, in the public domain neither has a choice but each can leave with something restored. (15 pages) - pdf, format
This was an interesting read, looking at a relationship and then a reverse of the relationship. It was good how you developed it slowly and didn't just lay it out on the first page.
I think the script can be tightened up a little. At fifteen pages, it ran a little long. Look back and see where you can tighten things up. Get rid of the orphans and you should be able to trim a few pages off the script without really changing anything.
Yeah I'm conscience of the length but at 15 pages it isn't totally unworkable. However I see your point as it is a factor when it comes to getting it pushed thru to any kind of production stage.
I like taking time to set up a story, its a comprimise I have yet to balance. As you highlight that as a strong point you also say the story itself a little too long so its something for me to work on.
I'm putting up another short in a few weeks called "Engaged" if you come across it & have the time, check it out.
I really liked the gentle tone and pace of this short. An almost quiet, mellow story.
while reading I was expecting a twist at the end where the plot reveals that the two men where in a relationship as where the two women.
Towards the end I found it melodramatic and over the top as you revealed the crisis that broke up each old relationship. I feel a more simplistic situation would suit the tone and feel of the story, Like with old realationship the couple just drifted apart got bored with each other or one got to involved in work and ignored the relationship, something like that.
Also I felt the short was just a little to long winded and could be shorten.
I consciously chose not to have a big twist at the end. The idea of another relationship going on didn't appeal to me.
I feel these people crossing paths randomly as it is was enough. I was trying to build a situation to a head & then have it diffused just as it was goin to erupt. I mean would you cause a scene like that in front of everyone or bite your tongue, hard to know I suppose unless you were faced with that situation.
I understand your point on the melodrama.
My aim was to pace the increasing intensity steadily to the climax, it becoming more & more heated till the reached their respective destinations. I'd like to believe if it were done in capable hands this could be conveyed with a bit of punch whilst maintaining some degree of subtly & realism, non Blanche DuBois-ish.
I'm aware that attempting this invites that dreaded overblown, cheesy, characterization you mentioned (even though I like that film, it takes a special type of writer to pull it off). It is something I'm trying my upmost to avoid so thanks for that comment it will help keep me in line & not get too carried away.
I needed the history of both relationships to be dramatic as to heighten the anticipation of both possibly getting found by their current lovers. I think the piece wouldn't hold interest & fall flat if it were the common reasons you mentioned, it needed to be something juicy (forgive the tabloid-esque phrase).
I realise the length is an issue, ill try to trim it down. Thanks again for your insightful coments I'll read yours again & get back to you.
Col....Thanks for reading Hab harry. To me scripts are like cars. Something to love about all of them. The high point of this one was the dialogue for sure. Very spot on interactions and emotions seemed very real, I guess you've been on the business end of an angry woman before? Just kidding. About 2/3 the way through I found myself totally immersed, which is good because I rarely find that happening to me with screenplays.
Something negative? Hmmm...some implausibilities maybe. Like how the ex spouses were totally unknown. I think we all know about our ex spouses. So is there some reason why they both kept them a secret?
Also, running into an old friend at the airport is not too uncommon, but an ex spouse? And for it to happen twice like that at the same time? A bit implausible.
Also, a few grammatical things like 'women' instead of 'woman'.
However...great dialogue and the back stories were good too.
Despite the implausibilities, it had a great overall feel and the parentheticals were purposeful.
If this one were to be summed up in a sentence it might read "Two sets of lovers meet their ex's who are also ex lovers and they get baggage dumped on them and then everyone goes home."
So I think the main spine of this one was the coincidence.
Also, it stressed the vulnerability of waiting in a public place. I am sure John has dodged Helen's calls for years, but he is helpless in an airport. Yes, this had a lot of cool undertones and hidden things. Very truthful.
Interesting read, not too over the top. I thought the ending fizzled out abit.
Are you from Eire? As I grew up in N.Ireland I noticed you wrote realized instead of realised. I was wondering if people from the south wrote the American way or the British way. People maybe a little surprised to hear that I was given the choice to write either way.
Anyway, I noticed a few spelling errors and grammatical errors. If you are from Eire, I'd like it if you threw in a little Irish lingo.
As abit of advice I could give you. Leave out the camera directions as this is more for the director to do, e.g. 'We pan horizontally across them waiting'. You could add a little more description and tighten the dialogue here & there. And I think the John & Helen story is left a little unresolved.
The title doesn't seem to fit the bill. Sounds like a western to me. I'd messaged Don to see if he could kindly add a logline for you.
Thank you wery much for your comments glad you enjoyed it.
"Something negative? Hmmm...some implausibilities maybe. Like how the ex spouses were totally unknown. I think we all know about our ex spouses. So is there some reason why they both kept them a secret? "
"Also, running into an old friend at the airport is not too uncommon, but an ex spouse? And for it to happen twice like that at the same time? A bit implausible."
Good point. I was aiming for both of the former relationships to be something John & Elaine want to forget about. Having them as tumultuous as they were was to warrant this, like a chapter in their lives they want to pretend never happened. I don't think its a given that married couples know absolutely everything about one another.
If John was cowardly enough to bail on Helen that its well within his personality to keep something like that from his wife.
Elaine sees herself as a different person since her relationship with Mark & again wants to start afresh. Even Mark tries to rise her she tries her best to maintain herself to diffuse the situation until it becomes to much. Like John she wants to act like it never happened & both see their marraige to one another as a fresh start, let sleeping dogs like & all that.
Saying chance meetings like this is implausible is a fair comment but that was the theme of the piece. The probability of a random coincidence like this is obviously very small but thats part of writing fiction you stretch the realm of possibilities in order to create a dramatic situation.
Just look at most of the movies you watch where seemingly arbituary stories link, intertwine & cross paths to make the overall plot more intriguing, cinematic etc & e.g Pulp Fiction, Most of Iñárritu's films Amores Perros, Babel & 21 Grams. All implausible coincidences but that is the beauty of fictional storytelling.
Putting in the plural of Women instead of the singular was an elementary mistake ill correct it.
Once again I'm glad you liked the piece, you seemed to understand what I was touching on which is satifying for me to hear.
If you have some of your own stuff I'd love to read it & hit you back with a comment.
No I'm from the U.K. but have been to Ireland many times visiting friends & relations. I didn't even notice the difference in spelling to be honest. I have often spelt it the other way too, thanks for pointing it out.
Can you give me a couple of examples of they mistakes I made in terms of grammer and that.
