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.
Just for the sake of clarity, what is it abut my writing that you dislike so much? What am I doing that's so different and off-putting? I really want to know.
Character development. Always has been. Just never care about any of your characters. Especially in "Fade".
Yes, you've written features. I haven't. I think real horror is caring about your main characters. And yes, watching them die. Can't say I cared for anyone in "Unforgettable" either. So far as I've gotten...
We go straight to the cops. Who come off as robotic. Give them a quirk, something unique. Or, just ignore me. You wanted to know, that's my two cents. Again, I just write shorts. WTF do I know.
James, I listen to every comment I get. That doesn't mean I immediately make changes based on those comments, but when someone brings something up that makes sense and I agree with, I'm all over it.
I can guarantee you these 2 cops, Addinton and Glenville, are far from robotic or wooden. In fact, they both have side stories going along which really bring out their character. They also both have character traits portrayed in their dialogue. And, both are integral to the story.
Congrats on finishing this. I thought you did a fine job for seven weeks. Me, I'd rather take four or five months. You have a lot of comments already, needless to say I only glanced at some of them. Forgive me if I repeat a thing or two and any grammical errors...
This is not a book, but a script, so believe it or not dialogue is king. So I must crown you. Some might disagree just to "Debuke," me. You had a good mixture of suspense and action. Maybe more so suspense which it should be for a thriller.
The plot was too simple, I think the story would benefit more if it were a bit complex... good thrillers are. JMO
I thought the flashback were fine, nothing to confusing. They revealed important pieces of the puzzle, especially the scene in Vegas. At first I was skeptical of that scene until I kept reading. After reading... I didn't see any other way you could pull it off without changing certain aspects of the story. All I'll say is... I don't think you needed that many. Anything that can be cut, should.
People tend to get caught up on the fact that your characters need to be likable and to be honest, they really don't. Everyone isn't likable, no matter what. Clearly, Jack wasn't. Speaking of him, once her left the hospital, there was no real urgency on his part to find his wife. For most men in that situation, there would be. So early on I just didn't see it.
Julie and Mitch, neither were too likable either. Julie came off as very cold in the beginning, but of course we soon find out why. Mitch, you mentioned you didn't try to hide the fact that he was the other man. This was clearly evident from the get go, so fair enough. I was thinking if I was writing this, I probably would have tried to conceal it more, but I got to thinking... the way you set things up, I don't think it would have made a big difference, most of the audience would probably had pegged Mitch right away, regardless. To find out he was just a ghost in the end surprised me. But Ryan and Electric Dreamer already pointed out your two blunders with that, so.
I thought Addinton was your most likable character. The back story with him and his mum was good. Glenville and Shauntee were fine too. Speaking of them...
Unfortunately, Glenville and Shauntee; the scenes with them after page 70, they were alright, but I don' think they added too much. Remember at this point were approaching the finish line... It's about Jack and not them. If anything, I'd probably try to re-work those scenes somehow.
When people walk out of a movie theater, it doesn't matter what happened throughout the movie, the last thing everyone will remember for sure is the ending. So you want to make a good one.
In the end, I guess we all get what we deserve and clearly, they did. I wasn't to surprised at it. Did you ever consider an alternate one?
Just a few thoughts. It was a fast read. Like I said earlier, I thought this was good for a first draft. Entertaining. For what it's worth.
Hey, Ghost, thanks for the read and comments. I totally appreciate the bump and kind words, of course.
Cool, glad you liked the dialogue, suspense, and action. I was worried that it may be a little thriller-lite, but thrillers really aren’t my genre of choice.
Yep, the plot was quite simple indeed. I think the vast majority of my premises are very simple (as I’ve commented before, actually). I try and take something very simple and then make it as complex as I can. I tend to like things simple, and easy to follow. I definitely tried to do as much as I could with it and make it as layered as I could, keeping within the simple premise.
Great! Glad you liked the Flashbacks and thought they actually added to the story. Many did not feel this way, so it’s good to hear this. HaHa…the Vegas scene…one of my faves. I was extremely worried it was just too long and “unconnected” – glad it worked for you and you see why it’s there.
Ghost, you’ve made my day, buddy! I’ve had so many people complain about the characters being unlikable and I am in complete agreement with you that they don’t need to be likable, as long as they’re engaging…or interesting. I feel they are, and actually, in many ways, even likable, but I guess I’m kind of odd in that regard.
You’re completely correct about Jack’s lack of urgency, but hopefully you understand a bit more why he wasn’t so urgent, now that you’ve finished it. On that same note, as I’ve said a few times, IMO, there really isn’t much he could do (yes, he definitely could have done more). Once he’s found, the present time line is all within that same day, and his morning was spent in the hospital.
You’re exactly right about Mitch…no matter what I would have done to try and conceal his identity, it would have failed, IMO, unless I intro’d a bunch of other “white” characters, and I didn’t want to muddy the waters.
Glad Mitch’s reveal worked for you. It’s a big piece of the script either working or not working, IMO. I’ve already fixed up those 2 give-aways that were brought up.
Most are in agreement that Addinton is the most likable character. I think he’s cool people, too. Most do not like Glenville and Shauntee. I really like her character. I think she’s funny, sexy, and provides some great island T & A. I hear what you’re saying about their sex scene near the end. IMO, it is what it is, and for me, any sex scene with good nudity is a plus. I also really wanted there to be some reason for the audience to route for Glenville and fear for his life. I wanted him to be much more than just a cop. I wanted him to have something to come back for…something to live for. And of course, I wanted there to be a reason why he was late, leaving Addinton on his own for awhile, in a tough situation.
