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.
Other then what I have mentioned there is nothing more I can add. The dialouge was great gave each of your two main cops a distinct voice and attitude and while you detail is little over written, it is still visually rich and hope in the next draft you don't go over board with shaving off to much action as i would hate to see you lose the style of your script. It sets it apart from a lot of the scripts here.
I can't really offer much in the way of story structure as I am not a fan of the crime genre and I am not a police officer so I found all the running around doing detective work not very appealing or interesting. But I am sure people who are fans of this genre will get a kick out of it.
The only thing I can agree with in the above reviews is that there in some parts there are way to much exposition. The worst offender was cole saw telling his partner about how he break up with girlfriend. You showed scene in begining with cole saw and girl have a blue. then the story line is dropped and he talks about break up later on. If you not going to follow through with the scene or make it into a worth while subplot, you might as well just dump the whole lot. Focus on the main central problem that is tracking down the red phantom and ignore everything outside of this, including their love life.
What I'm trying to do with Kiersaugh is create a character with some serious insecurities. His girlfriend is a tough cop who comes from a family of other tough cops. He's recently made homicide because he rolled over on another cop, ratting him out to Internal Affairs. He's trying to prove his "manhood" by going straight to homicide and breaking big cases. He feels he's in a role reversal type relationship with his girl. This isn't supposed to take up the bulk of the story, just gives us some insight into why he was promoted and how he got there.
This sub-plot comes full circle during the climax when Kiersaugh has the gun and must decide whether to kill Red Phantom, or bring him in and do the right thing. This is what I set out to do, at least. The toughest thing is...trying to fit all of this under 120 pages and having it read smoothly. In most police thrillers, the supporting characters (family, The Captain, other cops, girlfriends), don't take up the bulk of the story. They appear here and there throughout. Most cop flicks focus on the two detectives, or the one going place to place, investigating.
Maybe I should bring the George Sears character into the story, instead of talking about him so much. Maybe he can get involved in the whole "corrupt cop" organization along with Duvall, Evans and Bowers. This might generate some sympathy for Kiersaugh and give that backstory a little more emphasis. What do you think?
I hate to ommit the Jen character. I think the idea of her is felt with Kiersaugh's character throughout. In his eagerness, his desire to go after Bobby Evans. In how he tries to prove himself to his partner. I want this to be his character flaw.
After the big chase scene with Red Phantom at the parking garage, I feel like there's a bit too much explaining about "Ronald Paris" and not enough detective work, finding out who Red Phantom is. I have some ideas to fix this, so I'll work on it.
After the hog-tie crime scene, we jump to a scene where the two cops explain that the dead girl is Duvall's daughter instead of us finding out for ourselves. This is a cheat, and I should fix this. TOO MUCH TALKING AND NOT ENOUGH SEEING. I feel this is my major problem area during the second act. Too much explanation.
So I'm gonna work Sears back into the story, actually giving him a face and a part in the story. I think I'll make him friends with Duvall, or Bobby Jr. I think Kiersaugh should have to face the man he got kicked off the force and have that story come full circle, so it doesn't fall to the wayside and feel unneccessary.
I'll also trim some of the "cop talk" and explaining who's who and who's daughter is such and such and show more of this in the action so the reader can figure it out themselves.
I've done another draft of the script, making some of the forementioned changes suggested on this forum. The formatting is a bit tighter, dialogue has been trimmed here and there, but nothing major.
I'd have to say my two biggest changes would include bringing the first Zodiac letter down to page 30, marking the end of Act 1 and the beginning of Act 2, where this scene should be. This is where our serial killer story begins. It's actually around the top of page 31, not 30. Close enough.
2) I've added a scene where George Sears confronts Kiersaugh at a cop bar, taunting him in front of the other cops, calling him a rat and a fraud, challenging him to a fight. I thought it was important to show this man instead of simply talking about him and making references to "back story". This puts even more emphasis on Kiersaugh's guilty conscience about making homicide by ratting out a cop, and also his "inadequacies" concerning living with a hero cop girlfriend. It also adds a comedic break from the otherwise serious murder investigation.
3) Right before Kiersaugh shows Scarza how he's deciphered the Zodiac's secret phone numbers (the chalk board scene), I added a short scene with Kiersaugh and Bedrosian at the library, typing in specific dates, tying in a connection between the phone numbers and the dates of the murdered victims.