I said it in my other the discussion board for "Engaged" that their are some scenes when you write them you have it visualised frame by frame inyour head. I know its not supposed to be included in spec scripts & it is a director's job, I just can't resist it at times but will be phasing it out from now on, you're correct there is no place for it & that space could be used more functionally for description & dialogue.
I'm glad you mentioned that John & Helen's story was unresoved, that was my intention. Both of them had more to say to each other but when Elaine & Mark approach they are cut short & their confrontation is disrupted. They hesitant nature at which they part ways is supposed to reflect this. That there is a lot more to be said but now isn't the time or the place now that the other two have arrived on the scene.
This is why some have said the ending laked something of fizzled out, I have said it before that I wanted to bring a situation to a head, have the two victims of the previous relationship all worked up & then diffuse it just as it was going to explode. I have asked before what would you do in that situation? Get it off your chest & cause a scene of bite your tongue & just get as far away from the other as soon as possible.
Plus we don't know how Mark treats Helen, he doesn't look like he's changed all that much. Each person has secrets of their own & in the end decide to leave things be, its an awkward place to find yourself in so I think their silence is justified. Although morally Elaine should tell John the truth when they get to the car, to warn Helen.
The title comes from the fact that in poker A Seven Backed Up By A Two is statistically the worst hand you can get. John symbolises the seven, Mark is the two basically saying that both are not the best men to be "dealt" in terms of a relationship & comparitively Mark is definitely the worse of the two cards.
John is a spineless yellow belly but Mark is a total demon in comparison.
Ya I mite get on to Don about a logline couldn't think of a suitable one at the time.
Hey bud, thans for checking out my script. I wanted to return the favor, so here goes. I think you are really on to something here. I was genuinely tensing up in my chair as the two "couples" approached one another. Your dialouge was great and made for a very easy and enjoyable read. I do have a few suggestions in the plot that you can either take or leave,
Have you ever considered maybe opening up the possibility with John and Helen? I know John is married, but maybe he could suceed in convincing Helen to go to dinner with him? That way it would leave the possibility of help for her - and a safety net when the abuse eventually comes her way??? Also, as an audience we would feel a small sense of closure at the end knowing there is a chance for her? I don't know, just a thought.
Also, when Helen starts cursing to John about the wedding, it seems a little bit out of character for her. I kind of got the sense that she changed a little, maybe due to the fact that you were writing Elaine in a heated moment just a page before??? I don't know, I think it would really differentiate Elaine from Helen more as two seperate characters if Helen didn't curse. Again, just a suggestion.
Overall, as I said before I really liked the read. It took a few pages to get going, but once I got to the meat it was really good. Maybe you could find a way to draw your readers in on page one somehow? I don't know just an odd random incident (this would also reinforce your theme of randomness and chance) For example, you could have a pigeon flying into a window and falling unconscious or maybe have lightning strike somewhere... just something to grab us, draw us in, and reinforce the random world we live in.
Alright, aside from those points I also found some edits:
Page 2 - "He opens and already read message,"
How do we know the message was read already? Maybe you could just say, "We read the message with him"
Page 2 - "John struggles to hide his surprised," - Wording/Grammer
Page 2 on, I would maybe cut back on my use of elipses as they really indicate a character trailing off in lost thought, I'd use commas or just end the sentences in periods to indicate pauses. Also you can do this in the description by just saying, "A brief awkward pause"
Page 3 - "The two look at each over a brief uncomfortable silence" -Wording/Grammer
Page 3 - "Yea... my am... wife," - Wording/Grammer
Page 5 - "I've got full sight in both my eyes regularly now."
I don't know, I really like this line and I completely understand it, but for some reason it just hits me wrong with the way its worded. Maybe it could be phrased differently?
Page 6 - "smiles at john's wit" - Capitalize John's name
Page 15 – “will we make a move pet.” – needs a question mark?
Thanks again for reading my script. I hope this helps out. I have another 5 page script coming out next week hopefully. Let me know what you think. Thanks,
Fair point on the grammar. Just laziness & lack of concentration on my part for most of em,
A point about the "already read message".
On most Mobile Phones (Cell Phones) the symbol changes beside the msg to signify that it has been read already usually from a closed envelope to an open one. This is the case for Nokia & Sony phones anyway. And since I have indicated a C.U shot it should be possible for the viewer to see.
Saying she seems to have changed drastically in the space of one page is a good observation but my aim was to increase the intensity up a few notches as both sets of people got closer. Maybe i vamped it up too much, point taken.
Interesting suggestion about John & Helen trying to patch things up as a way for him to warn her about Mark but I think what has happened between them is unforgivable as far as Helen is concerned especially since the haven't seen each other in the flesh since.
Not so sure about the pigeon or lightening suggestion def not my style but I'll take it on board too.
I read this a long time ago... I have no idea why I didn't feed this. I prefered this a lot more than your "Engaged" script, which I will feed later as well if I get a spare moment.
Okay, some camera directions... only use them if you have to, as directors (generally) don't like being told what to do, unless it is crucial to the story. In your script, we understand that there is a close-up of the phone without you having to tell us... Because we wouldn't be able to read the text message unless it was a close-up. Yeah, I really suck at trying to describe things... hope you understand what I mean!!
Yeah, once again more camera directions. I take film studies at college, and do try my hand at directing some (although not a lot of) stuff, the camera directions do give me a vivid image in my head of the shot you want, however, this may be because I am looking at the script from a predominantly director's POV. In general, try not to include them.
Okay, I love your description/ action. It is very concise, but you manage to get your point across, and it flows perfectly. The descriptions for characters are excellent... You put a very vivid image of the characters in my head, with very few words. Congrats brother.
Top of Page 3- "The two look at each over a brief uncomfortable silence." As this is a new scene, you need to tell us who "the two" are.
Middle of Page 4- "He looks around him." That sounds a bit weird... At first, I thought you meant "She looks around at him." Maybe "He peers around at the environment around him" would sound better.
I agree with what D.E. Jett said about this line-
ELAINE No thanks. I’ve got full sight in both my eyes regularly now. I can make my own way.
It sounds very odd... I didn't understand it. I've never heard it used before, either around London or on my travels to Ireland.
The whole Dave dialogue by John and Helen seemed irrelevant... dialogue is meant to move the story forward, or reveal character. This scene seems to do neither.
Page 8- (becoming emotional) could be on one line.
Page 10- "... and me too chicken shit to leave you." would sound better as ""... and me too scared to leave you." Something like that... chicken shit doesn't sound good in this speech.
Page 10- "Mam was very ill." - Mam? Mama, or Ma'... But Mam sounds odd.
Bottom of Page 10- Helen's wedding speech- okay, she's angry... but two "f*cks" in one speech seems OTT... Cut out the second f-bomb.