Ghost, we’re on the same page here. My philosophy completely is that movies need to end on a strong note. I always try to backload my scripts, which makes them slow in the middle, which many don’t appreciate. Hopefully, the finale worked for you and ended things up strongly.
I had numerous alternate endings in mind. This one was the strongest, IMO. I like things dark, as you probably know. I don’t appreciate a Hollywood ending (all the time, that is…every now and then is fine, but not always). I wanted to tie it all together with the closing montage, which is identical to the opening montage, except you find out that all those scenes were actually of Jack and Mitch, not Jack and Julie, hopefully, making Mitch’s ghost all the more meaningful.
I’ve made a few tweaks here and there, but for the most part, this is going to remain pretty much the way it is. I added some integral wording, making it clear that Jack actually did everything he could to try and save Julie before she fell. I also added a few more Flashbacks (yeah, I know…there’s already a shitload) of Jack and Julie in happier times, which hopefully make them both a bit more likable and show that their relationship was solid before Jimmy’s death, and Jack’s fall into depression, and insanity.
What a confusing read this is. There are so many flashbacks in it that I was getting neck-strain from being whipped back and forwards to different points in Jack's story.
But one thing remained pretty consistent for me. Jack is a very unattractive person. Not quite as unattractive as Mitch, but close. Both these guys, coke-snorting, hookers-screwing, booze-downing, wisecracking, just turned me right off. I had no sympathy for either of them, as they just seemed so completely impressed with themselves while doing really ugly things.
They aren't 'wild and crazy guys', they're just frat boys with entitlement issues.
But are they closet homosexuals? Wha-a-at?!? I hear the screech from here.
The film starts with a montage of an unnamed couple doing lots of physical sporting activities together, high on adrenaline and each other as they best each challenge. The film ends with the same montage, but this time the unnamed pair that mirrors the opening version are identified as Jack and Mitch, best buddies.
But the first montage seems to indicate, since the pair are neither identified nor their gender's specified, by then seamlessly shifting into the scene of Jack and Julie's wedding, that these two are the sporty couple. That's what the 'grammar' of the montage suggests - unidentified couple flows into identified couple - ergo, the unidentified couple were the identified couple.
At film's end, when the montage is played again, and we are shown that the sporty couple are Jack and Mitch, but the sequence still flows into Jack and Julie's wedding - well, I am seriously confused.
Because in the interim we have learned that Jack has killed both Julie and Mitch upon finding out they were having an affair. But we have also found out that, as Julie puts it to Mitch, "it was me and you before it was me and Jack".
She and Jack are 'celebrating' their tenth wedding anniversary! How long have she and Mitch been cheating on Jack? How long before she married Jack had she been involved with Mitch, and presumably broke it off to link up with Jack? Why didn't Jack ever indicate knowing that his best buddy and his wife might have been an item before Jack stepped up and won her heart from him all those years ago?
I get the feeling that in this story the character of 'Julie' really just serves as that bitch who came between two great guys, however much it is dressed up with dolphins and teardrops to sell us Jack and Julie as the love story of all time.
Another problem I have is with the gratuitous sex scenes between Glenville and Shauntee, which seem to be there for no real reason other than to heat up the screen a little. OK, it might work dramatically to have Addinton initially unable to locate Glenville as the story speeds towards Welchman Hall Gully, but there's side-story happening here which distracts rather than adds to the point of the drama.
In fact, overall, I found the treatment of the Bajan characters just a tad patronising, both in their dialogue and their actions. I like Glenville and Shauntee, but they seem here to be used as a pair of 'hot to trot' parodies of islands-style relaxed sensuality. All that material about "fritters" and "abundant racks" early in the piece, and blowjobs on the patio towards the end, sure it will 'heat up the screen' (it did on my computer), but it's not adding to the forward movement of the main story.
There are other 'islands' things that seem lazy, too. Why does Addinton's mother 'see' the dead Julie's spirit, and ask him to help set "that girl" free? Is it a 'mama voodoo' thing? Or is it a Christian woman sensitive to the afterlife asking help for a tormented soul lying in unconsecrated ground? Addinton's father is at peace in a "beautiful" place, Mrs Harewood tells us - why would the shade of Julie, not at peace, be anywhere near him? And how can Addinton do anything to set Julie's spirit free? This whole sequence/concept is just lazy clichés about black spirituality.
It's the forward movement of the story being hobbled by so many flashbacks that really undoes the script, though. At times I found it hard to work out where I was in Jack's story, and as he did more and more ugly things in it (drugs, hookers, a week before his wedding!), I started to lose any sympathy for him at all. By the by, Julie seems remarkably relaxed about her husband-to-be hinting that he just might have spent the weekend at sexual adventuring. In fact, on Page 66 she even suggests she might play the same game at her Bachelorette Party "next weekend" - way too casual for star-crossed lovers, I'd have thought.
Overall, I keep coming up against the story being hard to follow with all the flashbacks, the lead characters being unattractive human beings, and the treatment of the Bajan characters playing just a little too cornily.
Then we've got Mitch the ghost, who uses cell phones and snorts cocaine so efficiently that 'real' coke disappears from tabletops after a ghost sniffs it up. Page 44, real coke, Addinton sees it; Page 56, the coke's gone, we've 'seen' Mitch snort it. Or is that the same coke Jack snorts at Page 88, when, in flashback, we see him grab a golf club and head off to Welchman Hall Gully? Nope, can't be. Addinton saw the coke at Page 44 in 'now' time after Julie's disappeared. Different line, different time. Still leaves a ghost snorting something out of existence in the material world.