4) the ending is also different. I've given Paris some better dialogue and put more emphasis on why he's chosen to turn himself in to Kiersaugh and not Bedrosian. The actual ending is more fitting and reflects Kiersaugh's inner conflicts throughout the story. You'll see what I mean. I don't wanna ruin it.
THE NEW DRAFT SHOULDN'T BE UP FOR A COUPLE DAYS! Give it some time before you do another review.
Thanks again everyone for helping me be a better writer. Your suggestions have been invaluable. Let's keep up the good work.
The new draft is up with lots of little changes, here and there. Most of them due to your suggestions.
The main thing I'd like to focus on now is bringing Jen back into the story at least for one or two more key scenes. She is important to Kiersaugh, not just another girl. This is why he's gone so far as to cheat his way into homicide. What she thinks matters to him. He's trying to impress her.
The whole 3RD ACT...
(discovering Duvall's daughter dead, finding the picture with her, Bower's daughter and Bobby Evans wife, Cindy Bowers going missing and tying in all the victims as relatives of ex cops)
...This all needs work. I still need to find a way to trim the heavy dialogue down, so the audience can SEE the detectives discovering all this with their own eyes, not just spouting off what they've discovered with their Captain.
I'll work on this hard before posting my next draft.
HERE'S SOME IDEAS
Maybe Kiersaugh can ask Jen to fax him a DMV picture of Christina "Tina Evans, linking her to the third "unknown girl" in the picture. This way, we don't have to tell about it in dialogue later.
KIERSAUGH I need you to run a name through the DMV for me. A Christina or Tina Evans, age 35. Recently deceased. Passed away March of this year. I need you to fax me a picture right away at the following number...
We can figure out Gretchen is Duvall's daughter by Bedrosian finding a picture of the two. This would be a simple way of doing it.
This phone conversation should be in V.O., not O.S.
pg. 76 – The menacing eyes work for me but reveal anything else and I think people will basically be able to piece together what this guy looks like. Even the eyes are a bit of a stretch. Each shot takes away a little of the character’s mystery. I gather mystery is what you were going for. This is just an opinion, mind you. You really don’t have to change anything here. Just figured I’d offer some food for thought.
pg. 78 – “Without hesitation, the killer puts THREE SHOTS into the man’s chest, killing him.” It’s to be assumed these shots are fatal. No need to use the phrase “killing him.”
pg. 93 – I think you might run into some trouble with the use of these NFL logos were this to be produced.
pg. 95 – “They’re fine.”
pg. 103 – I don’t think Bedrosian needs to ask for Ronnie’s name. The name Albert Paris is already out there. Once the son is mentioned, I think it’s enough for him and Kiersaugh to put the pieces together.
pg. 112 – Bedrosian is no softie. I don’t think he needs to tell Kiersaugh he’s sorry and that he’s a good cop. I think his line before that is enough to indicate that he finally respects Kiersaugh. In fact, I’d say it’s in his character not to say anything further. Just a thought. Either way, I’d keep Kiersaugh’s “thanks.”
For the most part, I thought this script was really good but had two major flaws, both of them connected to each other. The first flaw is that your script is too heavy on dialogue and about half of it has little to do with the central plot. The dialogue in the first half of the story felt monotonous and repetetive. It's obvious these guys don't like each other. There's only so many times you can show it. This does not apply, however, to Kiersaugh's exchange with his girlfriend or anything else relating to his relationship. I thought this was something that made the story unique. Kiersaugh's got some serious baggage and isn't exactly the greatest guy in the world but I found him to be very interesting and wanted to see what happened to him. Bedrosian was a great character as well. Not as developed but I enjoy these hard cop types carved out of wood. Some conventions just work, you know?
At the halfway mark, the story finally kicks into gear with the introduction of the Zodiac copycat. I found this to be both good and bad. I think the whole reason the first half drags so much is because you wait too long to get to the main plot. Most of what happens early on, I found didn't really relate to the Zodiac plot. If you introduced this plot element earlier on where it's supposed to be, you could certainly take more liberties with the dialogue since people would already know what was going on. I have to admit I was a little lost in the beginning. I had a hard time telling exactly what this script was about. After the halfway mark, I didn't have any problems.
Those are the main issues with your script IMO. I really don't have much else to comment on. The characters, the action, the dialogue, the twists... for the most part, all these elements seemed to be in good shape. I think if you stretch out the main plot, you'll have a stronger, more readable work on your hands (not to say your script wasn't readable; I think you get the idea). Overall, I enjoyed this and think it has the potential to be great.