Yeah, I loved this script. This was frigging awesome... really well written, congrats man. It felt like real life- both couples had more to say to each other, but couldn't. Usually in films, everything gets wrapped up, but it doesn't usually happen like that.
I really can't see much to improve here mate... cut out the camera directions, maybe cut out the scene between Helen and John talking about Dave, and sort out the typos, then you will have a pretty solid script.
Only other complaint is that at 16 pages, it is running a bit long for a short... Try slimming it down slightly, but I mean without the camera directions, or the Dave scene, it should stand at about 13-14 pages which is better.
But yeah, congrats with this.. really excellent writing.
I LOVE the fact that you take your time when developing your story. To many cases I read scripts that are just too fast and read extremely forged.
You crafted this with discipline, restraint and put real thought into it. The story was handled it in a realistic way. Slow but not tedious.
PS. It might do you a great deal and maybe you’d get more reads if there was a logline. I, personally, tend to pass on scripts that don’t have a logline. It makes me think either writers are too lazy and don’t care OR…well that one was it.
Your logline sort of persuades readers to click that link and read.
Bryan.
Shorts: Good Golly Miss Molly No Place Like Home New Moon Rising Yuno - BRAND-*SPANKIN*-NEW! The Ballad of Uncle Sam: An Anarchists Melody Toy Soldier This Modern Love A Virgin State of Mind
Cheers for the comments, man. They were all relevant points you made on the grammar and I will be making some alterations.
On some of the remarks you made:
"The whole Dave dialogue by John and Helen seemed irrelevant... dialogue is meant to move the story forward, or reveal character. This scene seems to do neither"
That's a common thing said & it is true the majority of the time but what makes Tarantino's or K.Smiths scripts so great? It's part because of the arbitrary conversations between characters that have no relevence to plot or lacking in character development but the convey a human, buddy touch to the person, a deeper understanding of their "everyday" loves, peeves whatever. Plus its a chance for the writer to have fun, air opinions, basically talk some shit.
Some of the best scenes in the above filmmaker's movies are these passages, too numorous to mention here. (Before I go any further I must stress that I'm not for one second comparing myself to these people,"not being fit to hold a candle & lacing boots" come to mind)
But the reason why I have the conversation about Dave in there is for some background on both people. A brief glimpse of a trouble free, even humorous part of their past that they can joke about. A calm before the storm, if you know what I mean?
My aim was to give a more rounded view of Helen & John but maybe I over stepped the line. I'll read through it again.
Thanks for taking the time to check this out, man. I'll be reading yours asap & hit you back.
Thanks for the post. I have read some of your work too.
I remember really diggin' "Toy soldier", it was one of the first scripts I read here. Sorry I was too lazy to leave a comment, similar to the logline situation. I'll see about getting one up & check some more of your stuff.
Cheers for the comments, man. They were all relevant points you made on the grammar and I will be making some alterations.
On some of the remarks you made:
"The whole Dave dialogue by John and Helen seemed irrelevant... dialogue is meant to move the story forward, or reveal character. This scene seems to do neither"
That's a common thing said & it is true the majority of the time but what makes Tarantino's or K.Smiths scripts so great? It's part because of the arbitrary conversations between characters that have no relevence to plot or lacking in character development but the convey a human, buddy touch to the person, a deeper understanding of their "everyday" loves, peeves whatever. Plus its a chance for the writer to have fun, air opinions, basically talk some shit.
I agree 100% with that mate- Tarrantino and Smith are easily two of my favourite writers, mainly down to their dialogue. But, when writing a short, every word, every piece of dialogue, every action should be crucial to the story, as you are trying to get your story across in the shortest time possible.
Tarrantino and Smith have 90- 120 mins to tell the audience their story, so they can afford their characters to speak some absurd, and random dialogue. But in a short, we don't always have that luxery.
Just finished reading this and I have to give you props. I'm not really into screenplays like this, but this was well written. The dialogue was good. Even though there was a lot of information and history discussed between it's characters, none of it really sounded forced or fake. Good work.
It was a simple screenplay, not exactly plot heavy, but you make your characters engaging enough to care about. You make us care about their past relationships. I have to say though, that Mark being Helen's boyfriend and Elaine being married to John - and Helen having a past relationship with John and Mark with Elaine - it's very coincidental. But I'll buy it. The only thing is that I expected a lot more at the end of the story, like another twist based on the coincidental twist.
But nevertheless, I did like the ending how Mark lies to Helen, Helen lies to Mark about John and Eileen. It shows what type of relationship they have. Then how John and Eileen interact at the end - they seem to have a healthier relationship. Though I expected a "bigger ending" to the story, I was satisfied enough with what you had. I kind of like those type of endings where it is left open for the audience to wonder.
Again a valid point I'm always trying to keep myself in line & not get too carried away with "irrelevant" conversation as I know I'm guilty of.
spesh2k
Thanks for the comments, man. I agree the whole thing is extremely coincidental but that was the story I went for. Thats what fiction is all about, you have the freedoms to sacrifice stark, dare I say boring, humdrum realism in order to conjure up some dramatic situations/confrontations.
As Mark “Chopper” Reed says “Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn”
Great to see “The Suicide Theory” is getting some comments, it is definitely one of the best features I’ve read on the site, Good luck with it.
I have to start out by saying that, there aren't enough references to Champions League Football in writing today. Loved the sharp dialogue, and the way in which a single word or look can trigger downpours of emotion. The human condition never surprises me. I did feel though, that she was a touch too dramatic in her anger. So be it. A nice simple story that allows it's narrative, to find it's pacing from the get go.
Just finished "A Seven Backed Up By A Two", and first I'd like to start off with the title. You really have to be into poker to get the meaning of the title, and you also really have to want to connect the title with what goes on in the script for the title to work. In my opinion the title should be changed, not to something more dramatic, but at least to something more suiting.
Anywho, on to the important thing - the script. I liked the overall tone of the script and the way it starts off on a very low key. I wasn't to sure what to expect but it certainly grapped me. I also liked the sort of uncomfortable moment John and Helen have at the beginning (those moments suck, don't they) and the way you reveal the characters' back stories.
Both women really have some issues with the two blokes but what I didn't like is that it's pretty much the same kind of scene twice. I know that that was what you were gunning for but, in the long run, the scenes do come off a bit repetitive to an extent. Both Helen and Elaine take out the frustration on John and Mark in almost the same manner (though Elaine seems a bit more feisty).
John and Mark are very different characters which is good, and while Mark seems like a regular asshole, John appears to have genuinely changed. That's why I would have like to see John a bit more defensive and maybe even snap at Helen.
