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.
Two Bits & A Broken Promise by Marcus D. Russell - Short, Action - When a series of train robberies escalates to murder it pits a pair of Outlaw brothers against a pair of Marshall brothers. They quickly find out that they have much more in common than they realized. 11 pages - pdf, format
In the opening action section, you don't CAPITALIZE the people involved--FIREMAN and ENGINEER. Such a mistake marks you as a neophyte.
In the next sequence, you give us a frail man who becomes the STATION ATTENDANT. Make sure you have agreement between description and dialogue.
in the next sequence you introduce murdering, thieving brothers, but you don't show us how they got there. you might consider putting them on the train from the beginning, and they only don masks when they leave the passenger car. This allows them to jump when they reach their horses.
How does the audience know that the judge is a horrible person?
then, we get into a raft of on-the-nose dialogue, some of it about what we already know.
I find little foundation for the sudden accusations about robbing trains. If one brother had suddenly come into a lot of money, or paid off a mortgage, or bought a new gun, well, you'd have something. Instead, it's the author needing a standoff and just creating one.
In the middle of a train statin, in the middle of the day, a lawman and his brother present, these two thieves are going to do another robbery?
The problem I have with this one, aside from the formatting issues, is that there are few setups for the payoffs. We don't know why the black brothers are robbing. We don't know what has made so desperate that they try to pull off an almost impossible task. It reads as if they authors wanted certain things to happen and so they made them happen whether or not it made sense.
You might read some scripts and deconstruct them, looking for the setups that support the payoffs.
I'm not sure where you get off calling someone an amateur...but I'll indulge you nonetheless.
Since the engineer and the fireman are characters... they are capitalized and formatted accordingly. It would seem that your...objection is to my not naming the characters and using their occupations as names. This is a common screenwriting convention that you will find in features, TV dramas and sitcoms. It's the equivalent to STUDENT#1, and the lack of a name is how the writer indicates that these characters are not important and only serve an expositional pupose. It's mostly used to save space and to not confuse the reader into thinking they have to remember these details.
next.... no motivation for outlaws to commit robbery? Since when do outlaws need a reason to be outlaws? It's a western. Do the street racers in fast and the furious have a motivation?... or do they race because they are street racers? I think you are being overly pedantic here. The western as a myth has charcters that exist in every narrative mainly outlaws, marshalls, farmers, hookers and innocent people who get caught up in the mix.. I'm sorry I just can't take that complaint seriously.
ok.. on to the meat of your.... issues. You dont' feel that BOB realizing that Dick is in on the robberies is convincing. Is any short motivation convincing by those standards? A short is a snap shot of time and experiencing one moment. You know that Dick Hardin has a daughter dying of Cholera.. and that he needs money cause he's about to lose his farm and his wife is reminding him, publicly, that he has broken his promise. I don't really think it's that much of a stretch. But let's say that it is. Dick does casually mention that the locks used on the train are cheap. How would he know this? It has not been discussed in any part of the script so he must have inside information. You can say that it's not clear, but you can't say that it was not justified. It's a short.. so it moves quickly. And I'm not in the habit of spelling everything out for the viewer. I get that you think it's a stretch, but is it really?...certaintly not as much as Bruce willis happening to be in Nakatomi Plaza when terroists show up. Or Will smith setting a helicopter down next to his girlfriend in Independence Day. I really thing you are judging this along the lines of a feature.. when it clearly isn't.
...it seems strange to you that the outlways return in the middle of the day. Unless, the outlaws know that one of the investigaing marshalls is in cahoots with them.. and most likely won't shoot them if they return. AND... no one would expect the robbers to return to the scene of the crime...so it's actully the best chance to retrieve the missing lock box --which I indicated was the real issue in the box car scene by Dick's dialogue where he says "we don't have time for this". Now you can argue that you didn't catch that..because it's just one piece of dialogue - but it's intellectually dishonest to say it wasn't motivated, is improbable or is a non-sequitor. It was justified.. I just didnt' hit you over the head with it...because it's a short.