I've changed quite a bit of the script, but still have some touching up to do. I still need to clean up the "hog tie murder scene" with regard to Kiersaugh and Bedrosian piecing everything together a little too easily. (i.e., the exchange between Kiersaugh, Bedrosian and Captain Scarza about Chief Bowers daughter, Tina Evans, and Duvall's daughter.) This dialogue goes on forever, I know.
All of your above comments seem to suggest there is too much explanation concerning the identity of the Red Phantom's victims, instead of us finding out for ourselves. I will fix this in the next draft.
1)I've fixed the scene where Bedrosian suddenly appears in time to shoot Red Phantom at the night club. In the new draft, he doesn't show up until the next scene at the garage, in a taxi cab.
2) The ending has been changed to reinforce Kiersaugh's internal conflicts throughout the story. His "do the right thing" mentality versus his desire to be liked and looked up to by his peers. I think the ending really fits now. Hope you like it.
3) One of you mentioned the unbelievability of the media calling our shooter the "Red Phantom" after only one letter and one shooting. Remember, the killer sent this letter to the LA TIMES first. The broadcast doesn't take place until after Kiersaugh and Bedrosian find the package at the Mailbox place, then link the taxi shooting to the death of the young couple at the golf course, one year earlier. The Zodiac killer once signed a letter "The Red Phantom" suggesting his love for Phantom of the Opera and other silent films, like THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. They figure the R.P. in the letter might stand for "Red Phantom", which later, we discover, it doesn't. It means Ronald Paris. In either case, the three killings are linked and this news of a serial killer is leaked to the media. You know how that stuff goes. Anyway, we're supposed to figure this out for ourselves.
I've changed quite a bit of the script, but still have some touching up to do. I still need to clean up the "hog tie murder scene" with regard to Kiersaugh and Bedrosian piecing everything together a little too easily. (i.e., the exchange between Kiersaugh, Bedrosian and Captain Scarza about Chief Bowers daughter, Tina Evans, and Duvall's daughter.) This dialogue goes on forever, I know.
All of your above comments seem to suggest there is too much explanation concerning the identity of the Red Phantom's victims, instead of us finding out for ourselves. I will fix this in the next draft.
1)I've fixed the scene where Bedrosian suddenly appears in time to shoot Red Phantom at the night club. In the new draft, he doesn't show up until the next scene at the garage, in a taxi cab.
2) The ending has been changed to reinforce Kiersaugh's internal conflicts throughout the story. His "do the right thing" mentality versus his desire to be liked and looked up to by his peers. I think the ending really fits now. Hope you like it.
3) One of you mentioned the unbelievability of the media calling our shooter the "Red Phantom" after only one letter and one shooting. Remember, the killer sent this letter to the LA TIMES first. The broadcast doesn't take place until after Kiersaugh and Bedrosian find the package at the Mailbox place, then link the taxi shooting to the death of the young couple at the golf course, one year earlier. The Zodiac killer once signed a letter "The Red Phantom" suggesting his love for Phantom of the Opera and other silent films, like THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. They figure the R.P. in the letter might stand for "Red Phantom", which later, we discover, it doesn't. It means Ronald Paris. In either case, the three killings are linked and this news of a serial killer is leaked to the media. You know how that stuff goes. Anyway, we're supposed to figure this out for ourselves.
One thing I didn't do with the first letter is state that he was the killer of the taxi driver. Somehow, the police are handed this letter by the LA TIMES, but why? I can see how this might seem a bit unbelievable. I'll fix the first letter.
Hello there. My new draft should be up in a couple days.
I've really focused on trimming the more meatier scenes of heavy dialogue and too much explanation with more investigating, detective type work.
We learn what they learn, not just hearing about what they've learned through dialogue after the fact.
I don't think there was too much of a problem with this in the first place, but just in a couple of key scenes. Especially the hogtie murder scene and how the detectives connect all of the murders together. In this scene, we get to see more of the two cops finding evidence, piecing things together.
Anyway, I've done just about all I can with this issue. I think there should be some explanation in places in case the reader isn't quite following every little detail. The dialogue here is used to reinforce what we've already shown in action. It's there, you just have to read it. There's lots of detail here. Too much to brilliantly figure it all out ourselves without some dialogue to help piece it together. We need a little help sometime. I don't think I'm too off base with this.
Dickson, Just finished reading your script. I haven't read any of the earlier posts so...