Overall I think the script works but I also think that it could be a little tighter, especially the dialogue. Some of it feels like monologues. Also, maybe throw a little action in there. I don't mean a fight scene or a car chase but something that takes them away from just standing still - it's all very static.
Anyway, my two cents.
Cheers Rob
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
I appreciate the comments, you make some good points here regarding the static nature of the piece, the similarities between the two girls the dialogue turning into monologues.
All relevant observations although I like the simplicity of the four characters having it out, no frills or gratuitous "action" to distract or fill gaps. Just a good old fahioned confrontation with emphasis on the character protrayal & immediate conflict & motivations.
I doubt I'll change the title. I have already explained above the meaning behind & if people don't get it thats cool. I should be looking into getting a logline attached instead (I've been lazy about it).
I don't think John has any grounds to snap at Helen after what he's done. He must take this on the chin.
The fact that he "appears to have genuinely changed" as you put it should back up my decision. Cos if he's changed it means he knows he was wrong in the first place so "snapping" at Helen would be contradictory.
Having said that I wanted to protray John as an inherently good person, who just wasn't ready to commit at that time in his life. Unfortunately his method of solving the dilemma was a little cowardly to say the least.
Thanks again for your opinions. I'll read some more of your stuff & leave a comment & if you get a chance you mite return the favour.
The fact that he "appears to have genuinely changed" as you put it should back up my decision. Cos if he's changed it means he knows he was wrong in the first place so "snapping" at Helen would be contradictory.
Well, the way I understood his backstory was that he was a drinker and a guy who, at one point, simply wasn't ready to commit to a relationship. I didn't see him as a loud mouth abusive figure so, from that point of view, I don't see it as being contradictory.
Mark, on the other hand, would be a completly different story.
Down in the hole / Jesus tries to crack a smile / Beneath another shovel load
He just wasn't ready to tie the knot but left it till the last minute before bailing out on Helen.
I think you are confusing him with Mark who has all the above undesirable traits you've mentioned e.g habitual drinker, loud mouth, abusive etc.
Basically, what I'm saying is John was totally in the wrong in what he done to her. I tried to get this across from his body language & abrupt replies, that he KNOWS he went the wrong way about it & hurt Helen deeply in the process.
This is why I wasn't goin to have him go on the defensive, it just didn't fit his persona. Helen was the one with all the pent up anger, this is her stage to let rip.
I should have said "unjustified" instead of "contradictory" my bad.
Thanks again for taking the time to discuss this, Rob. If you have ny other questions/remarks, don't hesitate.
Thats cool, at least you have an opinion. I just came across your infamous "Second Draft" (I was completely ignorant to this until I clicked on your script link (I am still relatively new to the site)
Lookin' forward to checking it out later on the basis that the few comments I've read about it have been unanimously positve...very positive. I'll hit you back when I get around to it.
Like most everyone else I enjoyed the dialogue in this one, not just the content but how they spoke (maybe that’s just the Yank in me talkin’). I usually get all bent with contrived coincidence, but for some reason this one didn’t bother me at all. Only minor point being with Mark saying he saw Elaine on the plane. With his personality I would have thought he’d have approached her then, or at least buy her a drink and send it over, instead of waiting for baggage pick-up. Perhaps if one of them was bumped to first class, or he was in the back of the plane and he never saw her?
I had a similar reaction as Sniper about the conflict between the two couples. At first I thought that it was going to be a contrast between Elaine and Mark at odds, and John and Helen feeling an attraction. When Helen abruptly unleashes on John on page ?? (yes, specs should have page numbers!), I felt like this came out of nowhere. It’s also where my interest waned somewhat. This is where it became about two women just going off about past grievances.
I don’t mind the quiet ending, but the problem, I feel, is nothing’s changed, no one’s made a choice, or made a discovery. More than being static physically, the characters and events are static. There’s conflict and emotion, but no story. I know this is the type of thing you prefer, more character portraits played out with a random event, but at some point you should consider introducing storytelling elements into your work. I think doing this would really put your shorts over the top and harness the power of your characters in a purposeful way. But somehow I suspect you’re going to stick with bucking the old school and going your own way.
Format/Mechanical Notes: General: Your use of the ampersand (&) everywhere drives me nuts. Feels lazy and makes it awkward to read. General: Most of your ellipses can be replaced with periods or commas. Pg. 1: “C.U” should be “C.U.” (missing second period in two spots) Pg. ?: “H.R” should be “H.R.” (missing second period) Pg. ?: “Both are standing next to each other...” – since you change scenes on us here, should be “John and Helen stand next to each other...” Pg. ?: “A voice...calling out ETAs” – If we hear this, you need to put it as dialogue. If it’s not that important, maybe just drop it? Pg. ?: “How’s your Mother keeping?” – mother should be lower case. Pg. ?: “The Doctor said...” – doctor should be lower case. Pg. ?: “MARK(CONT’D” – missing closing ), but you can drop these (cont’d)s all together. Pg. ?: “supposed to be n...” should be “supposed to be n--” dashes show interruption, ellipses show pauses or trailing off. Pg. ?: “a coward.” Should be “A coward.”
Thanks for an interesting read. Good luck!
Why do things that only happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
I appreciate your feedback you made some interesting points that I will take into consideration. Just a few things on what you said:
I have been told more then once that page numbers are NOT required in spec scripts.
My idea was to have Helen's freakout come as a shock as she had been keeping it together, but when you find out more about their past & circumstances I think she is well within reason.
You say that nothing has changed, I have to disagree. The two women get a chance to get things off their chest & to some degree are the better for it.
Elaine is reluctant at first, she would prefer not to have to deal with mark but when she does let him have it & even though he maintains himself enough to deride her just before the meet the other two we know Mark has been shaken & sees he isn't dealing with the same push over as before.
As for Helen, she just never got the opportunity before, this is what she's been waiting for .
Given the situation & location, I think this is enough & more importantly closer to what might happen in real life. I'm not interested in having to come to some sort of a quantifiable resolution or a lesson, a big revelation. Unfortunately things rarely turn out like that...except in movies of course & we've seen enough of them.
Saying that both women are too similar is a fair point but aren't they -- I won't finish that one. (note the use of dashes as opposed to ellipses, I'm catching on)
In terms of storytelling & shorts scripts. My perception of a short is, its like you walk in on the characters, a fly on the wall that only sticks around for a snippet of their lives In that time you try and make the brief interaction count whether through comedy, drama, horror etc.
