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.
Out with the Old by Dustin Bowcott - Thriller - A mobster’s son, orphaned as a baby, helps some gangsters get their turf back and in doing so gets revenge on his father’s killer. 108 pages - pdf, format
Hey Dustin. I checked this a couple of days ago, and waited to see if it got anything back.
I note that this was written in eight days -- and yeah, that's an acheivement that not everybody's going to be able to pull off, but I'm wondering if it suffered for it. And I know there'll be a couple of people her who will ask, 'why put it up if it's not your best offering?'
And I guess that's in someway the key to it - it really isn't the best you can do, it's the most that you can do. This is quantity over quality.
Story set-up's generally okay, but I think there's a lack of feel and attention to the early pages.
Read quickly, so good on that.
Pages 6-10 - really started to flat-line for me. I think most of what happened there could have gone into about two pages max, and then you're onto Peacock, and back to what feels like genuine set-up territory, not side-track alley.
I do think it could be something - looks like it has Nick Love & Danny Dyer all over it, but I think it needs to be better thought out than this.
I put it up just to show what I can do in 8 days. I actually wrote this in 7 then used the 8th day for a run through. I know it needs more, but I don't think much more. there are also a couple of errors I've noted since reading it through again.
If I read the back of the box for this film I'd buy the DVD as a gift for somebody and also rent it myself to watch. So it has marketability. Thrills spills. I'm not trying to win an oscar. I just wanted to entertain.
This was written very much for that level. 50-100grand to produce, everyone has a laugh making it and hopefully people enjoy watching it to bring the poor producers in a tasty profit.
I'll have to take a look at pages 6-10. I got the same feel as you from the early pages. Probably because on day 8 I cut 4 pages from the beginning. There was a whole scene where Alexander gets out of jail... but yeah, the initial ten are a little shaky. The flow isn't there. Thankfully it reads fast and things happen afterwards.
I'll give it another go over before I send it out to anybody. Thanks for the read and for not calling it a cliched piece of rubbish.
You may well notice then that Aggro plays no further part in the story, the character will be dropped. It was a set up for the Russian Mafia inclusion later in the film... but he isn't needed now.
Also, before the Underground Casino robbery, Oddball mentions that he has a cousin that works there, she then becomes his friend. So I need to edit that.
There are probably more errors in respect of adding extra words, and probably some poor verb choices too. I'm just pointing out the holes in the story that are bugging me more, right now.
I'll see what I can strip from pre page 10. I look at anything more than 90 as a bonus anyway. Cheers mate.
"I put it up just to show what I can do in 8 days."
In a way, I give you credit for being honest about your motives. But I would suggest you think your posting strategy through a little better, Dustin.
There are 2 reasons I can think of for posting a script here. The first is the chance it will get discovered, and the second is to get notes which might help you improve the draft.
Saying that you wrote this in 8 days defeats both of those purposes. It makes someone less likely to open a script. I know when I saw that it scared me off.
When I read a feature, and I only read amateur scripts if I intend to give notes, it takes me several hours to read and produce the comments. That's a significant investment in time. But I am not likely to do that if I don't think the writer has carefully gone over his script.
So you are actually better off not telling us you wrote this in 8 days. Maybe just say it's a first draft and you welcome notes before you take on a rewrite.
Disclaimer -- not a professional screenwriter myself, so you can take or leave the comments below. Intentions were not made to sound harsh. Forgive me if I appear so:
The most noticeable flaws are within the first 5 pages. The dialogue is so wooden and OTN it's almost mind-blowing. Did you read over this? Don't you speak out your own lines to see if it flows well, if it sounds natural?
The blacks crash the party, and Feliks responds with "where is your respect?" ?? Where's his demonstration of power? I thought Russians were crazy, volatile gangsters.
Delroy tells him "we're at war, Feliks."
Followed by more awkward dialogue that never should have happened.
Lead should have been flying soon as Delroy marched inside the bar.
Alexander and the PO is another example, especially when Alexander goes looking for a flat to kick it at and he's turned down. We see that he's getting out of the can but do we need such OTN lines like "Look, this place is my last chance"?
