Quoted from deadite Mystery is good, it's what keeps a reader...reading. BUT, this wasn't intriguing enough.  Not for me, sorry. Lacks punch, IMO.

Oh dear. I'm sure there's a joke about 'punch' and 'that's what you'll be getting if you keep this up' but such banter would be beneath us.

Shame you felt like that. About the script I mean.

Quoted from deadite Some notes: Why is FADE IN on the right instead of the left?  I'm not criticizing. Just curious.  Every once in a blue moon I see someone has it on the right. I'm so used to seeing it on the left.

Cos that's where it's supposed to be.

I read pro scripts. It's nearly always there. Granted some have it on the left. Some don't have it at all. Some.... have loads... of ellipses. But Fade In is a transition. Like Cut To, and they go on the right.

Quoted from deadite Page 1 - She steps slowly toward the bed. Try "she creeps toward the bed" instead or something.  "Slowly"...slows down the read.

But it does also describe exactly how I picture her moving. I can't have her creep. Sounds like she's gonna steal something.

It doesn't slow it down that much. I see what you're saying. But I don't agree.

Quoted from deadite Page 1 - "This is so and so" intro's for the characters. You can trim a little bit of space by cutting out the "this is" and (paraphrasing) "woman in bed" and "bearded man".  Sure it's not much trimming but every bit counts, plus it just reads better.

If you like that kind of thing. I like 'This is'. I don't use it all the time but I do like it. Like cake.

Tomato and potato. And shovel. We all do it different.

Anyways, I thought you might like it more. But then again, I was sure that horse was gonna win as well. Talk about 'slowly'. Bloody nag.

Regardless, thanks Steve. Always appreciate a read from you. And Paulie.

R

I don't use FADE IN at all. Celtx doesn't automatically put in FADE IN as far as I know. Unless there's a setting for it.

I've seen reputable scripts (Cameron) use FADE on the right both in and out.  Not sure why anyone would risk right justification when the reader may easily miss it. Left seems better IMO.

Tony

Quoted from TonyDionisio I've seen reputable scripts (Cameron) use FADE on the right both in and out.  Not sure why anyone would risk right justification when the reader may easily miss it. Left seems better IMO. Tony

Why would it matter if the reader missed it? Would they have to delete everything they've just read and start again with the FADE IN?

Quoted from DustinBowcot Why would it matter if the reader missed it? Would they have to delete everything they've just read and start again with the FADE IN?

That's pretty funny. Sounds obsessive-compulsive.

Stop that. It's silly.

Reminds me of Swiftian eggs.

Sorry. I seem to be answering these out of order.

Quoted from Dustin It slows down the read a tad, detracts from the point a little, when you mention that she 'reaches out'. You could just write, she picks up one of several invoices from the bedside table. Reaching out goes without saying. Unless she does it with her teeth, or maybe a straw, her feet, or...

I had the image of her reaching out with some effort due to her condition. If I say 'picks up' it sounds like she's fine. At least that's how I see it.

Quoted from Dustin Same thing with the above. If you haven't described a type of scanning equipment, then it is safe to assume he is scanning with his eyes.

He is. It could be a bit clearer, maybe. I just had this image of his head still and his eyes moving.

Quoted from Dustin Joseph scans his surroundings - deserted. I know what you're getting at though. You mention the eyes because that is where you are directing the shot. If you really want to direct the shot, then you'll need to get more descriptive. For example, Joseph keenly scans his surroundings - deserted. Inserting the word 'keenly' implies that a shot of the eyes should be utilised, IMO. There are other ways, obviously, and probably far better, it's just a quick example.

Yeah. That's a fair point. And it would. I might do that. But then again. It might be overegging it.

There's always other ways. I'm stubborn. So I tend to stick to my guns. But I've usually got my reasons.

Quoted from Dustin Ah, OK I didn't see that coming... she paid for the invoice with not only her own life but also the life of her father Paul. So, Samantha is Caroline's sister. Very powerful stuff. Nicely done and certainly something to make us think.

Thanks very much. I won't agree or deny with your conclusions. People see different things. But it is satisfying to know you liked it.

Quoted from Toby_E You're probably right, as I'd then probably bash you for being too unsubtle This has kept me thinking though... in fact, I have come back to it a few times since I read it yesterday, which is always good.

Everything's there for a reason. And some are more important than others. Rereading may reward. And I'm pleased you went back to it. Hardly a higher compliment out there.

Quoted from Dustin Without looking back through the script... is Samantha the sister or the daughter? I think it would be more powerful if the daughter... and isn't there a 20-year age gap? I think I may have had it wrong. Samantha is the daughter. So two generations die to save the daughter/granddaughter.