Now, is Mitch a ghost or Jack's guilty projection of the man we will find out he has killed? Eventually we will discover that Mitch, whatever he is, is trying to lead Jack to remember what he's done - killed Julie and Mitch. (Page 94) Why? Does his soul need releasing too? Why didn't Mrs Harewood see him?
Jack deserves what he gets by film's end, but is it really the writer's intention that I should be thinking, so does Mitch, and Julie, too? Because I am.
It's really only little Jimmy, "cute as a button", who doesn't deserve what happens to him - but it had to, didn't it, or Jack and Julie and Mitch could never have ultimately got on their flights to Barbados and descent into murderous mayhem? Maybe if they'd 'fessed up to each other ten or eleven years ago and shacked up as a threesome, Jimmy would be in grade school by now and having fine times in 'show and tell' sessions.
Hey Michael, thanks for the read, bump, and comments. I mean that 100% sincerely. I know you don't know me, but I say over and over that any feedback is great feedback, even when it's extremely or even 100% negative feedback..
I'm watching the Packers game now (I'm from WI and my parents reside in Fish Creek, about an hour north of Green Bay), so I can't respond to your comments in detail, but I will ASAP.
Hey Michael, thanks again for reading and providing feedback on my script. Big football weekend, so sorry for taking a couple days to get back with you in detail.
I want to start by filling you in on the background here, as I have a feeling you don’t know. This was a script that was part of the latest 7WC, which stands for “7 week challenge”. We were given a genre – Thriller, and a theme – Amnesia, and we had 7 weeks to conceive and write a feature script. IMO, 7 weeks is pretty quick to put together a solid, clean script. I spent a lot of time in the planning, researching, and pre-writing. Once the actual writing started, everything flowed very easily and quickly, and I was very happy with the outcome. The plotlines and story took many detours along the way, and again, I’m very happy with how it all came together in the end. I like to respond to feedback as completely as I can. I figure if someone’s going to invest a couple hours reading my script, and then presenting detailed feedback, the least I can do is respond to each of their points, be they positive or negative. I’m not real big on the “quoting” feature in here, so I’ll just copy your quotes and reply. I’ll also give you some of my own comments after I’ve hit all of yours. Cool? OK, cool, let’s do it.
“What a confusing read this is. There are so many flashbacks in it that I was getting neck-strain from being whipped back and forwards to different points in Jack's story.” – I’m sorry this confused you. I’m also a little taken aback that you chose to begin your feedback with a statement like this. I’m not really sure what you were confused about, though. The Flashbacks were all very clear in letting you know you were going into a Flashback, and IMO, handled pretty smoothly. You’re completely correct and not alone in pointing out that there are indeed a shitload of Flashbacks. I’m not a big Flashback guy, so I figured if I’m going to have to use them (and IMO, I definitely needed them, to tell this story…and probably any amnesia tale in general), I might as well go balls out and tell my story in 2 distinctly different ways – through Flashbacks and through present time, with both plotlines converging in the end. It’s not supposed to be a cookie cutter structured script, but then again, none of my scripts are…or will be, for that matter. IMO, once you realize that there are going to be a lot of Flashbacks, your mind should easily wrap around this concept, and take it in, so to speak. Sorry you were so confused.
“But one thing remained pretty consistent for me. Jack is a very unattractive person. Not quite as unattractive as Mitch, but close. Both these guys, coke-snorting, hookers-screwing, booze-downing, wisecracking, just turned me right off. I had no sympathy for either of them, as they just seemed so completely impressed with themselves while doing really ugly things.” – Well, again, you aren’t alone in thinking Jack (and Mitch) are unattractive characters, but IMO, that shouldn’t really be an issue. Everyone in here is written as “real” characters with real human flaws, which don’t always do “the right thing”. IMO that really shouldn’t be an issue for you as a reader or watcher, as long as they’re engaging characters, and to me, they are. I’ve got a feeling that the people who take offense to their actions are people who take offense to people in general who are like this. Funny thing is that there are SO MANY people in the real world who do and have acted like this, that you’d never realize, because you don’t have the ability to look into someone’s personal life, or past. And that’s actually quite sad to me. We’re talking two entirely different schools of thought here. There are many who look at drugging, boozing, and banging babes as being cool (to a certain extent, and relatively speaking)…and then there are those who say, “Oh my, that’s just despicable…how could anyone do that?” Guess we know where both of us fall, huh?
“But are they closet homosexuals? Wha-a-at?!? I hear the screech from here.” – No, they’re definitely not gay or closet homos. Again, there were a couple of people who wondered the same thing, which really surprises me. They have always been best friends and enjoy doing things together. Hope that doesn’t make them gay.
“The film starts with a montage of an unnamed couple doing lots of physical sporting activities together, high on adrenaline and each other as they best each challenge. The film ends with the same montage, but this time the unnamed pair that mirrors the opening version are identified as Jack and Mitch, best buddies.” – Yep, you are correct, Michael, but there isn’t any besting going on, and other than enjoying what’s taking place, they aren’t high on each other.
“But the first montage seems to indicate, since the pair are neither identified nor their gender's specified, by then seamlessly shifting into the scene of Jack and Julie's wedding, that these two are the sporty couple. That's what the 'grammar' of the montage suggests - unidentified couple flows into identified couple - ergo, the unidentified couple were the identified couple.” – Again, you are correct. That’s exactly what you’re supposed to assume as the audience, and I’m glad it worked that way for you and you read exactly what was written on the page.