If the first 5 pages are indication of anything... I think you might be using your dialogue to blatantly address how your characters feel or to address the situation....
There are 2 reasons I can think of for posting a script here. The first is the chance it will get discovered, and the second is to get notes which might help you improve the draft.
Saying that you wrote this in 8 days defeats both of those purposes.
Not sure that I agree with you here, Kev. Certainly not the logic of what you are saying.
Take the pitch - low budget Brit flick: this is about right. Based around character driven, so you know it's not going to cost you an arm and a leg. Then I'm looking at the derivation, and there's a solid precedent - this is a Brit flick not an expensive US job. There's a bunch of stuff that's about right for the market it's aimed at. And to be honest with you -- this is as good as some people's first draft a month in ... so it's at a stage ready for notes and feedback.
If someone can produce something like this after 8 days, I'd say go for it -- fine if you're looking for re-write material. I don't see an issue. Story element's there, and it needs some work - but to say that it can't work simply because it was done in eight days ... doesn't carry weight to my mind.
You misread me Simon, with all due respect. To quote myself:
"So you are actually better off not telling us you wrote this in 8 days. Maybe just say it's a first draft and you welcome notes before you take on a rewrite."
I did not say not to write a script in 8 days, though I would caution against it. What I said was not to tell us that he only spent 8 days with it. I am much less likely as a reader to want to open a script that someone spent only 8 days with. Writing a script in 8 days might be impressive and fun to brag about, but none of that serves the purpose, which is to get someone to read it.
And I don't know what you are talking about as far as budget or an "expensive US job". How is that remotely relevant? Personally, I think a low budget, dialogue based script is something you need to spend MORE time with, not less. None of which is to the point, though, as I did not say anything about the quality of the script(I have not read it) or its marketability.
My point was nothing if not simple: if you tell people you only spent 8 days with it, they are less likely to open it, so why tell them? Even if one is the next Sorkin, telling people you spent only 8 days with it is simply poor strategy.
"I put it up just to show what I can do in 8 days."
In a way, I give you credit for being honest about your motives. But I would suggest you think your posting strategy through a little better, Dustin.
There are 2 reasons I can think of for posting a script here. The first is the chance it will get discovered, and the second is to get notes which might help you improve the draft.
Saying that you wrote this in 8 days defeats both of those purposes. It makes someone less likely to open a script. I know when I saw that it scared me off.
When I read a feature, and I only read amateur scripts if I intend to give notes, it takes me several hours to read and produce the comments. That's a significant investment in time. But I am not likely to do that if I don't think the writer has carefully gone over his script.
So you are actually better off not telling us you wrote this in 8 days. Maybe just say it's a first draft and you welcome notes before you take on a rewrite.
All of my first drafts, every single one, takes under 2 weeks. That's with research. As I have already done the research for this film (I call it life experience) it went down very easily.
I like to do a minimum of 10 pages a day. With a script like this, once it gets exciting I can knock out 20 pages a day. Indeed I did that three times with this script. I think one day I wrote 30 pages.
What do you do with all your time?
If I'm not making a few sales then I am writing. I do not stop writing. Even yesterday I finished 4th draft of a 3 part drama. I devote 6-8 hours every day and probably even more. I'm not sure about anyone else... but I'm sure that if they devoted the same time I did every day then they could achieve first drafts in under 2 weeks too.
8 days is a long time. Fast for a first draft but like I said, most of this script is written from experience and I usually finish in under 2 weeks anyway.
I did another script in 11 days that has been accepted by a prod co, unfortunately I can't release any details of that. Not only did I do it in 11 days, I used their concept and characters. They love what I've come up with and we get together on the 25th to figure out the final draft. Also, crazily, to film a trailer on the same day, which I will be in too. Doing that has opened my eyes on how best to deal with indie producers.
Bang out an idea, but put it in script form so they can see the story. Every producer is going to ask you to rewrite it, and if they don't ask you you can bet they will ask someone else. So eff it... right? What's the point in polishing something you're only going to have to change anyway?