When I set out to try & write a short (the keyword being "try" here), the story or plot isn't what first interest me not the greater plot. I'd prefer to save that for feature length screenplays.
Some shorts on here show potential for expansion & development into a greater story, others dont but this doesn't detract from the latter.
Some of the best stuff I've read here has been the one off scenario premise...but like everything, each to their own taste & that is whats great about this site.
About the technical discrepancies you mentioned:
In the majority of scripts I've read, ampersand is commonly used. The only rule is: Don't have it in dialogue only prose. I wouldn't put it down to laziness, man it's only an extra two characters. Tho it does save space, that's why I do it.
I realise I use ellipses maybe too frequently( & incorrectly as you rightfully pointed out) But they help phrase what the character is saying for me. Breaks it down & allows the reader to grasp how he/she is delivering the line( I know we are moving into Director territory with this) But ya I probably need to tone them down a little.
I wouldn't give the ETA announcer is own line, just change it to something like "The muffled, inaudible voice of the announcer is heard over the intercom" Maybe drowned out by people passing by.
Again you are correct on the capitalisation that is a result of lack of concentration.
In a screenplay format article on the BBC writers room web site they refer to the inclusion of (CONT'D) if its a new page or if a character is to speak again after he/she is cut off with a line of prose or whatever.
Plus I think its easier for the reader not to get confused & know the same character is talking.
Thanks again for your comments, always very observant & helpful.
I have been told more then once that page numbers are NOT required in spec scripts.
I'm sorry, but this one still absolutely baffles me. I've been monkeying around with screenwriting for years now, read scores of books, participated in many forums, and talked to a few professional screenwriters, and never have I ever come across the idea, or even the suggestion, that you shouldn't use page numbers.
Logic alone should prevail here. What do you say when you're talking about your script?
Col: How'd you like the exploding balogna scene? Agent: Ah, yes, about that...let me turn to that...can't find it... Col: It's somewhere in the middle. Agent: What page? Col: It's a spec. Agent: Uh, okay, what page is the scene on? Col: It's right after the scene with the dancing cats and the electric banana. Agent: What page!? Col: Just before the aliens kidnap the mud wrestling amazon. Agent: Page number... Col: I told you it's a spec, you moron, it doesn't need page numbers! Agent: I've got to get to a meeting, don't call us, we'll call you.
Is there a specific source you can reference for this tib bit of advice? I'd love to see where this is coming from! I suspect this is some sort of clever trick you Brits are trying to put over on us obnoxious Yanks just to make us look silly!
Cheers, -RayB
Why do things that only happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
You've finally copped the greatest ongoing prank this side of the Atlantic. Now go forth & tell all the semi conscious, half witted jingoistic masses that infest your beautiful land (not that this demographic would actually want to write something) we've been fooling ye all this time, in the name of dry British humour. (cue: stiffled upper class laugh)
Yeah its logical that they should be indicated but I definitely did read it somewhere otherwise I wouldn't have omitted them. I can't remeber where exactly but I'll try & locate it & post it up for you. I do recall it saying only shooting scripts require numbered...or maybe that was numbering the scenes.
Anyway I do stick by the (CONT'D) arguement.
Mmmm that exchange between me & the agent, you could be on to something. It could open with "Half a Cigar" from Pink Floyd & descend into a treatise on how ill-equipped I would be in trying to reference my script without any friggin' page numbers!!!
"Dancing cats and the electric banana" "aliens kidnap the mud wrestling amazon"
I'm already workin' on the second installment incorporating these elements as major plot points.
Just need to get Gilliam on board & a sizable budget that can be breached ten fold if required (and it will be if the aforementioned says yes)
This was a nice read, not quite my type of story... but intereseting enough to keep me reading. You've really touched on a complicated relationship with great timing and believable dialogue. Was well worth the read, excellent work. Muchlove, Jayden
Hey, I enjoyed reading this script. I like the explorative dialogue and even the implausibility of the situation, because weird things like this DO happen once in a great while, and that's the story that will make for interesting reading/filming. A noteworthy story stands out because it's not something that happens every single day. Meanwhile, we can relate to it because the people say real things and react like real people.
Anyway, interesting script. A good cast could make for a pretty absorbing flick.
No problem with format, characters are deep and stand out on their own. I even felt sympathy and respect for Elaine for her past and what she has done about it.
The read was smoothe and enjoyable. Kind of reminded of those old black and white romance films at points.
Personaly I think the title is very drawing, interesting and unique. These types of title are eye catching. Made me curious.
even though there is no major character change in the ending, I still think it's an interesting situation for people to be in, with pasts like theirs.
I just checked out this screenplay of yours, and when I started out with it I really didn't expect to find myself immersed in it! Thanks a lot, because now I got to eat cold lasagna...
Very dialogue-heavy stuff, but appealing nonetheless. It didn't get boring due to the build-up. At a certain point I really expected Elaine to kick Mark in the balls...hard. That's a part that I had some trouble with, I think. I believe that Mark, John and Helen would rather keep their histories a secret. It's also plausible that Elaine wouldn't want to bring it up as well, but after Mark's final comment, within John's and Helen's eyesight, it seems a bit strange that she swallows it. I mean, the guy is harassing her, and has done so on numerous occasions in the past. I know my sisters wouldn't let him get away with it.
Nevertheless, I like the current ending. You could have Elaine go berserk on Mark, but the quiet ending you have now is more original, and it was satisfying to me. Maybe the anger that Elaine's passiveness awakens in me is what makes the ending good. Film is all about triggering emotions of course
I will return reads as fast as possible!
My scripts:
Shattered - Short: Two men who meet each other in a prison cell find that they have more in common than they'd like...
Tough as Pins (work in progress) Bulletbound (work in progress)
Thank you for the comments. Always nice to read opinions like yours, not because its complimentary but it looks like you understood it more then most who read it (or at least percieved what I was trying to say)
I look forward to reading Bulletbound when it hits the boards, peace.
Hey, Howard. Good job on this one, a fun look at relationships and just where all the baggage comes from. A few comments:
Long title, don’t get it.
Not sure of the proper way to display a message on the screen for John’s text message. Maybe this has been discussed already.
A few grammatical mistakes, not too bad.
Helen and John’s initial meet seems awkward in that John says three lines (with pauses) before Helen says anything. It seems unnatural. The rest of the conversation was properly awkward, nice work.
Did Helen clench her fist to simultaneously show the ring and tell Mark to back off? Loved it.
My thought on p. 6 (no page numbers) was if Helen doesn’t want to think about John, as she says, would she be the one to tap him on the shoulder? Should the initial meeting start differently? Then you dealt with it later, well done.