Lastly.. you seem to object to the shoot out at the end. Ummm.. it's a western. All westerns comprise outlaws wearing black, profanity, a shoot out and one liners. It's a short and I needed to end it and I had not yet given you a shoot out.. is it really that far of a stretch? It's filmmaking and should be fun to a certain extent. I've read about a dozen shorts on this site with far less motivation and extremely less self-contained..yet still I enjoyed them.
I appreciate the read..but the venom is misplaced. And for the record.. I write a lot. I'm not trying to start a flame war.. but you need to be a bit more familiar with genres and screenwriting conventions before calling someone an amateur. And yes.. I have two TV dramas I can drop on you right now if you want to really check my bonafides. A short is by definition experimental and writers should be toying with writing conventions and formatting standards, because shorts are non-commercial and most never see the light of day. I get that you are trying to be helpful...but your knowledge of screencraft is not as vast as you feign. You can be helpful without putting people down...not that I care. I'm an arrogant bastard who's rarely sober so I didn't really take offense to your comments.
Not to wade in too deep, but I think the issue regarding the characters is this. You have:
Quoted Text
A beautiful prairie is lined by deep woods. A steam engine barrels through billowing smoke. The fireman is shoveling coal into the furnace when he stops suddenly and looks at the engineer.
ENGINEER What?
FIREMAN Elizabeth is pregnant.
ENGINEER Well Goddamn.
When it should be this:
A beautiful prairie is lined by deep woods. A steam engine barrels through billowing smoke. The FIREMAN is shoveling coal into the furnace when he stops suddenly and looks at the ENGINEER.
The Elevator Most Belonging To Alice - Semi Final Bluecat, Runner Up Nashville Inner Journey - Page Awards Finalist - Bluecat semi final Grieving Spell - winner - London Film Awards. Third - Honolulu Ultimate Weapon - Fresh Voices - second place IMDb link... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm7062725/?ref_=tt_ov_wr
First venom, then sarcasm -- do most writers find this approach to be helpful? Any desire to refute any of the statements I've made? Any desire to discuss narratological theory, film theory, critical theory, semotics, the differnce between story and narrative or any of the underpinnings of screenwriting? Your 800+ posts would seem to indicate that you have a lot to say about the craft. Let's move beyond sniping and oneupman's-ship and have a substantitive discussion about scripts, conventions and the mind of the reader.
Perhaps my last comment was a bit sarcastic, but it was fair observation (IMHO). I'm glad you took no umbrage.
And I was absolutely sincere in complimenting you on your success. Two TV dramas is nothing to sneer at, and I assumed you had already sold them. I consider any screenplay that has been completed a success. Optioning or selling the screenplay is a major accomplishment. Having the screenplay produced is a rare victory.
I have neither the time nor the energy to begin a discussion of the underpinnings of storytelling. I comment here for several reasons. 1. I try to reciprocate to those writers who comment on my scripts. For good or ill. 2. I try to comment where my comments might improve the script. I'm not looking to start a flame war which I consider a waste of time and effort. 3. I feel that since this site generously allows me to post my work, I owe the site some comments and reviews.
I realize comments ruffle feathers. I have absorbed my share. But I try to remember that the people who comment here are not commenting on my abilities or looks or the size of my ego. They are commenting on my work, and that is all. That is fair.
A beautiful prairie is lined by deep woods. A steam engine barrels through billowing smoke.
There is no mention of train tracks in these woods or the prairie. While you may consider this to be implicit, it’s better to include that detail.
The cab of a steam locomotive is very noisy, the fireman and engineer would be shouting their dialog. The noise of the key belt would be drowned out.
You may want to use ‘stoker’ instead of ‘fireman.’ Not critical, but it might reduce confusion in the reader’s mind.
Code
Dust billows up the street as a lone rider approaches.
Again while it may be implicit, you should probably mention the rider’s horse as the source of the billowing
Code
Rancher and father of three.