I'm glad I posted it here because of the advice on the while he is on the streetsfirst 10. I've also spotted a couple of other mistakes. It helps to get other people's opinions as this leaves my brain free for a while to crack on with something else. Now I can kill a lot of the first 10, the probation can be killed. Trawling the streets can be killed... it's fine to meet Alexander during the first altercation he has with the drunks. It's easy to recognise him because he only has one hand.
I should also point out that all of the parts were written for specific actors that I know. The actor playing Alexander really does only have one hand. He's a great actor that doesn't get much chance to be at the forefront. I've had some feedback from those guys and obviously they all think it's brilliant. Doesn't help me much though, unlike the comments from si regarding the first 10. That was exactly how I felt about them too. I'll certainly make a few changes before sending this one out to anyone.
You misread me Simon, with all due respect. To quote myself:
"So you are actually better off not telling us you wrote this in 8 days. Maybe just say it's a first draft and you welcome notes before you take on a rewrite."
I did not say not to write a script in 8 days, though I would caution against it. What I said was not to tell us that he only spent 8 days with it. I am much less likely as a reader to want to open a script that someone spent only 8 days with. Writing a script in 8 days might be impressive and fun to brag about, but none of that serves the purpose, which is to get someone to read it.
And I don't know what you are talking about as far as budget or an "expensive US job". How is that remotely relevant? Personally, I think a low budget, dialogue based script is something you need to spend MORE time with, not less. None of which is to the point, though, as I did not say anything about the quality of the script(I have not read it) or its marketability.
My point was nothing if not simple: if you tell people you only spent 8 days with it, they are less likely to open it, so why tell them? Even if one is the next Sorkin, telling people you spent only 8 days with it is simply poor strategy.
It's not about time. It's about dedication to the story.
Before writing again in August last year I hadn't written a word for almost 10 years. I had four kids and had to get my life in order before writing again. Before that I'd write on paper, all hand written. During that ten year break though I constantly had the itch. It never left me. This time though, instead of writing on paper I decided to have a serious go, and I picked screenwriting. Wrote two scripts before I realised I was doing it all wrong. Anyway, since August last year I have written 5 features, a 3-part drama (1 hour episodes) and 6 shorts. I'm hoping to have at least two writing credits by December next year, at least that is what is on the cards.
This one was written for low budget... and it goes easy for me because I speak the language of the streets. I find it really easy to write these type of scripts. I know what these people think. Maybe not something to brag about... but i'm literally just writing from life experience. I know how these people speak. It flows onto the page for me. This one will probably get made too. It's too easy not to. In my opinion the script is fine, the dialogue is good, the action is amazing. People will buy it... I know I would. If it is made well, in the budget I feel it needs... as there are guys out there wanting to make 10k films... then people should even recommend it to their friends. I'll certainly put some more work in before sending it out and more (no doubt) should a producer see the profit in this and ask me to rewrite.
The dialogue is atrocious, man. You really gotta work on that.
It feels wooden, "on the nose," stiff, awkward.
Several words that come to mind^
I'm big on dialogue, especially with characters that are involved with "the life."
The first five pages read like something that's going to turn out to be a lame, DTV gangster flick.
I don't know... maybe it's me... I've read a lot of true crime novels based around the mob, the Westies, John Gotti, etc... read transcripts of actual recordings... watched documentaries.
I'm pretty well-versed in the area. These guys don't sound the part, at least from what I have read.
The key to keeping my attention right away is the dialogue.
If I think every line is cringe-worthy, I'm going to pass, because it makes for a terribly distracting read.
But what do I know? This is probably getting made, regardless.
Most first drafts I write are finished around a week, including my feature that was produced out in Australia recently. Especially if it's based on my own original idea rather than writing for a producer. But of course, there's rewrites... and more rewrites. Five years of rewrites for the produced feature, though it was the first draft that got attention.
I've read some of your shorts, Dustin, so I know you're a capable writer, and for a first draft, this isn't that bad though I second Reaper with some of the dialogue (not all of it) - but especially within the first 10 pages. It comes off at first as one of those self-aware retro 80s style flicks (the severing of the baby arm was really over the top) - kind of like Machete or Hobo With a Shotgun. But going by the rest of the script, I don't think that was intended. I'm sure you'll smooth this one out.