This is perhaps one of the most solid pieces of work I've read on this site. It's tough to give any real "help" for a script such as this but I'll try.
First, immediately your character introduction and set up was instantly noticeable. You're main character's were, in fact, what made this such a dynamic and interesting detective story. I think good detective stories do one of two things really well...
1. They have such an interesting, unique twist (Seven, for example) it alone makes the story a winner.
2. Or the characters make the story itself shine (48hrs, Silence of the Lamb, etc.). Like yours does. While the 'case', in my opinion, is average the interactions between your two main characters is what make this story amazing. Sure you have a nicely developed, solid story but your characters set it apart.
Immediately, I get a good sense of who your characters are and what motivates them. You characters develop nicely even up until the last scene. Great job.
This is such a solid piece, I would be surprised if this didn't get picked up by someone if it hasn't already.
After reading, I sat awhile and thought about what I could possibly say to you about this. And I realized that it wasn't what I was going to say about THIS that was important but about your future stories that was. You definitely have talent and I expect you'll be writing for production companies soon... but what is going to set you apart from the rest of the "hired guns" in Hollywood? I think you should stretch you imagination a bit. Don't be so conservative with your stories. I think the inherent desire for every screenwriter is to be the one to write the next "Memento", "Matrix", "Being John Malkovich". That's mine anyways. I want to be the next Lynch, or Mahmet. Do you remember the name of the guy who wrote "Cellphone" or "Payphone"? Niether do I. The guy's probably the best paid writer in Hollywood. Nobody outside of the business knows his name. That's what you should strive to do. You have the skill to do just that. Set yourself apart from everyone else. I would love to read something by you where I go "wow, now that was a f'ing great movie!" That should be your goal as a writer. I want to leave the theater thinking about the damn thing all day!
Not to take anything away from this screenplay. Like I said, more than a handful of producers would pick this up. It would bring people to the theatres and make them money. And it's good. But it's safe.
Anyways, on to some specifics...
PG 1: Shots from the interior of the cab? How does the audience see this? Gun shells on the seat?
I like how you're setting this up, introducing your characters.
PG 2: You don't "throw on" surgical gloves. Maybe "pull" or "yank".
PG 5: "Why is there a mime at my crime scene?" Beautiful line of dialogue.
PG 10: I wouldn't use "SOMETIME LATER" as a slugline. Just use the same one as before. We'll get the inference.
Pg 30: "A bald, thin-faced man." Is this a description of the sketch or the Captain again?
PG 33: Bedronin(sp?) answers the phone with a question. Why is he questioning the caller about his name?
PG 35: So far you have set the characters up nicely. Their relationship is nicely done. Very layered backgrounds. Good job!
PG 37: Why do you suddenly begin using scene transition headings?
PG 49: spell out numbers when they're spoken.
PG 54: I don't think the police would read the letter outloud to the public. They would keep the contents of the letter priviledged.
PG 80: Use a VO for the phone conversation.
PG 82: "Continues down the alley a piece..." -- " What's a "piece"?
PG 92: From what I know about murderers (the serial kind) is that they utilize a killing method or weapon of choice. So far RP has used a gun to kill his victims. I don't think he'd switch to a knife for later killings. The difference of using a gun to kill someone vs a knife is a whole different pshycological state.
PG 112: I thought Kiersaugh no longer had a girlfriend? I would set it up before that showing that he is reluctant to go home because she's there. Maybe set it up with a piece of dialogue.
PG 117: Why does RP push Kiersaugh to the floor?
PG 118: Need to make each person's immediate goal a little clearer here. RP's, Kiersaugh's...
Okay, hope this helps a little. Let me know if you have any questions.
Dickson, Just finished reading your script. I haven't read any of the earlier posts so...
This is perhaps one of the most solid pieces of work I've read on this site. It's tough to give any real "help" for a script such as this but I'll try.
First, immediately your character introduction and set up was instantly noticeable. You're main character's were, in fact, what made this such a dynamic and interesting detective story. I think good detective stories do one of two things really well...
1. They have such an interesting, unique twist (Seven, for example) it alone makes the story a winner.
2. Or the characters make the story itself shine (48hrs, Silence of the Lamb, etc.). Like yours does. While the 'case', in my opinion, is average the interactions between your two main characters is what make this story amazing. Sure you have a nicely developed, solid story but your characters set it apart.