“At film's end, when the montage is played again, and we are shown that the sporty couple are Jack and Mitch, but the sequence still flows into Jack and Julie's wedding - well, I am seriously confused.” – Why are you confused about this, Michael? Are you truly “confused”, or is it that you’re upset that you were duped, so to speak, about the realization that the opening montage mostly followed memories of Jack and Mitch, when you “assumed” it was Jack and Julie, based on the way it was presented? If you’re actually just questioning why this is, it’s because Jack’s first memories, as he comes to, are of the good times he shared with Mitch, and his guilt over killing him. I also like to bookend things in scripts and do it in a way that changes things up. Again, sorry you were so confused over this.
“Because in the interim we have learned that Jack has killed both Julie and Mitch upon finding out they were having an affair. But we have also found out that, as Julie puts it to Mitch, "it was me and you before it was me and Jack".” – Yep, correct. There is some back story that was cut out (that may need to be fleshed out a bit better). All 3 were college friends and Julie and Mitch were together as a couple first. It didn’t work and they broke it off (while remaining good friends), and Jack moved in, they got married, had a son, blah, blah, blah.
“She and Jack are 'celebrating' their tenth wedding anniversary! How long have she and Mitch been cheating on Jack? How long before she married Jack had she been involved with Mitch, and presumably broke it off to link up with Jack? Why didn't Jack ever indicate knowing that his best buddy and his wife might have been an item before Jack stepped up and won her heart from him all those years ago?” Julie and Mitch have been having an affair ever since Jack “lost it”, after Jimmy was killed. Jack started doing coke, drinking like a fish, and falling into deep depression. Julie went out with Mitch in college. Jack and Julie started dating seriously in college after Julie and Mitch ended their romantic relationship. Jack knew damn well that Mitch was with Julie first. They were all great friends…solid enough friends that could put that behind them.
“I get the feeling that in this story the character of 'Julie' really just serves as that bitch who came between two great guys, however much it is dressed up with dolphins and teardrops to sell us Jack and Julie as the love story of all time.” – No, not true, Jack and Julie had it all until Jimmy bit it. Jack’s drugging, boozing, and overall asshole-like ways pushed Julie to the edge, and she jumped…into Mitch’s waiting arms.
“Another problem I have is with the gratuitous sex scenes between Glenville and Shauntee, which seem to be there for no real reason other than to heat up the screen a little. OK, it might work dramatically to have Addinton initially unable to locate Glenville as the story speeds towards Welchman Hall Gully, but there's side-story happening here which distracts rather than adds to the point of the drama.” – Sorry you don’t like gratuitous sex scenes with smoking hot babes…I sure do! IMO, an R rated movie should provide R rated material. Is it necessary here? Of course not, but it’ll sure look good on screen. As you mentioned, it also does play into the finale, and I’m the kind of writer who likes to dot all my “I’s” and cross all my “t’s”, in terms of there being real reasons why things happen. Again, Michael, it’s obvious that you and I play on different sides of the fence, and that’s totally cool with me.
“In fact, overall, I found the treatment of the Bajan characters just a tad patronising, both in their dialogue and their actions. I like Glenville and Shauntee, but they seem here to be used as a pair of 'hot to trot' parodies of islands-style relaxed sensuality. All that material about "fritters" and "abundant racks" early in the piece, and blowjobs on the patio towards the end, sure it will 'heat up the screen' (it did on my computer), but it's not adding to the forward movement of the main story.” – Hmmm, here we go again. Yep, the sole reason for all this is because it’s an R rated script that deals with R rated material, and will hopefully attract and appeal to an R rated audience. You say you liked Glenville and Shauntee, yet you didn’t like what they do or say, nor did you like their side plot…so what was it about them that you liked? IMO, it’s the little things they do and say that make them likable and more importantly, memorable characters. In no way was I intentionally being patronizing to anyone. Another cool thing about these 2 is that you rarely see sex/nudity of this nature in mainstream movies, and I do like to push the envelope.
“There are other 'islands' things that seem lazy, too. Why does Addinton's mother 'see' the dead Julie's spirit, and ask him to help set "that girl" free? Is it a 'mama voodoo' thing? Or is it a Christian woman sensitive to the afterlife asking help for a tormented soul lying in unconsecrated ground? Addinton's father is at peace in a "beautiful" place, Mrs Harewood tells us - why would the shade of Julie, not at peace, be anywhere near him? And how can Addinton do anything to set Julie's spirit free? This whole sequence/concept is just lazy clichés about black spirituality.” – It’s not intended to be “lazy”, Michael, and I apologize that you think it is. Again, 7 weeks isn’t a very long time to get everything exactly straight, but IMO, this is so far from a sticking point. You know the way it works…as an audience, you really don’t always get all the answers, and I find it somewhat funny that you seek such deep “spiritual” information here over a secondary character. Truth of the matter is that originally, there was another character, who was basically a gypsy-like “Mama-Voodoo” woman who set Addinton and Glenville on the right trail, so to speak. I didn’t like it or the character and didn’t find it believable or realistic, so she got axed and this part of her transferred into Mrs. Harewood. I decided to just glance over it and add a supernatural element to tie in with Mitch being a spirit the whole present timeline. Mrs. Harewood is teetering between life and death, as she continually “sees” her husband waiting for her. When Addinton talks to her, he’s thinking in his mind about Julie’s disappearance and his Mum is able to “feel” this, thus her comments about Julie. – NOTE – In the rewritten version, there are some major differences in what she says (and gives away). Again, sorry this isn’t working for you.