Starting out each new scene with “The two” became very confusing. Say which two.
This could have ended two ways and I didn’t expect the ending you chose but I liked the way you handled it. We’re all adults, let us praise in public and exact our revenge in private.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. Glad to see that you pretty much got what I was "trying" to go for anyway.
This is an old draft. It has undergone a clean up on a number of occasions since I posted it here, I've been meaning to get the newer draft up.
All the grammar/tech/formatting criticisms you rightly mentioned have been corrected, as I'm still learning the craft, I'm constantly tweaking the silly mistakes. I'll check out K.OD & O.R when I get a chance as I've read your other two.
Once again, thank you for your comments, man, much appreciated.
Thanks again for reviewing my script, so thought it only fair I return the favour.
First off, I liked this script.
Over and over again, I see that the people are commenting on the dialogue, which was at times excellent. Good job.
I think I see where you are going with the story. Personally, I took the sense of unfinished business within each relationship being the focal point, with the two females gaining cathartic release. Every relationship I have been in has some form of something remaining unsaid, and I think you are alluding to that idea within this script, which I liked. Relationship focused scripts/film always appeal to me, because we immerse ourselves in them in our own lives, and looking at on-screen depictions can only further our understanding of our own, I think. Again, the dialogue drove the meaning quite nicely.
Having said that, it does seem you conformed to gender stereotypes - why is it the women who are suffering internal demons? What prompted Mark's rage - jealousy? I did think he would - as an angry man - be a little put out by her talking away to another guy? Her comment about John did make me smile though - "has had a crush on me since we were in school together", very typical of people trying to cover up their feelings towards their ex.
The title did seem a little out of place, I can't find a reponse from you within the thread, so am curious what the meaning is with this one?
Thank you for the comments, glad you liked it. Yeah people have been asking me about the title, I thought I answered somewhere on the board, guess not.
Anyway "A Seven Backed Up By A Two" is statisically the worst hand you can be dealt in poker. They are supposed to represent the two guys in the script, both pricks in their own way with Mark in particular being a total wa?ker.
So my idea was that Mark represent the "two" and John signify the "seven" (as you can make a better run from the seven making it mathematically a better card to get) So while overall neither of these men are someone you'd want your sister shacking up with, but relatively speaking John is the better of a bad pair. That was my intention anyway.
I agree with the "Having said that, it does seem you conformed to gender stereotypes" comment...but then again, is it fair to say that women predominantly do get the "raw deal" in relationships? We like to think we're always in control, BUT! of course this isn't always the case (I don't want to start a battle of the sexes here)
Thanks again for taking the time to read this, Andrew. If you have anything else done I'd love to take a look at it.
Hey col! I only just realised I meant to read some of your other stuff agaes ago. sorry, man. 'Clubcard' was good so i tackled this one first. Drama isn't exactly my cup of tea but the formatting and style of this was very good. It was a little bit soap opera-ish and a tad long but worked well in the end. I read some of the other reviews after reading it - the title had intrigued me. I thought it was a reference to dice or craps maybe. the poker explanation is still a bit hazy - why are those two cards that bad? if they were the same suit, couldn't a flush be looming? Anyway, nice read overall. I'll get cracking on the others now. Cheers Stevie.
PS- re the page numbers? I hadn't even noticed they weren't there!
I see what you mean about the soap opera nature of it and it could be trimmed down a page or two.
I was going for the high drama clash of the two sets of people so the slide into melodrama/soap opera-esque confrontation was always gonna be a possibility.
In relation to the title I have heard on a number of occasions off a different sources that being dealt a Seven and a Two of a different suit is statistically the worst hand you can get. Obviously the flop can work in your favour no matter what cards you are given but on the blind side these two cards ar apparently the least likely to yield a good hand.
As I said in an earlier post, John represents the seven in the hand and Mark is the two as Mark is the bigger of the two pricks based on the revelations about their past wrong doings. This is based on the assumptions that the average poker player predominately judges a higher card to be of more value than the lower. I realise a run from the Ace could dispute this but you know what I mean.
I've read this one three times now. I wanted to be able to give you some good feedback. but I'm not sure what to say still. I think the script is fine, maybe good even, but there's something here that keeps it from being great, but I can't put my finger on it. The following are just some thoughts I had while reading. Nothing big and maybe useless, but that's all I was able to come up with.
I thought it was perhaps a little too talky. At the same time, I can't really fault you anywhere on it, but it did feel longer than need be.
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?
Helen also seemed like a nice woman. I had issues with her boyfriend being an asshole abusive guy and her acting submissive to Mark. It didn't fit her character IMHO.
it's altar not alter.
The writing was fine and I wish I could offer you more, but like I said, there isn't anything wrong with this other than perhaps being a little too bland for my taste. I tend to go too far the other way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Check out my scripts...if you want to, no pressure.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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
“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.
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).
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.
Petty Torture Productions: Artwork and Scripts for Petty Torture cartoon and anime series concepts.
Thanks for the read. Sorry this didn't work for you. I've explained my intentions with this numerous times on the thread so I won't bore you with another long winded rendition.
Yeah, this does dip into melodrama at times, which preferably, I'd like to keep to a minimum but given the situation there are going to be words exchanged of that fashion, that high drama so it’s difficult to avoid. I'd like to think with strong enough actors it would come off emotional and genuine rather then hokey and overwrought, it’s a case of trying to stay the right side of that ever fine line between the two.
Case in point is "Revolutionary Road" the book is great, fantastic read but it does descend into melodrama many times which reads fine, often wonderful since Yates is such a first rate writer. In the film however, there is no denying that it becomes much more noticeable when experienced on screen. Some of the arguing scenes really coast that dreaded border, one or two, in my opinion, spilling into the aforementioned territory. For the most part though, they do a great job and I enjoyed the film, particularly on the second viewing and that’s undoubtedly due to both actors being up to the task. Obviously this measly thing I've written can't even be compared to the said text it’s just the similarities of situation where you have a verbally warring woman and man that I draw the parallel.
"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?"
-- Correct, not much is resolved accept whatever satisfaction the woman may have derived from telling off men that hurt them deeply in the past. The reason why I chose the low key ending was purely for realism - I simply ask, If you were in such a situation, would you spark a big scene, get it all out in the open when all four of ye meet? Or would you bite your tongue and inform your current partner when ye go to the car or whatever? I'm under no allusions, I know I'm a ball-less, lily livered, yella bellied, mealy mouthed weasel who will be choosing option 2 and I realise not everyone is of the same spineless persuasion but I think its fair to say that most would take the easier life and do the same.