Now that's interesting. But is it right? There is about twenty years between Caroline and Samantha. But I never said what their relationship is.

I'll finish off the others later. Replies I mean.

R

It seems that Paul is Caroline's father, they both share the same surname and there is a similar twenty-year age gap between them as there is between Caroline and Samantha... clearly three generations. Paul and Caroline could be married, I suppose, and Samantha be their daughter, but then why go out of your way to make a point of them each separated by twenty years.

The final scene in the hospital room, when they are all together is symbolic of a 'final goodbye'. So they were both in on it, knew what was coming and planned for their own deaths. Why did it have to be specifically violent? The only thing I can think of is a life insurance payout, maybe there was a larger payout for a violent murder. At first I thought organ transfer, but only one would need to die for that and it would be better if it was less violent.. so it has to be something like an insurance payout.

Hi R

Fade In on the right - that's it I'm out!! Disgraceful.

Ok, you've guessed it could give a @�&##*�$�$+�% about where it goes. For shorts I now don't care if they leave it out, but if you have the space it almost seems like a courtesy.

Writing wise I did enjoy this. Some of the extra details like the squirrel I would have dropped as not related to the dynamics of the story, but the finer detail is something I wish to improve myself.

It flowed nicely, although I was expecting a little more with such a build up. As other said, it felt like a feature opener.

Character descriptions, for those with a minor role, like the driver, I wouldn't bother describing themselves so that the reader is not trying to remember and think about any future connections, which don't appear. Again an opinion but one with helps the flow of the script, IMO.

The ending. Ok, you've gone for a mystery about what happened, and why? I think Dustin has had a fair stab. Until I read that I hadn't a clue.

I was curious and went back through the script as to why you gave Paul a surname and not the others. It was probably your intention to do this, but it took me out of the read as I was trying to see who this was connected to. Just saying.

The nurse and the story of the porter was another.

In my simple brain, the hit was either to be for revenge, or to solve the invoice. The killing of herself and the mysterious Paul, 20 years older, completed one of those. Left the inheritance? Most likely. If revenge we don't see anything to suggest this. Transplant? Again no suggestions and doesn't accord with violent end. As my daughter would say,  It's a Mr Tree ...boom boom.

If it was the inheritance, and the suggestions were he had money - crisp suit, car - why isn't he helping?

I suppose I do like mystery or debate with endings, but not normally about what happened and why? more like, was it right? Without certainty over the ending this is somewhat taken away, to me.

I once went to a film festival and watched a load of short films. One was in black and white, set in a dump and had two men debate and argue in the back of a dumped car. Then it ended. I didn't Know what they were talking about. Alas the mystery was not a positive factor in that occasion, and I suppose that's the line you have you have to judge with this decisions.

To reveal, or not to reveal, that is the question

All the best.


EDIT - just remembered the man calls her Mrs Stringer in the park, which suggests she is the wife. And as she is 40's and the girl in her 20"s maybe its her daughter. But i would say that only the reader knows he's Mr Stringer, he's never called that. Still doesn't explain why. cheers

Ah, the old Fade In Fade Out discussion. I use FD and it doesn't automatically add a FADE IN and FADE OUT, but if I write FADE IN: it automatically puts it on the left and does the same for FADE OUT, except it automatically puts it on the right. Does it matter? Not to me it doesn't. It won't make me not read a script if it's not. I quickly checked a few pro scripts I have and they all have FADE IN on the left. That was all.  

I understand FADE IN left or right is a big issue among the Lilliputians.

The left-enders demand it be on the left, the right-enders demand it on the right.



Now, was this guy a left-ender or a right-ender? I forget?




Frankly, I find the inclusion of FI & FO in a screenplay to be absurd.
Just a convention I roll my eyes at as I put something there to appease the Lilliputians.

Lordy,

Sorry. Just a moment of contemplation to a higher being, there.

Now then. Going backwards. In replies, I mean. Me, that is. Jeez. I could have put all that better. Or perhaps not.

RayW is always one to pick up on the more obscure references. Which makes me smile. Have to say you've persuaded me somewhat. I may not bother with the fade ins at all. Thinking about it I don't really want them to start by fading in anyway. Moving swiftly on...

Quoted from Reef Dreamer Writing wise I did enjoy this. Some of the extra details like the squirrel I would have dropped as not related to the dynamics of the story, but the finer detail is something I wish to improve myself. It flowed nicely, although I was expecting a little more with such a build up. As other said, it felt like a feature opener.

I'll take all that as praise. As I've said I've played with extending this script and it didn't make it better. I may try again sometime, once I've finished up what I'm working on.