“It's the forward movement of the story being hobbled by so many flashbacks that really undoes the script, though. At times I found it hard to work out where I was in Jack's story, and as he did more and more ugly things in it (drugs, hookers, a week before his wedding!), I started to lose any sympathy for him at all. By the by, Julie seems remarkably relaxed about her husband-to-be hinting that he just might have spent the weekend at sexual adventuring. In fact, on Page 66 she even suggests she might play the same game at her Bachelorette Party "next weekend" - way too casual for star-crossed lovers, I'd have thought.” – Well, this is a tough one to address, as you’re bringing up 2 completely different topics in this 1 passage…but I’ll address them both again for you. Let’s get this straight – Jack’s Flashbacks are Jack’s memories coming back to him at random times, about random events (OK, they’re not completely random, nor are they at completely random times, but you know what I mean…hopefully). It’s the structure of the script and if you can’t get your head around it or just plain hate it, that’s cool. But it is what it is, and IMO, it’s rather unique and would work well onscreen. Then, you go back to your moral issues with the script and the characters. Michael, obviously I don’t know anything about you, but based on your comments, I can draw a pretty good picture of where you stand (and that doesn’t make you a bad person at all). But, you’ve got to understand that although you’re not alone where you stand, there are plenty of people standing across from you as well, who don’t share the exact same strict, moral rights and wrongs that you do. It doesn’t make them bad people either, and I’m not talking in God’s eyes or anything like that…I’m talking the real world where shit goes down all the time that would blow your mind away if you ever had a clue it was actually going down all around you. Let’s do a quick test and see what you really think. Are you familiar with the movie “It’s Complicated”? Mainstream, big budget Hollywood release, big star power, big WWBO. R rating, rampant drug use, rampant boozing, adultery, infidelity, etc. BUT, all done in a comedic way. What did you think about those characters? Did you detest them because of their actions, or did you take it in stride, based on the tone and the fact that these weren’t bad people, just flawed people, making the same mistakes millions of people make in the real world all the time.
“Overall, I keep coming up against the story being hard to follow with all the flashbacks, the lead characters being unattractive human beings, and the treatment of the Bajan characters playing just a little too cornily.” – Ok, I’ve tried to address these issues numerous times, so I’m going to assume you either understand me or we agree to disagree at this point.
“Then we've got Mitch the ghost, who uses cell phones and snorts cocaine so efficiently that 'real' coke disappears from tabletops after a ghost sniffs it up. Page 44, real coke, Addinton sees it; Page 56, the coke's gone, we've 'seen' Mitch snort it. Or is that the same coke Jack snorts at Page 88, when, in flashback, we see him grab a golf club and head off to Welchman Hall Gully? Nope, can't be. Addinton saw the coke at Page 44 in 'now' time after Julie's disappeared. Different line, different time. Still leaves a ghost snorting something out of existence in the material world.” – Yep, this ghost is able to manipulate objects just like…well, just like ghosts have done onscreen for quite a long time. You ever see a movie where a ghost carries a candelabra (or whatever) and it appears to float along? Or a ghost making a TV come on? Anything really. What can ghosts do and not do? Personally, I’m not sure anyone can really answer that question, can they? Are ghosts real? As far as I’m concerned, when dealing with a subject like this, the writer can decide what can and can’t happen. Obviously, the whole point was to create a twist in the end and then make the audience think back about everything that happened to see if it really made sense. One thing to keep in mind is that no other character except Jack, sees and interacts with Mitch in the present timeline. I don’t follow what you’re saying doesn’t make sense with the page #’s you quoted. Yes, Addinton sees some coke on a mirror on page 44. Yes, ghost Mitch snorts some lines and drains some vodka and Jack sees that on page 56. All the coke Jack bought is not laying on the mirror…he bought a whole 8 ball, so he’s got more somewhere else. Yes, on page 88, Jack is snorting the same coke that Addinton sees later, and grabbing the driver he uses to kill Mitch (it’s the last time Jack is in Colina Del Mar before the present timeline kicks in). It all makes perfect sense, Michael, if you take the time to figure it out. Trust me; I spent a shitload of time making sure everything lined up between timelines, and if I missed something, I’d like to know and correct it, cause I’m a perfectionist at heart..
“Now, is Mitch a ghost or Jack's guilty projection of the man we will find out he has killed? Eventually we will discover that Mitch, whatever he is, is trying to lead Jack to remember what he's done - killed Julie and Mitch. (Page 94) Why? Does his soul need releasing too? Why didn't Mrs Harewood see him?” – Mitch is indeed a ghost. Correct, Ghost Mitch is leading Jack to remember what he did. I guess you could say his soul needs release. Maybe Mrs. Harewood did see him…but she didn’t know who he was, as Addinton wasn’t aware that he was investigating a double murder (as I said earlier, Mrs. Harewood “reads” from her son that he’s after a missing girl only).