Immediately, I get a good sense of who your characters are and what motivates them. You characters develop nicely even up until the last scene. Great job.
This is such a solid piece, I would be surprised if this didn't get picked up by someone if it hasn't already.
After reading, I sat awhile and thought about what I could possibly say to you about this. And I realized that it wasn't what I was going to say about THIS that was important but about your future stories that was. You definitely have talent and I expect you'll be writing for production companies soon... but what is going to set you apart from the rest of the "hired guns" in Hollywood? I think you should stretch you imagination a bit. Don't be so conservative with your stories. I think the inherent desire for every screenwriter is to be the one to write the next "Memento", "Matrix", "Being John Malkovich". That's mine anyways. I want to be the next Lynch, or Mahmet. Do you remember the name of the guy who wrote "Cellphone" or "Payphone"? Niether do I. The guy's probably the best paid writer in Hollywood. Nobody outside of the business knows his name. That's what you should strive to do. You have the skill to do just that. Set yourself apart from everyone else. I would love to read something by you where I go "wow, now that was a f'ing great movie!" That should be your goal as a writer. I want to leave the theater thinking about the damn thing all day!
Not to take anything away from this screenplay. Like I said, more than a handful of producers would pick this up. It would bring people to the theatres and make them money. And it's good. But it's safe.
Anyways, on to some specifics...
PG 1: Shots from the interior of the cab? How does the audience see this? Gun shells on the seat?
I like how you're setting this up, introducing your characters.
PG 2: You don't "throw on" surgical gloves. Maybe "pull" or "yank".
PG 5: "Why is there a mime at my crime scene?" Beautiful line of dialogue.
PG 10: I wouldn't use "SOMETIME LATER" as a slugline. Just use the same one as before. We'll get the inference.
Pg 30: "A bald, thin-faced man." Is this a description of the sketch or the Captain again?
PG 33: Bedronin(sp?) answers the phone with a question. Why is he questioning the caller about his name?
PG 35: So far you have set the characters up nicely. Their relationship is nicely done. Very layered backgrounds. Good job!
PG 37: Why do you suddenly begin using scene transition headings?
PG 49: spell out numbers when they're spoken.
PG 54: I don't think the police would read the letter outloud to the public. They would keep the contents of the letter priviledged.
PG 80: Use a VO for the phone conversation.
PG 82: "Continues down the alley a piece..." -- " What's a "piece"?
PG 92: From what I know about murderers (the serial kind) is that they utilize a killing method or weapon of choice. So far RP has used a gun to kill his victims. I don't think he'd switch to a knife for later killings. The difference of using a gun to kill someone vs a knife is a whole different pshycological state.
PG 112: I thought Kiersaugh no longer had a girlfriend? I would set it up before that showing that he is reluctant to go home because she's there. Maybe set it up with a piece of dialogue.
PG 117: Why does RP push Kiersaugh to the floor?
PG 118: Need to make each person's immediate goal a little clearer here. RP's, Kiersaugh's...
Okay, hope this helps a little. Let me know if you have any questions.
Joseph
Thanks man. I read Perception and want to post my review. Where's Perception at on the site? I can always email you my comments if you'd rather. Let me know.
Thanks for your offer regarding our script, Peephole. We'll be happy to do an exchange with you -- we checked out the first few pages of yours and we're looking forward to reading the rest.
Trivial but important…others may have problem. I had problems with your Pdf file. It is 5mb in size, enormous! Normally it should only be about 0.2mb.
In your first descriptive paragraph, Shouldn’t it be a voice over? I am not from that area and there is no way that I would know it was a once busy street.
This is a really good script. The suspense was held throughout the whole plot and I was kept guessing as to who the Red phantom was. I like the clever way your story is tied to the Zodiac. You seem to have tied all the lose ends to all your characters. My favourite character is Veteran detective Bedrosian. He reminds me of “dirty Harry”. I liked that.
The story has a lot to tell but I think it could be tightened up. I think Kiersaugh works out the clues a little too quickly. I believe it did not give me a chance to work them out for myself.
I love the play on Kiersaugh’s name. Clever!
The suspense and action from p 78 to 83 is fantastic.
Minor typos P39 Minor spelling error Petal instead of Pedal P80 tires should be tyres
Overall, the script is well structured and flows freely.
Thanks for agreeing to trade reads with us. Overall, I think your story is very good. It takes too long to get going – and I’ll go into specifics of why I think that is, down below – but the mystery works. You do a nice job of setting up back story for these characters. Also, you write very natural-sounding dialogue, so kudos on that! It’s not easy.