I hear you on the tempo of writing a script... I'll try to get at least 5 pages done in a day, but sometimes, I'll be in the zone and I'll spend several days straight without sleep knocking out 20-30 and sometimes more pages at a time.
Anyway, it's always great to hear a fellow writer getting work produced, so keep us updated!
I'm big on dialogue, especially with characters that are involved with "the life."
That's hilarious. The way you write 'the life'... Now that's wooden. Maybe fly in the 70's but this is the 21st century. Also something somebody without any experience (aside from what they've read and seen on TV) would say.
I don't know... maybe it's me... I've read a lot of true crime novels based around the mob, the Westies, John Gotti, etc... read transcripts of actual recordings... watched documentaries.
I haven't written a film based around the mob. This is set in London and is about guys lower down the scale. Although there are big boys involved (none of them the Italian mafia) their parts are minimal.
You can also read whatever you want... it's not going to replace actual experience.
Most first drafts I write are finished around a week, including my feature that was produced out in Australia recently. Especially if it's based on my own original idea rather than writing for a producer. But of course, there's rewrites... and more rewrites. Five years of rewrites for the produced feature, though it was the first draft that got attention.
I've read some of your shorts, Dustin, so I know you're a capable writer, and for a first draft, this isn't that bad though I second Reaper with some of the dialogue (not all of it) - but especially within the first 10 pages. It comes off at first as one of those self-aware retro 80s style flicks (the severing of the baby arm was really over the top) - kind of like Machete or Hobo With a Shotgun. But going by the rest of the script, I don't think that was intended. I'm sure you'll smooth this one out.
I hear you on the tempo of writing a script... I'll try to get at least 5 pages done in a day, but sometimes, I'll be in the zone and I'll spend several days straight without sleep knocking out 20-30 and sometimes more pages at a time.
Anyway, it's always great to hear a fellow writer getting work produced, so keep us updated!
-- Michael
The actor has one hand so I have to show how it happened. Or maybe he could just be born that way... but then it's explaining about it later that becomes a problem. So I have to show it early... the only way I feel that it can be done in a script like this is dramatically and violently.
The one film should be out summer next year... the Birth of a Psycho one is still in the balance. I'm onto the third producer with it now and a verbal deal is down, but... you know. I also have a short that's being produced. Hoping to pick up some producer points too along the way. Who knows.
Thanks for looking in and good luck with your own stuff.
I don't want to absorb much more of your time or mine on this discussion. But the issue never was how long you spent on the script. The issue is this: why tell people right at the top of the thread that you only spent 8 days? I was merely trying to help you out by letting you know that that info will discourage people from opening your script.
Let me be frank: I was thinking of going back to your script that I started a month ago but did not have time to read because I was busy...the story with the neanderthals. I opened this thread because I couldn't remember the other script's name. But when I saw the 8 day thing, it discouraged me from wanting to read either script.
That's useful information to you.
Look, you might think 8 days is a long time to write a script. Maybe for you it is. But you might want to read some interviews with pro writers. None of them write a script in 8 days. None. Their scripts go through the rigor of several weeks of research, sometimes months; then a first draft that might take 6 to 8 weeks; then several rewrites.
Maybe you can do all that in 8 days. I don't discount that possibility. It's not the point. The point is when someone browsing the threads here sees an amateur writer has posted a script he wrote in 8 days, he is less likely to open the story. Is that the result you want?
Kev - my point was about your logic. You say it may discourage people, but then people have taken a look.
There are numerous scripts out there written in a week (Rocky #1).
Writers write in different way. Reasearch can take ages; story outline can take ages, but once stuff like that is complete, a first draft can easily be done in a week if that's how you write. I don't think you have valid grounds to dismiss material based on how long it took to write.