“Jack deserves what he gets by film's end, but is it really the writer's intention that I should be thinking, so does Mitch, and Julie, too? Because I am.” – It’s the writer’s intention to produce a thought provoking, uniquely structured twisty supernatural/thriller/mystery hybrid, full of engaging characters, graphic, hard core violence, sex, and nudity. The rewritten version is a bit different in my portrayal of Julie, including her demise. Jack actually snapped back into reality just before Julie slipped off the ledge of the cliff. He actually tried to save her but was unsuccessful (this is a major change in the script, as the version you read does not make that clear at all). Do I feel Mitch and Julie deserved to be killed? No, definitely not. It’s a dark, pull no punches script, however, so what comes around, usually goes around.
“It's really only little Jimmy, "cute as a button", who doesn't deserve what happens to him - but it had to, didn't it, or Jack and Julie and Mitch could never have ultimately got on their flights to Barbados and descent into murderous mayhem? Maybe if they'd 'fessed up to each other ten or eleven years ago and shacked up as a threesome, Jimmy would be in grade school by now and having fine times in 'show and tell' sessions.” – Ha, Michael, that’s funny. You’ve got a real goading type of style that I’m trying so hard to ignore. So, I guess you’re saying that in your mind if a person commits adultery, does drugs, and drinks alcohol, they deserve to die? Is that what you’re saying? No, Jimmy, definitely didn’t deserve to die…he’s just a frickin’ little kid, for God’s sake. No, it didn’t have to happen that way, it’s the way I chose, however, to put a strain on Jack and Julie’s idyllic relationship and lifestyle. There’s a bunch that maybe needs to be read into here, involving the various relationships, but for the record, I’ll set you straight here…Jack and Julie had a wonderful life together before Jimmy died. Jack hid in drugs and booze and distanced himself from Julie. Julie sought comfort in their old friend, Mitch. Jack began to get his life back, and Julie began to understand. Julie called it off with Mitch, but he didn’t go away like he should have. Jack and Julie took this trip to Barbados to rekindle their lost relationship. Mitch showed up unannounced, and things spun out of control quickly. Hope that sheds some light for you and clears up some of your issues. BTW, it is entirely possible that Jack, Mitch, and Jules did engage in a few ménages back in the day, but again, IMO, that doesn’t make them bad people, doesn’t make Jack and Mitch gay, now would it be something that Jack and Julie would tell their young son so he could in turn share that information at school.
OK, Michael, now a couple comments from me.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is all fine and cool. I respect any and all feedback, comments, critiques, etc. I really do. Yours is quite hard to swallow though, based on the derogatory tone you chose to use. Every single comment you made was negative. Is it really possible that there’s nothing here that you enjoyed? Nothing you thought was well done, positive? Do you think it’s a fairly clean script in terms of typos, misspellings, grammar, format, etc? Do you think there are some surprising twists you didn’t see coming? Some excitement? Some thrills/chills/scares? Are there some good visuals in here? Any interesting characters or character relationships? Anything at all that you could throw out that’s remotely positive?
Now, if there isn’t, IYO, that’s cool, and I understand. But it’s a tough pill to swallow seriously, when it’s pretty obvious the intent behind your read and comments. I called you out on another thread. You didn’t like that. You looked up something I wrote and wanted to attack it, and came up with all the negatives you could think of. You put it all together in an irritating, goading mishmash of moral indecencies and righteous attitude, and still never really offered any real advice, much like your comments on Shawn’s Mission Style script.
It’s sad, actually, cause you obviously should know what you’re talking about with a couple of screenwriting credits under your belt, and I bet you’ve got lots of insight and maybe even stories to tell. Why not use that knowledge to help unproduced writers in here? Why not offer advice on how to fix things you see as errors, as opposed to being snide and provoking? Why not use what you’ve learned over the years and come across as an insightful, good guy who is willing to help, as opposed to a snide, goading A-Hole who goes out of his way to be cryptic and downright mean?
We obviously got off on the wrong foot, Michael, and that’s too bad. I personally don’t hold grudges, so if you choose to leave the dark side and come into the light, I’m sure your experience will be a welcome addition to this site.
Take care and thanks again for taking the time to read my script.
Jef, hi. Hey, you worked out how to get A-hole past the auto-censoring here!
We'll have to agree to disagree on your script. You read my mind, tell me all I'm doing is payback, may-aybe. What I did tell you in my critique is what I honestly feel after having read your script. What's the point of observing your spellchecker works a treat, or your scriptwriting program auto-formats for 'feature screenplay' without a hitch? And speaking of "grammar", in Part 1 of your response to my critique you misread what I said.
If a montage is played twice, the second time is usually played to add further information for the audience. This you have done - unidentified couple in the montage's second run through identified. Fine, but the internal grammar of a montage also has its own logic - a couple in sporty activity, a couple getting married, child dies in accident. We can join the dots, and do so backwards as well - accidentally killed child of married couple who are very active sports types: we HAVE to assume the sports couple are Jack and Julie because they are the only pair identified in the first run of the montage. If we only find out at film's end that the sporty couple was actually Jack and Mitch, well, I've already spelled out my take on that. I also think it might crack an audience up, which is surely the last thing you want.
Maybe have all three sporty together at the start, and also show us Jack 'winning' Julie over Mitch, and the best friend gallantly giving way to the 'better man'. That's happened often enough in the bits of real life you tell me I've missed out on.
Look, we can quote and counter-quote at each other until there are no cows left to come home. I don't like your story, the three main characters in it, or the way it's written for the screen. I said why in my first post. Nothing you've written here has altered my opinion.
We clearly have different tastes in story-telling, ideas about what makes a film work, and probably a whole lot else in life. But one thing life most definitely is is a lottery. So I wish you the best of luck getting your hard, and passionately defended, work onto the big screen. We all know how tough it is getting there.