If we never see the children or his ranch, the audience will never know this detail
Code
A frail man with wire rim glasses quickly transcribes Morse Code
For clarity, it should be
Code
A frail OFFICE ATTENDANT quickly transcribes Morse Code
Code
Dick pulls his .45 and levels it at the attendant.
That’s a bit melodramatic. Instead, what about:
Code
Dick rests his hand on the .45 in his gun belt.
Code
You promised me. Stop. You promised. Stop.
You promised me. You promised. Sounds like spoken dialog, not something you would repeat twice in a telegram.
Code
(pointing the .45 again)
Still melodramatic.
Code
another patron enters. Dick holsters his gun and quickly leaves the office as the attendant stares at him.
Ambiguous. Is the attendant staring at Dick or the patron?
Code
OUTLAW#1
Gimme the keys to the strong box!
Did train companies give strong box keys to engineers? I don’t know the historical precedent here, but it seem like train companies would give the key to a hired guard, not to the engineer.
Code
The Fireman hops from car to car running towards the steam engine.
If there’s more than one box car, how does the fireman know which car the cigars are in? The engineer should say the cigars are in the caboose, which is typically where accommodations for the crew are. Also, the fireman should drop the box of cigars when he hears the shot.
Code
INT. STEAM ENGINE
Blood and skull fragments decorate the engine’s furnace.
This is gross but cool. Why not punch it up a bit with:
Code
Blood and skull fragments sizzle on the engine’s furnace.
Code
The outlaw removes his bandana to reveal a black man with deep wrinkles and scars on his face he is CLARENCE GOLDSBY, 34 - outlaw, reactionary and younger brother.
Should be two sentences.
Code
The outlaw removes his bandana to reveal a black man with deep wrinkles and scars on his face. He is CLARENCE GOLDSBY, 34 - outlaw, reactionary and younger brother.
Also, why are he and his brother taking off their bandanas in the middle of the robbery? The engineer may be dead but there are other people on the train who might see him
Code
As if killing another man is going to matter now.
I fell like this line could be a little stronger, something like
Code
One more body ain’t gonna matter.
Code
The engineer-less steam engine
A little clunky, how about
Code
The unmanned steam engine
Code
Two dark figures jump from the train and mount two horses tied to a tree.
Ambiguous. Are these two new characters? Should be:
Code
The two train robbers jump from the train…
Code
The train sits in the station.
Should be
Code
The train sits at the station.
Code
lookee-loo’s
Should be looky-loo. But a perfect phrase for a period piece like this. You use the spelling kart and cart. Use cart, as kart is usually associated with go-karts or Mario Kart.
Code
A pack of young boys (8-10ish) has gathered several yards from the kart and eyes
the fruit suspiciously.
Do the boys’ age matter? And are they suspicious of apples? Try something like
Code
A pack of young boys hungrily eye the goods of a nearby fruit cart.
Code
He is BOB HARDIN, 45 rancher and lawman.
Again how does the audience know he is a rancher or lawman unless they see it? Why not:
Code
BOB HARDIN’s sheriff’s badge is as weathered and weary as his face.
Code
He is flanked by another tall white and who you recognize as Dick Hardin, from the telegraph office.
Who we may recognize as the guy from the telegraph office, only two pages ago? Just say:
Code
He is flanked by Dick Hardin
Code
Suddenly, one of the boys makes a break for the apple cart.
He steals an apple and takes off running. As he passes Bob, Bob trips the boy and he goes down hard.
Bob yanks him off the ground by his left arm
Could be stronger, like:
Code
One of the boys suddenly grabs an apple off the cart and makes a break for it.
Without looking, Bob sticks a foot out and trips the boy.
He hoists the kid by the collar before he even hits the ground.
Demonstrates Bob is both observant and has quick reflexes.
Code
BOB
Stealing is wrong! --you hear me?
Too on-the-nose. The kid’s making a run for it, obviously he knows that stealing is wrong? How about:
Code
BOB
You're not too small for a jail cell.