My point about US budgets is perfectly valid, because it is related to the pitch, and the pitch here is bang-on. It's not like 'I wrote an aimless piece of rubbish in 3 minutes'. This is correctly pitched at the market it's aimed for -- why have an issue based on the time spent writing it? Would you be happier if Dustin typed slower? It's a first draft - it'll get re-written - if it gets produced the writing time at that stage will be longer. And then you'll be happy.
Simon, that some people have looked at the script shows nothing. The question is does saying it was written in 8 days mean fewer people will open the script. I say it does, and I know for a fact it cost one view: mine. That means there are likely others.
I've read Rocky. It's a brilliant script, supposedly written in a weekend. And I don't believe that for one second. That's urban legend. That script is carefully constructed.
But that's all off the point. I believe Dustin when he says he wrote it in 8 days. I wrote one in November in 2 weeks and I took weekends off. It's in Nicholls now.
The issue is simply whether including that info at the top of thread is useful. Whether it encourages or discourages people to open the script.
And finally, please don't say I dismissed the material, because clearly I did not. I have made no comment at all on the material, since I did not read it, and I am open to the possibility that it is as brilliant as Dustin claims it is. All I am saying is that in a world of limited hours, and with a forum of many scripts, why would I pick the one written in 8 days to read?
I've read Rocky. It's a brilliant script, supposedly written in a weekend. And I don't believe that for one second. That's urban legend. That script is carefully constructed.
It's myths like this that misguide amateur screenwriters - Stallone had either worked on this idea for a long time beforehand, or this had gone through a few rewrites -
I'm sure the casting meeting may have spurred Stallone to 'polish' or rewrite this in a week.
A very talented screenwriter, who knows a particular subject inside out and has years of experience under their belt, could presumably, knock out a script in a week. But that would be a very focused and productive week . . .
I'm with Kevin here. When I see comments like "I just spit this one out in a couple of hours/days" whatever, I never read the script, unless the writer says something like "I really would like some feedback on this one before I start to rewrite. I like this script and I want to turn it into the best it can be". Then I will help out, but I'm not going to spend my spare time reading vomit drafts for fun. not even shorts.
I can't see how it matters. I read a script and make a decision on the script, not on the type of input.
I don't see why Rocky wasn't done in a short time. Apparetnly it was filmed in 28 days - short time isn't always bad time.
John August maintains he wrote Charlie and the Choc factory in three weeks ... I don't see why you would judge it based on the time it takes to write it, instead of the quality of it.
If it's badly written 'cos it's rushed, then that's the issue - if it's just written quickly as that's the style of the writer - then there's no issue.
I didn't say it's an issue, just agreeing with Kevin that I don't read scripts when I see the writer saying it was written in this short amount of time. Something for the writer to consider when saying things like that. If it doesn't affect whether you read a script or not that's fine. All I'm saying is that in this case, there are at least two people that won't read it because of the writer's statement that it was churned out in just 8 days. That is all.
Kevin... the Neanderthal script has taken me 6 months so far. Completely different thing. In regards to this script I have a lifetime of research to fall back on. I know the people, the way things work, and the things these people do and say.
I have at least, if you count from the ages 13 to 26 (when I straightened my life out) 13 years worth of research. It's like a doctor writing a medical drama will find it easier than a writer without any medical background. If a doctor wrote a medical drama in a week this would be comparable to you or I taking a couple of years. I apologise if you do have medical training, just assuming you don't. I have 13 years of experience dealing with the lowest people in the country. From kids homes to jail, to the high life.
So this script has had 13 years of research, a couple of days to pull the story together and then a week to write a viable first draft... so technically, it's taken longer than most scripts do.
Remind me of the name of the neanderthal script...that was the one In wanted to look at. My thinking had been that if I liked the script, I might approach you privately to exchange reads. If I liked it. That, to be honest, had been part of my thinking when I opened the thread.
Again, how long you took to write or to think about writing this script is not relevant. The issue is telling people you only spent 8 days with it. Nothing is gained by telling that, and you potentially lose readers.
It's myths like this that misguide amateur screenwriters - Stallone had either worked on this idea for a long time beforehand, or this had gone through a few rewrites -
I'm sure the casting meeting may have spurred Stallone to 'polish' or rewrite this in a week.