We're walking different roads to the same destination. Should we meet there, the first round's on me.
No problem, Michael. Understood completely. It's all good.
I always respond as best I can to feedback and sometimes that comes across as "defending" what I did, and the reasons why I chose to do what i chose to do.
I'm not questioning your expertise at this point and bet you've got so much to share and offer writers of all levels here on SS, as well as anywhere unproduced writers congregate. It would be nice to see you go that route, as opposed to being cryptic or even vengeful.
I work as an editor and am constantly shocked how poorly most things are written, spell checker, software, whatever being used. I think you'd be too, if you read more scripts here, or even Pro scripts. I pride myself in clean formatting/writing, and always strive for perfection, but we both know that perfection is an always moving target.
Just to go back to the montage issue you brought up one last time, I want to be clear in that it's a personal choice I made to purposely "dupe" my audience into believing exactly what you brought up about who we are watching in the intro, and then who it actually was in the end. If I had made it clear up front, I seriously feel that the integrity of the ruse would be lost, and the mystery and twist would be exposed. I can think of many, many cinematic examples of how this has worked over the years, and for me comes down to good, clear, exact writing, as opposed to "cheating" the audience into believing something that is not to be.
BTW, you can turn off the auto censor feature that blocks swear words and the like in your profile, so you'll see exactly what's being said..and be able to say exactly what you want.
I'm all for brutal honesty and I give it out on a daily basis, so I'm cool with anyone who doesn't like something I've written or have to say. It's all good. I just expect the same constructive criticism as I'm used to giving, including examples of why, etc. I usually try to give some positives as well, and although it may be difficult at times, IMO, it sure helps, and IMO, there are numerous examples of things that are positive on display here, especially considering that this was conceived and written in a 7 week time period.
First off, congratulations on this. For me it was a good read and any criticisms can be worked out successively later on.
We’ve got a good hook and interesting surroundings. We're asking:
Why’s he been roughed up on vacation? Why after so many years, do they come back and he's been beaten up and she's missing? What's the a connection?
So yes, we've got questions that need answering, but I think this story could benefit from more on the side of Jack's wife, Julie.
From the side of Julie’s character, I think it’s weak. I actually was feeling more sympathy for Jack than her. He spiraled down into drug abuse and it’s like she had no pain in her son’s death. She was never shown to be a mother. She felt more like a prop to me.
Of course, my whole opinion of Jack changed in the end. He became this violent killer and I felt this was too far to go with him. I just didn't see it happening the way it did. He went from an innocent victim of fate to an unforgiving soul that killed his wife, his best friend and even the police officer that was good to him.
Here are some notes:
When Corbin says,
Pg 3
CORBIN Lena, I need medical over here, girl. Got a man all roughed up. Send an officer, as well, please.
I felt the dialogue didn’t ring true. Firstly because it sounded like it was a police officer talking and then I went back and re-read because I thought there might have been a naming mistake; so that drew my attention.
I think that if Corbin was radioing the receptionist at the his car rentals place, she’d be in her own world and it would be like a person speaks in perfect English, but you don’t get it because it’s totally off topic.
I don't remember exactly if the receptionist was written in, but I was getting a picture of her in my head... and she's kind of woken up from a stupor thinking, Send an officer as well, please? What the hell?
Maybe you can try and see if you can find a Bajan expression that means “Holy shit” and have her receiving the call and looking out the window and actually noticing the mess.
Here at the hospital:
> His cell phone BUZZES to life, next to him on the bedside table. It slowly turns and HUMS, as it vibrates.
Cell phones aren’t allowed to be turned on in hospitals. It might be different in Barbados though, I don't know.
When Mitch says,
>Your dad thought I could help.
I’m wondering why his dad wouldn’t come himself. Strange.
Page 13
>Sanford motions to the closed door.
What kind of motion? I was thinking, but then I understood it as "You first motion".
>This is Inspector Harewood.
This gave me pause and made me stumble in the read because I thought it was Addinton, but then I learned it was his first name. I’d change his first name because it sounds like a last name.
Page 16 Jack says,
>Of course. I’m worried about Julie.
It sounds off. Perhaps, I’m really worried.
>DR. SANDIFORD Jack, you need anything, anything at all, you hit your call button for Nurse Margaret. I'll be in to check on you later. You need to rest.
Way off. The doctor would just say, “a nurse”. Nurse Margaret is not the only nurse on the floor. And shifts rotate. They’re always changing them around. Sometimes a lot.
Why wouldn’t Mitch come to the hospital? It sounds way too “set up” plot wise.
And nobody on the floor notices Jack leaving in his muddy clothes? When he’s involved in “something” and the police are involved? I don’t think so.
Page 66
>ADDINTON God's given her a full life. She's going to a better place.
He has said this a few times already I think and it feels weak.
Now, I've never been the biggest fan of flashbacks. In some scripts, as in this one, they are a necessity. But only in moderation. In your script, the flashbacks are really the engine powering the narrative forward. Every couple of pages it seems that Jack gazes upon some object and has an incredibly convenient flashback to tell us more details and move the story along. IMO, the result is a stilted reading experience where we're having these fragmented memories spoon fed to us.
Ryan
And I think it's a good one. I think this story might better be told as a "what if" scenario where you take Jack out to a bar, he meets a friend and his friend tells him a true story about what happened to this guy who couldn't "let go" and move on with his life. Kind of, "If you don't change, this kind of thing could happen to you" scenario. Jack stumbles out of the bar perhaps, gets beat up after he antagonizes a couple of teenagers and winds up in "that car in Barbados"...