"Add to it the coincidence that each has dated the other in the past and it feels even more forced."
-- While I chose to conclude this with what I thought would realistically happen (thus sacrificing drama), I definitely used some dramaturgical licence when setting up the situation. Sure, it’s a coincidence but not totally implausible, every film you watch is driven by coincidence and chance. I don't think what happens here is pushing things or breaching boundaries that haven't been exploited before.
"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)."
-- That's a fine idea Anthony and one I may well explore in the future, thank you. In terms of "they're all keeping something from their significant others" I think its pretty clear from John not knowing Mark and more significantly (since they were to be married) Elaine being unaware of Helen that they are all keeping secrets from one another.
The lack of acknowledgement experienced between the four when they meet was to suggest this; How they all represent a part of their lives (more specifically their past) that they would rather forget.
Thanks again for your comments, Anthony, very helpful and much appreciated.
Thanks for your comments, glad you liked it. This is one of those scripts that is going to divide people. The ending being the most divisive factor and I can appreciate why some don't go for it.
I'm always particularly pleased when someone says the dialogue worked for them here because that's really what makes or breaks this piece. It all hinges on the characters conversations being genuine. Without that, the whole thing falls on its face.
It's funny that you picked up on the visual aspect of it as it’s not something I ever went for or ever thought about in regards to this. It is purely two sets of characters sparring off on another, the closest work I’ve done that, in some way, resembles a play. Although, the airport does make for a busy, diverse location with people going to and fro all needing to get somewhere. It provides the perfect backdrop and compliments the tension builder of Elaine and Mark unwittingly on a collision course of sorts with John and Helen.
Out of curiosity, what spelling and grammar issues are you talking about? I'm sure there are a few sprinkled here and there but what scripts doesn't have them? Nothing too distracting I hope.
p.s. I love your username, very cool.
Cheers again for taking the time to read this and commenting. Let me know if you got anything, I'd gladly return the favour.
nice work col. thoroughly enjoyed it ... would have loved if u made it a lil more compicated with flickering images from the past ... for me a screen play should be some thing that has some visual value ... so thats myway of doing it ... but ur dialog was superb .. wish i could write this kinda dialog some day ...
I think this needs a lot of tightening. It's pretty long-winded to get through all those conversation until the two pairs of couples meet each other.
Although the dialogue sound very natural and smooth for each character, it's not that interesting. I never got a sense of tension that their boy/girlfriend would find out about their love one's past.
And I think, especially between the talk between John and Helen, was just talking head. Mark and Elaine's talk was better because they were actually doing something.
I just hope the story can be more compelling. No offense.
Writing and format is pretty good. Maybe you can get rid of the CUT TOs.
Herman
FEATURE:
Memwipe - Sci-Fi, Action, Thriller (114 pages) - In a world where memories can be erased by request, a Memory Erasing Specialist desperately searches for the culprit when his wife becomes a target for erasure -- with his former colleagues hot on his trail.
Thanks for the read. I can see where you're coming from, this type of story isn't going to appeal to everyone.
The reason why I used the CUT TO: so extensively at the end is because by then they are both occupying the Arrival's Lounge so I didn't want to use separate slugs but still required a division for both sets of characters, for clarity.
Personally, I don't mind using CUT TO: in a situation like this if you are going back and forth between two scenes in the same location as things can get confusing for the reader otherwise.
Thanks again for taking the time, Herman, let me know if you have anything you want me to read.
Wanted to return the favor. Pretty clean writing. This was the only dialogue that threw me a bit. pg. 11
HELEN Yeah...I never got the chance before with your mother was being sick.
Other then that, very clean. Dialogue was true.
I don't get the title. Maybe you could explain or reference me to a comment.
Overall this was pretty sad. Poor Helen, left at the alter, dating an abusive guy. Doesn't really seem like anyone is truly happy here.
I guess my complaint would be that I didn't get what you were trying to convey here. The point of the story eluded me. Nobody changed. Maybe that was the point??
Anywho, can't fault your writing, loved the dialogue. Very clean and well paced.
Thanks for checking this out, James. Good catch with the dialogue typo, I just checked the latest draft on my computer and it had been fixed, I musta polished it again after I re-posted it on here.
You're not the first to wonder about the title, I've explained it many times in previous comments but couldn't be bothered right now to go look for it so I'll go through it again briefly, it’s nothing too clever or complicated anyway.
Basically, it’s a reference to what is considered (although arguable) statistically the worst hand to be dealt in poker. In my lazy, half as?ed attempts to be smart, I drew the analogy of the hand to that of the two men in the piece. I imagine Mark to be the Two, a low card of little value or merit (unless you get a run from the Ace) and John to be the Seven, a decent card in comparison to the two but not all that useful either within the said hand. In other words, John might seem like a spineless prick but represents the lesser of two evils when compared with Mark. Pretty basic I know but I think it has a nice ring to it while stoking curiosity by most who've read the script, which is never a bad thing.
As for the point of the story, you're right there is no "arc" to speak off, except maybe Helen finally getting a few things off her chest but at the same time we know now that she has effectively gone from the frying pan into the fire by shacking up with Mark. The concept really came when wondering what would happen if such a random (admittedly improbable) thing like this were to happen. How would the people react in such a situation, how would they deal with it and what would be the most likely outcome. I sacrificed drama and a big climax for what I thought to be realism (bar some melodrama from all concerned), how I thought it would actually pan out in a real life scenario. That the women would bite their tongue, keep their mouth shut, not cause a scene and possibly wait till their were alone with their current husband/boyfriend before filling them in and maybe intervening further down the line, who knows.
I understand the ending is very anti-climactic and you're left wondering "what's the point of all this?" but that's just what I feel would happen as oppose to ending it with something the audience would like to see happening. Lets just say, its not going to be included as a sample in a "How To Write A Screenplay" publication anytime soon...and I'm cool with that.
Thanks again for taking the time, I'll be checking out more of yours in the coming days.
Saw this title and couldn't resist. It's a great attention grabber. (Probably even to those who don't like poker, it's still intriguing.) And I knew what you were going for in the title while I was reading. (Except I thought it applied to the girls, too. Helen we can definately see she has problems, and maybe that's why she likes Mark, because even though it might be misguided, abuse is still a form of attention. And Elaine has moved on, though she still seems nervous, she's not going to give in.) I thought Elaine was the seven and Helen was the two, just like it makes sense that John is the seven and Mark is the two.