The end felt like a bit of a let-down for me. I felt like I was being set up for a big twist at the end, but it never came. I was surprised that Kiersaugh killed Paris, but I didn’t really understand *why* he did it.
The number one thing I think you can do to improve this script is to edit yourself. You’re a good writer, but almost all of your descriptions and action sequences are over-written. Lots of times, you’ll describe the same thing two different ways. One easy way to trim is to go through and try to eliminate every single adverb. Don’t say that Bedrosian walks slowly, as if he’s tired. Say that he trudges. Use stronger verbs, and you won’t need so many words to get the point across.
I’ve listed some specific examples below of places and ways you can make your writing crisper and cleaner. I think you can tell this story in under 110 pages, and it will be a better, more readable script.
If you have any questions, please let me know. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on PEEPHOLE.
Thanks,
Aimee
The descriptive passages can be trimmed quite a bit without losing their impact. You’re a good writer, but your style in this script is more novelistic than cinematic. For example:
“This dark, dimly lit Hollywood back street is a mere shadow of what it used to be. The windows of this once busy strip are now boarded up. Forgotten about and left to decay.”
Your slugline gives the information that it’s (a) a barren street; (b) Hollywood and (c) night. You don’t need to repeat that information. So how about:
“Dimly lit. Boarded-up shops. An air of decay.”
It’s crisper, cleaner, and creates more white space, which readers love.
p.3 You say in your description that “the bullet exited at a different trajectory and speed.” This is another area where you can trim and make your script more readable. You can’t show that the bullet exited at a different trajectory, you can only show the results of that – which you’ve done, in the previous sentence.
p. 4 “Why is there a mime on my crime scene?” LOL, great line
p. 6 This is another example of how you can trim some fat from your script easily. You say that there’s “red blood” on the pole. Do you really need to say it’s red? It’s blood.
p. 8 Just one more example of how I think you can trim things, and then I’ll leave it alone and focus on story. You say that the Donut King manager is “giving [Bedrosian] the skinny on a possible suspect.” Don’t put that in the description. Your dialogue is already doing that work for you – and the dialogue is good! Trust it – and trust the reader to be able to interpret the dialogue correctly.
p. 11 “Loanpoke” I’m pretty sure the name of the real-life prison is Lompoc. Not sure if that’s what you were going for, but “Loanpoke” looks funny.
p. 15 Just a note that numbers in dialogue should be spelled out – the only exception is years. So for someone’s height, six-two. For an apartment number one-twelve. Etc.
p. 17-19 I get that you’re keeping it a mystery whether the suspect is Fraker or not. But you need to give him some sort of name. If you want to call him Suspect, that’s fine, but it needs to be capitalized.
p. 32-33 You’re inserting the envelope twice here. Once is enough.
p. 37 You’re using “Match Cut To” for a situation that’s not really a match cut. INTERCUT would be better here – it’s the most efficient way to show a telephone conversation from both ends. Set up one scene & character, set up the other. Then just put “INTERCUT TELEPHONE CONVERSATION – BEDROSIAN AND KIERSAUGH” Then just put the dialogue and you don’t have to switch back and forth between scenes.
p. 43 You refer to the white car as both a hot rod and a sedan. That’s confusing.
p. 48 This is where I feel the story really kicks into gear, and that needs to happen earlier. You’ve got, in my opinion, way too much set-up and not enough action.
p. 53 “grizzly” should be “grisly”
p. 54 I don’t believe that the police would make the contents of that letter public. Why? It could compromise their investigation, and it doesn’t contain any information that might require the public’s help.
I've done a page one, complete reboot of this thing since 2007. All new characters, new setting but kept the Zodiac premise in tact as far as the clues and codes and letters to the police, etc.
This is the seventh draft of this latest version and could REALLY use some honest feedback.
This has a lot of potential. You clearly know you’re way around the procedural genre. The plot comes thick and fast, new revelations, information, leads, blind alleys, developments happen pretty much every couple of pages to keep us hooked and wonder what’s around the corner. By and large, the pacing is solid, we are drip fed the information, for the most part, in a controlled and assured manner. I feel like I’m in relatively safe hands in that regard. As I said, its evident you’re a fan of these type of films and have applied their techniques to your own writing.