If you were to do this, yes, it would be from the standpoint of a dream scape, but it would be a relevant one that you might be able to manipulate more into the kind of story you want this to be.
One of my biggest problems with the story as it stands, is that it's just one of those kinds of cops type of shows that I had seen enough of growing up as a kid.
The story I'm interested in this is Jack and Julie. I'm not even interested in Mitch. He's just this cheating SOB that has led Jack down the wrong path. All of the pretty scenery and stuff that Jack imagines (in the beginning and end) from his early age with this guy is just over-imagined "fun stuff" that had more to do with his own machismo immaturity than anything else. It's imagery, I think, that is false and might be something you might like to work with. Or not, but let me offer it here for you to consider:
Let's imagine for a moment that Jack is shown to be remembering these wonderful scenes of his youth with Mitch. And keep them like they are, all beautiful silky romanticized kinds of things. But then, enter Julie, and she says to him:
That's not how it was: And the images change to something very different. Perhaps Jack not being responsible. Wanting to play boy games with Buddy Mitch forever. And his irresponsibility is the very same irresponsibility that winds up leaving his son at risk.
Now here, you might entertain Pia's suggestion on making this more visual. You can bring Julie's perspective into it. And let me ask, "Who is she? Was she perhaps continuing on in the relationship with Mitch because Mitch, through his unscrupulous activities, was helping Julie to pay the mortgage? Otherwise, Jack, with his "memory problem" due to the drugs would have also failed in that responsibility and they would lose their home? Might it be that Jack was given "a false job", but the money was coming from Mitch. And this, Mitch convinced Julie, would help Jack to keep his pride, it would help them to keep their house, and anyways, "Julie, Jules, we can have some special times together. And no one gets hurt. It's all good, right?"
With this type of scenario, maybe you can eliminate some of the woman in the hospital and the stuff with Glenville and that babe. I don't think you need it.
Anyways Jeff, food for thought.
Maybe start with Jack and Julie and their relationship being on the rocks and why.
Show Jack's lost youth that he misses and romanticizes over. (The parachuting etc...)
Show Julie's clear perspective of how "It wasn't so pretty like you describe." ... And show the irresponsibility factor.
Show Julie cutting deep and verbally blaming Jack for their son's death.
Have time clear this away somewhat, apologies, but then Jack declines and one night...
Jack goes out and gets drunk and talks to that guy in the bar... and from then, he leaves and gets beat up and the rest is "Barbados".
I guess it's a matter of figuring out the logistics of telling this through the perspective of Jack having a nightmare like this after a kind of suggestion being planted in his head at the bar.
If you did this, I don't know about Mitch. I think the fact that he's been paying the mortgage has something good inside of it.
Maybe you could have Jack then, insist, (when the dream is over) that
"A guy walks into a bar..." And that same guy tell him that "true story about what happened to a guy..."
From there maybe Mitch leaves, gets beat up, falls into...
Barbados...
And we don't know for sure, but can imagine that he, too, is redeemed.
I like that idea better. More character. More meaning. Raises it.
70 - The Glenville-Shauntee scene. I know you wanted the rack in there, but we already knew this scene was coming, so it actually has neither plot nor character benefit...so far. 86 - Another Glenville-Shauntee scene. Still contributes nothing to the story.
I think it was a good effort, but needs some more work, especially in the department of predictability. If this were someone else's script, I can see you having a field day with it.
I'm researching some of the comments and wow. Came across George's dark side. You are a sweetheart, but I'm feeling the dark my honey child.
Anyways, I wanted to say that yes, I do agree with some of what you're saying, but I want to take away some of the venom. Don't know exactly. Might be a "guy thing".
But yes, you're right George...
I too felt the Glenville-Shauntee scene was just one of those explicit scenes that really aren't needed. I'm brought back to "Thief" and thinking about our "Cherry undressing to jump in the pool scene". It's basically the same thing. Might work. Might not. Depending upon the whole context, but in this case, I am certain that you can do better. And that's a compliment because I feel that a part of your personality is getting in the way of your progress. Indeed, I can feel it through your characters which is a damn good thing because it means to me you have a lot more of "potential" in "POTENTIAL" because you have the choice to write with heart and not just paint by numbers.
In fact Jeff, I see a huge personal character jump in your writing here. I feel what I've always known exists... and I know it's hard for you to do. Who knows why we have these kinds of blocks. But I applaud you for that.
I'm a little sad about George's comment about you "having a field day" if this were someone else's script. HOWEVER, you know you've got it coming...
Everyone has different levels of "acceptance".
But back to this story...
I do feel that THE CHARACTER in this script is also A LOCATION...
It's something that many of us-- the audience can relate to.
You projected a lot of "you" into this and I feel it and to me that means a whole lot!
I felt that you, Jeff, went a whole lot deeper into this compared to Fade To White...
And it shows. At least to me.
Although I don't want to add oil to the fire of any ego you might have...
I do want to say that I feel very positive about this script. All it needs is a few concrete points that solidify the characters' decisions-- however you want to spin them. And of course, some technical and stylistic issues that are always a pain in the ass for any script...
But yeah...
Get rid of some of the Cop Stuff. Get rid of Glenville and Sheh- what's-her-name...
Go deeper into Jack, Julie and Mitch.
You have a darn good story here. Don't let it sit on the shelf.
Pages: 
Author
Unforgettable - 7WC
Logged
Locked Board