Quoted from Reef Dreamer The ending. Ok, you've gone for a mystery about what happened, and why? I think Dustin has had a fair stab. Until I read that I hadn't a clue.

Indeed he did. But there are many ways to look at it.

Quoted from Reef Dreamer I was curious and went back through the script as to why you gave Paul a surname and not the others. It was probably your intention to do this, but it took me out of the read as I was trying to see who this was connected to. Just saying. The nurse and the story of the porter was another.

I see in your edit you mention more. The reason he has a surname is another bit of info but not quite enough to hang a certainty to. It means he's related. But it's never said in what way.

Quoted from Reef Dreamer In my simple brain, the hit was either to be for revenge, or to solve the invoice. The killing of herself and the mysterious Paul, 20 years older, completed one of those. Left the inheritance? Most likely. If revenge we don't see anything to suggest this. Transplant? Again no suggestions and doesn't accord with violent end. As my daughter would say,  It's a Mr Tree ...boom boom. If it was the inheritance, and the suggestions were he had money - crisp suit, car - why isn't he helping?

Good question. Why not? Natutally I'm going to be as vague as an MP during an inquiry. It's up to you.

Quoted from Reef Dreamer I suppose I do like mystery or debate with endings, but not normally about what happened and why? more like, was it right? Without certainty over the ending this is somewhat taken away, to me. I once went to a film festival and watched a load of short films. One was in black and white, set in a dump and had two men debate and argue in the back of a dumped car. Then it ended. I didn't Know what they were talking about. Alas the mystery was not a positive factor in that occasion, and I suppose that's the line you have you have to judge with this decisions. To reveal, or not to reveal, that is the question All the best.

Many thanks, RD. Sorry not to be of more help. I enjoyed your comments. I still think this might work out on well on film. Hopefully better than the one on at the film festival.

Quoted from Dustin It seems that Paul is Caroline's father, they both share the same surname and there is a similar twenty-year age gap between them as there is between Caroline and Samantha... clearly three generations. Paul and Caroline could be married, I suppose, and Samantha be their daughter, but then why go out of your way to make a point of them each separated by twenty years. The final scene in the hospital room, when they are all together is symbolic of a 'final goodbye'. So they were both in on it, knew what was coming and planned for their own deaths. Why did it have to be specifically violent? The only thing I can think of is a life insurance payout, maybe there was a larger payout for a violent murder. At first I thought organ transfer, but only one would need to die for that and it would be better if it was less violent.. so it has to be something like an insurance payout.

There's lots of interesting ideas and conclusions here. Paul and Caroline could be married. Or they could be in-laws. Or former in-laws. That's the problem with names. They only tell you so much. But they do appear together.

And that business at the end. How do we know that it's connected to that business with the ducks and the warehouse? We don't. We just assume it is.

And who were those guys with the VO? What was all that about? And them ducks. And that squirrel. What the fuck is going on there?

Nice analysis on the hospital room But it doesn't have to be an insurance payout. Nor a transplant. But it might be either. Or maybe both.

I'll leave that with you.

I think I responded to everybody who commented on the script. I do apologise for being vague. But that's kinda the whole point of the script.

If anyone wants a return read please PM me. I'll do my best to reurn the favour.

Many thanks to all.

R

R,

I thought this was a solid script, though I agree with most on here about it seeming like it would work best as part of a bigger picture. You set up a lot of ideas, locations and characters in a short period of time. For the most part, the pacing moved along at a good clip, though I will admit that I did have to re-read certain parts. That probably has to do more with me reading this so early in the morning

Rob

Rob,

I'm still spaced out by your avatar of Billy Zen, I mean Zane. A shame the nirvana stuff didn't save his career. Alas, he's up there with Christian Slater and Val Kilmer. In stuff that goes straight to DVD and then promptly straight into the bargain bin.

Thanks very much for the review. It all sounds about right. Although late evening might be a better time to read. I may try and expand the thing again some time. With some luck it may work. Or maybe it should be with some work it may get lucky.

Right, I'm off to take Dorff's advice and buy an E cig.

R

So it's dot to dot without a picture? Okay:
The VO's are nature photographers taking pictures of that damn squirrel catching its nuts.
The 'accident' is the numb-nut porter that Edith trips up sending him crashing into one of those trolleys they all push around. $200 - I wanted a little more fun for my cash.
Bank robbery was just a bummer - parked opposite them, so they had to go, anyone who could identify them, see?
Ahh... and FADE IN on the right - so we'd all not see a thing anyhow 'cos it'd be filmed in the dark... clever.

Forgive,

Oh dear. Take it you didn't like it. Ho hum.

R