Here:
Code
YOUNG BOY
C’mon Mister, I’m hungry.
BOB
That’s no excuse!
Also too on-the-nose. Why not:
Code
BOB
Then take up apple farming.
Code
DICK
But you can excuse him for getting killed and leaving his wife and kids to starve? What man does that?
I like this line, imbued with a Frontier philosophy.
Code
An older man with white hair and a disposition of respect struggles to enter the locomotive.
Incorrect use of disposition (“a person's inherent qualities of mind and character”). Should be something like
Code
A white-haired JUDGE, accustomed to commanding respect, is unhappy with the indignity of having to climb into the locomotive cab.
Code
He is TOM HARRISON hanging judge and all around horrible person.
Could be stronger, like:
Code
TOM HARRISON has the bitter face of a man who’d convict his mother on a technicality.
Code
DICK
School salary actually.
It’s fair to assume a public school system hasn’t reached these parts, why would the salary be shipped in by train. Wouldn’t the teacher’s salary be raised locally?
Code
they’re worst than Injuns
they’re worse than
Code
Set the bounty at $500 each and get your posse together.
Using 1873 as a measure, $500 would be the equivalent of $10,000 today. Assuming the teacher’s salary was less than that, why would the Judge put up a bounty of $20,000 total?
Code
DICK
That’s barely enough to get horse thieves found let alone track some outlaws.
$20,000 (adjusted) would be more than enough to throw together aposse. Have the Judge set the bounty at$100, then triple it.
Code
They shot the look off and threw the money out the door.
They shot the lock off Here:
Code
DICK
There was confusion. They probably realized this was the wrong train.
Stating the obvious. This line of dialog can be removed.
Code
BOB
(beat) You’d think these guys would check things out more if they’re so desperate.
Contradictory statement. Desperate people are neither well-organized nor thorough.
Code
DICK
Killin’ is killin’, this ain’t no different.
Lose the last part, to make it stronger, showing Dick's moral compassis absolute:
Code
Killin’ is killin’
So Dick, the white man, is the train robber? Or the two black men were the train robbers? Or is he robbing different trains than the two black men? Or are they in cahoots? It would be clearer if Bob demonstrated keener powers observation of an incontrovertible clue that Dick orchestrated the robbery.
Code
DICK
And pay him what? Horse feed? Promises? I had to do everything from sun up to sun—
It would be much stronger if it was just
Code
And pay him what? Promises?
Code
Crawford removes the bandana from his face and steps inches from Bob’s face.
For an outlaw, Crawford sure like flashing his face a lot.
Code
CRAWFORD
It ain’t wise to talk about things that don’t concern you.
This is a horrible, terrible line of dialog. For a Western, the details of the gunfight are neither creative nor compelling. They’re actually confusing.
Code
Clarence shoots him. Dick moans on the floor as Clarence shoots him again. He drags Crawford out the box car door leaving a trail of blood.
Ambiguous, it sounds like Dick (mortally wounded) is dragging Crawford out of the train. It’s unclear if the outlaws are in cahoots with Dick, then Dick had a change of heart. Or whether Bob’s suspicions were wrong in the first place.
Code
DICK
If a man ain’t got his family, he ain’t got nothing. So what’s the difference?
But Dick has a family. And earlier he questions the motivations of a man who would allow himself to be killed (which Dick just did). So on its surface at least, this line doesn’t doesn’t ring true coming from Dick.
Quoted Text
Since when do outlaws need a reason to be outlaws? … All westerns comprise outlaws wearing black, profanity, a shoot out and one liners.
Sure, if you want to deal tropes. There isn’t much characterization, so the individuals come across as one-dimensional. I'm not sure why you're raising the concept of semiotics when there doesn't appear to be any symbolic imagery. Or talk about experimentation or convention-breaking, when the story isn’t particularly original. And the writing is confusing in several places. But certainly the material can be finessed into something stronger. However, in its current state Two Bits doesn’t feel polished.