(Now to just go on a little bit of a poker rant, don't believe anybody whose job it is to lie. (In other words, don't believe the poker books.) A 3-2 offsuit is worse than 7-2 offsuit, even statistically.) That straight doesn't come near enough times as people think, and when it does, it can even be counterfeited by the 7 flush. (You can check even statistically when those hands happen straight up. I forget what is is off the top of my head, but it's roughly 7-2 is 45% to win, 3-2 is 30% to win, and there's a 25% chance the pot will be split.)
That of course has nothing to do with your story, just wanted to save you a couple bucks if you ever go heads up in the future.
All in all, like I said, it was the title that grabbed my attention.
I think you have a great great setup here. You really built up a story that could have some great conflict in it. Really good timing going back and forth between the two couples at the airport.
And then they meet, and there's a chance for some great drama... but then it fizzles. Everybody's too much of a scaredy cat to say anything. (Mark I figured would definately antagonize Elaine to a point that John would feel like he'd have to do something. Then, I thought John would chicken out and Helen would rub it in John's face at the end that he's just running away again, then Elaine would come through somehow.)
But, as it is, after this great setup, everybody just shrugs and walks away. I was left with a very empty feeling at the end. So much more could have been done with this.
Don't take that as I think it's a bad story. It's not. That great buildup made the read enjoyable, but the fact that there's nothing at the end is what makes it feel a bit empty. I can understand why you had everybody just walk away and not deal with anything at the end, because they're all very weak people. But Mark could have really upped the ante for a pretty intense climax.
I see this was posted a good long while ago, (sorry I'm late to the party), so I don't know if you'd want to play with it anymore, but it was definately interesting. Just needs something to tie it all up at the end and give them a resolve. (We don't even get to know if Mark's still abusive, anymore. He seems like he would be in his attitude, but Helen never answers that for us. Not definitively.)
But good job building up tension on this one, Col. I enjoyed it.
- Mark (not the asshole Mark from your script, just regular Mark from SS.)
Saw this title and couldn't resist. It's a great attention grabber. (Probably even to those who don't like poker, it's still intriguing.) And I knew what you were going for in the title while I was reading. (Except I thought it applied to the girls, too. Helen we can definately see she has problems, and maybe that's why she likes Mark, because even though it might be misguided, abuse is still a form of attention. And Elaine has moved on, though she still seems nervous, she's not going to give in.) I thought Elaine was the seven and Helen was the two, just like it makes sense that John is the seven and Mark is the two.
-- I'm glad the title got your attention but even more chuffed that you gleaned the meaning of it from reading it, that's probably a first but I can live with that.
That's an intriguing point about the title applying to the girls. I always intended it for just the guys but I see your point, well spotted.
(Now to just go on a little bit of a poker rant, don't believe anybody whose job it is to lie. (In other words, don't believe the poker books.) A 3-2 offsuit is worse than 7-2 offsuit, even statistically.) That straight doesn't come near enough times as people think, and when it does, it can even be counterfeited by the 7 flush. (You can check even statistically when those hands happen straight up. I forget what is is off the top of my head, but it's roughly 7-2 is 45% to win, 3-2 is 30% to win, and there's a 25% chance the pot will be split.)
That of course has nothing to do with your story, just wanted to save you a couple bucks if you ever go heads up in the future.
-- Ha ha, I love the passion for stats and I won't argue, I was told an off suit 7 and a 2 was the worst hand by a few people and it stuck with me, I'm only a casual player myself. However, I have heard conflicting views such as your own also. Cheers for the insight.
I think you have a great great setup here. You really built up a story that could have some great conflict in it. Really good timing going back and forth between the two couples at the airport.
-- Cool, glad you liked that, it was too slow and laborious for some but it was always my intention to gradually bring things to a head.
And then they meet, and there's a chance for some great drama... but then it fizzles. Everybody's too much of a scaredy cat to say anything. (Mark I figured would definately antagonize Elaine to a point that John would feel like he'd have to do something. Then, I thought John would chicken out and Helen would rub it in John's face at the end that he's just running away again, then Elaine would come through somehow.)
But, as it is, after this great setup, everybody just shrugs and walks away. I was left with a very empty feeling at the end. So much more could have been done with this.
Don't take that as I think it's a bad story. It's not. That great buildup made the read enjoyable, but the fact that there's nothing at the end is what makes it feel a bit empty. I can understand why you had everybody just walk away and not deal with anything at the end, because they're all very weak people. But Mark could have really upped the ante for a pretty intense climax.
-- All good points well expressed, Mark and the ending has been a bone of contention for most who've read it. Some understand the decision and like it, others, like you, understand it but don't and the rest just flat out don't like it...and all opinions are valid. However, this was the decision I made when I wrote it and I will always defend it as I have in numerous posts above. I felt the easy thing to do would be to have a sparks fly at the end. I constructed in that way, with both couples destined to meet each other due to the airport scenario and all the history, bitterness and tensions expressed in the build up that an explosion was inevitable thus the obvious thing to do and this didn't interest me. There were a hundred ways I could have initiated a confrontational climax but I try to subvert expectations where possible, predictability is the worst criticism regards storytelling I reckon so I wanted to avoid that.
Plus, I think how both injured women handled the situation is also more believable and more likely to happen (I think its fair to say that the average person seeks to avoid embarrassing public scenes) Their passive reactions ennoble the women in my eyes, they're bigger than them and want to move on, put it firmly in their rear view mirror without reducing themselves to their level.
I see this was posted a good long while ago, (sorry I'm late to the party), so I don't know if you'd want to play with it anymore, but it was definately interesting. Just needs something to tie it all up at the end and give them a resolve. (We don't even get to know if Mark's still abusive, anymore. He seems like he would be in his attitude, but Helen never answers that for us. Not definitively.)
-- Yes, it is from some time ago but I'm always going back to old scripts and reworking them and this could well get a look over too, no need for the apology either. And yes, its all left up in the air for reader interpretation. I always imagine both women would fill in their respective partners when they got home. What happened after that is anyone's guess.
- Mark (not the asshole Mark from your script, just regular Mark from SS.)
-- Mmm, really, how do I know that? ;)
Thanks for the comments, Mark, very insightful. Sorry the ending didn't work fir you I completely get where you’re coming from, that's the beauty of opinion.
Pages: 
Author
A Seven Backed Up By A Two
Logged
My scripts:
Loved the sharp dialogue, and the way in which a single word or look can trigger downpours of emotion. The human condition never surprises me. I did feel though, that she was a touch too dramatic in her anger. So be it. A nice simple story that allows it's narrative, to find it's pacing from the get go.
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.
who will be choosing option 2 and I realise not everyone is of the same spineless persuasion but I think its fair to say that most would take the easier life and do the same.
Locked Board