Technically, the writing starts a little on the verbose side both in dialogue and prose. The latter gradually streamlines and becomes leaner, more direct, less decorative. There are times when sentences run on, like most scripts it could be tightened up but it didn’t hinder the read too much. The dialogue on the other hand, is one of my criticisms, in that it is long winded and overly expositiory a significant amount of the time, stuff got repeated a lot, particularly in Dr. Fink’s scenes. The reasoning behind the protagonist’s trauma is writ large, then repeated and generally explained in far too much detail I reckon. Going back to the story, while it kept me engaged, it did feel very familiar. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every beat of this story in other films. I appreciate that it’s hard to be original, especially within such a saturated genre, but is their some twist or wrinkle you could give it to make it stand out?
I guess utilizing the zodiac imagery and what that implies is one way although this could also be construed as crass exploitation of that “brand” (for want of a better term). However, to your credit (even though it perplexed me in equal measure) the characters don’t make a big deal of it and acknowledge it only once I think. It’s like it goes without saying and perhaps for San Fran denizens it does since that case was so famous.
As with these types of stories, there were some plot contrivances and convenient divulging of information right on cue when we needed it. I get that’s par for the course but a couple of times it felt like there was an unreasonable/illogical delay in following stuff up. As in certain leads, although clearly important, weren’t perused until it suited the plot to pursue them.
The deficiencies of this police department also facilitates for the many surprises, dead ends and red herrings that occur, especially the central twist. They sometimes shine and gain traction in the case before a honking error is revealed. This lot needs to go away and do some 101 investigative training...or binge watch CSI. I’m partly joking but most of the officers here should take a long hard look at themselves. Except Craig actually and he’s an asshole...whom I did enjoy.
To be fair, at least Wells admits this and I appreciate that this learning process is part of the arc but it’s an issue if the story’s ability to function is contingent on the good guys being bad at what they do. It might work in a comedy, not a drama. I don’t expect a bunch of Sherlock Holmes’, or for them to be super on point, like those savant investigators you generally see. Just a reasonable level of competence to make things plausible, a consistency. The oversights committed by this department are embarrassing at times bordering on the comical.
The final act does feature a neat twist that I didn’t see coming and pretty much rings true story-wise when it’s laid out for us. My concern is (and this could be just be me being slow on the uptake) how it’s seeded throughout the script. In some ways, the breadcrumbs are up front and centre, blatant even (flashbacks/dreams) but their veracity is always up for debate. This is intentional I guess but I don’t know if it will entirely work on screen. Some of these sequences are fact, others are distorted, skewed, fictional. That inconsistency will rankle some I reckon.
Then, in other ways the true nature of things are buried so deep behind misdirection and sleight of hand so were we ever going to be able to figure it out anyway? And I get it, that’s the nature of a twist, setting that trap. My question is how they’re executed, are they believable within the greater narrative or unfairly misleading.
The most satisfying curve balls are ones that when explicated make you go “Oh yeah, I should’ve got that. It was there I just never picked up on it, now it makes sense”. That reaction happened here for me in a partial way but not completely as some “clues” called back to which point the finger at the killer are scant at best, abstruse or just shoehorned in to tie things up. In some instances there was no setup, we only learn of connections and chunks of back-story when it’s relayed to us via dialogue at the most opportune moment or by the killer themselves (a certain internal investigation coupled with a lack of follow through regarding it, Wells’ presence during Nicole’s murder, Angela Cowell’s daughter, significance of pizza shop/proximity to vital confrontation)
So while I appreciated the twist being unanticipated yet making sense in the main, the ramifications of it could also leave a bitter taste in the mouth for some and the experience as a whole, rather frustrating. It sort of feels like we’ve been had, like everything kind of meant nothing, you know. It was all a construct, a puppet show, orchestrated from day 1, a wild goose chase. Of course, there is a perverse delight in that as the puppeteer, a certain cleverness but as a viewer, I believe some will feel a little cheated.
Personally though, my perverse side is strong so I enjoyed the middle finger it essentially sticks up. It’s quite a dark and nasty resolution when it all shakes out, a faithless screed of how debased humans can become. I have to give you props for going all the way in that regard.
Anyway, I’m waffling on, I enjoyed the read for the most part, there is a lot here to like and a lot here that makes for something I could see on screen (as I’ve seen its primary components on screen before) Likewise, it could do with some discipline and pairing back, maybe a little simplifying...three approaches I could well do with taking on in my own writing.
Pages: 
Author
Night of the Red Phantom
Logged
Locked Board