Richard’s observation seem perfectly valid, and while I don’t think you should be called a neophyte (assess the writing, not the writer), you seem pretty defensive about Two Bits. Which begs the question, why would you post your work here, if you’re not receptive to critique?
Well anyways, I hope you will find my feedback is meant to help and is without animus.
I found your comments to be very helpful. They bring a lot of clarity. What I objected to was the tone of Richard's comments and the assumption that I was some kind of rank amateur. I'm sorry if I seem defensive.. I'm not. I just decided to refute point for point what I felt was missing the forest through the trees. Not really the look you want as a writer...but I"m just not going to let that kind of thing slide.
My...opinion is that the western is a myth. And this myth is built upon to ridiculous levels. You can't examine any western without encountering this...particulary when it comes to shootouts which often times start with a look or offhanded comment that results in death. We accept this as fact in westerns and require little motivation for them yet other events that are given the same treatment...seemed...undercooked.
No, it's not original. But I'm not sure you can write an original narrative in the mythical west and stay in the good graces of what we accept as the west. This is much more a whodunnit gone awry than a traditional western... and I'm not a huge fan of westerns in any respect, the story of Cherokee Bill just resonated with me...so I wanted to explore it.
I wouldn't object to "I don't feel there is a clear motivation" but the trope of outlaws and the west is well defined and understood so I just can't get behind the idea that outlaws and marshalls need tons of explanation on why the protect or rob.
I raised semiotics because I wanted to discuss the manners in which we communicate information to the vewer. Semiotics is much more than just imagery - which you are correct i use little of. I was referecing it in the sense of image juxtapositon, use of color, body language ect. as a manner of conveying meaning.
I posted the script because I wanted to see how people felt about it - the world, the issues that it raises. This is not my script. Well, the short is my script but this was a feature that a fraternity brother of mine wrote and I was trying to convince him to make it TV drama...so I wrote a teaser and it evolved into a short that I had planned to use for a directing competition so a lot of the...assumptions or things that are overlooked are mainly because it's something I planned to shoot..and I know exactly what the scenes look like and feel like. It's the story of Cherokee Bill.... I was taken by the actual events that happened and wanted to explore them and also the effect the the homestead act of 1862 had on settling the west. I like the idea of two sets of brothers dealing with their sibling issues as the head for conflict.
anyways thanks again. I will post the latest spec I wrote so people don't think I'm just talking shit.
thank you but I haven't sold or had a show produced. I'm trying to get staffed on a show an have been writing specs and researching shows and doing the TV fellowship circuits. I've produced my own films, but I dont' really count that anymore.
I see what you were referring to with your comments and I have implemented some of your suggestions. You clearly care about films and scripted entertainment and that was were I wanted to take us when I asked about a larger discussion.
Anyways. I harbor no ill will or animosity. Look forward to engaging with you in the future
My...opinion is that the western is a myth. And this myth is built upon to ridiculous levels. You can't examine any western without encountering this...particulary when it comes to shootouts which often times start with a look or offhanded comment that results in death. We accept this as fact in westerns and require little motivation for them yet other events that are given the same treatment...seemed...undercooked.
I agree wholeheartedly, Westerns are frequently hyperbolic, sometimes to the point of parody. Like The Quick and the Dead, which I am - as far as I know - the only person who enjoyed that film. Or you have the rare approaches to the material like Deadwood or Unforgiven which downplay this over-romanticized genre. They in effect de-romanticize the genre.
It's a difficult genre to navigate and stay original, as there are pitfalls everywhere, and people are so desperate to wring something new out of it that you'll occasionally get something really horrible like Cowboys vs. Aliens/Dinosaurs/Zombies. Ugh.
Anyways, good luck with the show staffing - I hope it works out!
Not to wade in too deep, but I think the issue regarding the characters is this. You have:
When it should be this:
A beautiful prairie is lined by deep woods. A steam engine barrels through billowing smoke. The FIREMAN is shoveling coal into the furnace when he stops suddenly and looks at the ENGINEER.
I recall somewhere that each new character introduced should have tbeir own new paragraph. Anyone validity to that?
Re Tony's question: I'd say yes to some degree. In the given example though I also don't see a real problem or super valid choice to take; it doesn't sound as a complication for real, one way or the other. Although, I constantly changed my own habits myself and moved on to different, new and old, and back and again. Up to a point where I doubt if all those little bits and ways have truly any importance in comparison to characters and story.
But yo, Tony, I see you doing a lot of these market investigations recently :-) like figuring a new makeup to your scripts, searching some fresh aspects for your game plan and plays, eh?
Hey man. Thank you very much for your kind words. I was kind of unsure about it.. I mean I felt like I connected in a few places, but wasn't sure if the ride was worth. .. so thank you, you have given me some insight. I think I'm going to lead with this when I try to get representation.
I'd like to read some of your stuff. which of your scripts do you recommend?
My stuff you asked. In the ACTION/ADVENTURE category is "FIRE DANCER" also I submitted a short one but hasn't been posted by SS yet is "SPRINGTIME IN ALASKA" Thank you for asking.
I'll go check it out. and I just realized that you read the short... if you're curious what I did with the characters.. I expanded it to a tv drama in late 2017 http://www.simplyscripts.com/scripts/twobits.pdf
Watch out for describing characters with unfilmmables i.e. information that cannot be conveyed on screen. You do it here for nearly each one such as mentioning their profession and relationship to other characters.
“lookee-loo’s”
- Ha, I liked this description.
"2A pack of young boys (8-10ish) has gathered several yards from the kart and eyes the fruit suspiciously.”
- “Suspiciously” doesn’t make sense in this context since what they want to do is steal the apples. Perhaps “longingly” or just “hungrily” would be more apt.
BOB (beat) You’d think these guys would check things out more if they’re so desperate. (beat) It would save some killing.
- There’s an argument to be the made for the opposite too in that because they’re desperate they’ll go headlong into any opportunity which comes their way.
DICK If the train company would spend a measly two-bits on a real door lock that would also save some killing.
- Again, wouldn’t a door lock only increase frustration and possibly result in a gun being fired? They will presumably demand the key from the Engineer/Fireman and if he doesn’t hand it over or actually genuinely doesn’t possess it, that’s only going to anger the thieves. It’s like the way Bank tellers are told to comply with robbers instead of provoking them and risking their lives. However, this is the wild west so policy may have been more...shall we say, resistant.
Wow, wasn’t expecting Bob to turn on Dick, a helluva an accusation to make...but reading on, he’s obviously onto something. So that gets me wondering would Dick have been so foolish to talk the way he did about the specifics of the train and robbery if it was going to incriminate himself so quickly?
I was digging this throughout, you can clearly write. While the prose could do with some polishing, your dialogue flowed nicely and had some great moments, sharp, and clever. You set up a couple of different plot strands well in a few pages and introduced a number of diverse characters. I was engaged in the story, immersed in the world you created and curious to see where you were going to take it.
Unfortunately, the ending seemed very rushed to me. The reveal of Dick being in on the robbery was abrupt and how it transpired simply didn’t ring true for me as I highlighted above.
It ends in your standard shootout and sort of feels unfinished. You back load a lot of information in that penultimate confrontation between the two brothers, thus, it feels cluttered and expository.
Granted it’s only a 10 page script but I get the impression there is a lot more here which would be better served in an expanded piece. This could be the culmination, the final sequence of events. What’s talked about/inferred in Bob and Dave’s scene; trying to eke out a living in the hard land, family troubles, disease, hardships, brotherly rivalry, etc is a story to tell in itself.
The origins of the Crawford and Clarence characters could also be explored. What’s led them to resort to crime? Maybe it’s the whitewashing of the old west but the depiction of black outlaws is pretty rare as far as I can tell since they were probably enslaved and (literally) kept on a tight leash so right there you’ve got a fresh, atypical angle to work with.
Something to consider anyway. A partially decent effort you have here that could be much better with some development.