A very talented screenwriter, who knows a particular subject inside out and has years of experience under their belt, could presumably, knock out a script in a week. But that would be a very focused and productive week . . .
Eoin
I can seriously believe that Rocky was penned in a week. What's so great about it? It's a standard story, told over and over again.
What Rocky had going for it was 1976. No internet, no computer games (worth playing)... all people had to look forward to were films. A tale of a struggling nobody a lot of people could relate to in those days. Also boxing was a bigger deal back then and so were kung fu films. Fight scene at the end... people are just too easy.
I don't see Rocky as being a great script... it just came at the right time.
Rocky is an intricately crafted script. I would not have understood that before, but in the last couple of years that I've spent writing and studying story, I can recognize the precision of that story.
Will check out the other one since I had already started it.
I agree with you in a sense that Rocky came at the right time, but (maybe because I'm from Philly) for different reasons. Rocky pretty much set the standard for underdog films, especially for sports. I thought the script was fantastic. There are many stories about how long the script took -- Stallone wrote it with a pen on yellow lined paper. He pitched the idea, showed the script, but it was rewritten (upon request) several times.
It's good to see your getting some bites from producers (I've been on a roll lately myself) but I'm in agreement with some other people on this thread concerning the amount of time it took to write it.
Why mention it only took 8 days? It kind of feels like unnecessary bragging. It's not something I would tell somebody off the bat, especially when pitching it to a producer (maybe I'd tell them after they read it and commented on it).
It's like if I hear a film was made for 20 k. I'm probably going to skip past it because it's most likely shit. Most films made with budgets that low ARE shit. But when I see a movie (like Bellflower or Prime) and THEN find out what the budget was, it's like "Holy shit, this movie was made for ONLY so and so dollars?"
Not to say your 8-day script is complete shit, because it's not. But right off the bat, it puts the idea in someone's head that it could be garbage.
Some of your feedback on the actual script itself may have been different had you not mentioned it took 8 days - it gives the reader a preconceived notion when and if they choose to give it a look.
I'm glad you have people looking at your work (I've read other things you've written and you're definitely a capable writer) but it sounds like you're using your achievements in self defense when the main question was - Why even mention the script was written in 8 days in the first place? I feel like that question wasn't really answered - it just simply feels like "Look what I can do!" or "Look Ma, no hands!" Followed by a list of your achievements to defend the quality of your 8-day script when in fact, half the people who commented on this thread didn't even read it yet. Which is unfair for you.
Just a thought, I don't want it to seem like I'm being a dick or anything, I think you're a cool cat and I dig your ambition as a writer. Keep up the good work!
John August maintains he wrote Charlie and the Choc factory in three weeks ... I don't see why you would judge it based on the time it takes to write it, instead of the quality of it.
This isn't the point. Most likely, he had a 3 week deadline anyway to bang out the draft.
But you don't market the script by saying that it was only written in so-and-so amount of time. It puts a preconceived notion inside somebody's mind who hasn't YET opened the script. It may lower one's expectations or even keep one from reading it.
Most of the comments are judging Dustin's script based on the "8-day" mention - and most of these people who have commented didn't even read the script yet.
In regards to mentioning 8 days... I was, and still am, genuinely pleased with my achievement. I kept everybody posted on facebook. This is just one of those scripts that went down easy, not much work to do afterwards. I felt it was brag worthy... but I can see that reactions from other people are not as fabulous as they are from my friends, and that it was a mistake to mention it. I was just used to everybody knowing and not having an issue with it.
I don't see the problem with it. If you've never been involved with 'the life' then a script like this would be impossible for you to write without lots and lots of research. The fact I penned it in a week is merely testament to my experience in the field and as such is actually an unfair example. Easy for me because it is an ex profession of mine.
Right now I have 40 cards pinned to a board. It's my next Hollywood attempt. I can't tell you what it's called, suffice to say it is original and high concept (not sci-fi this time either). The whole story is there in front of me. Took me a day to do the treatment. I've done some research on the chinese tea wars which are merely an aside to the film, took me a few days. other bits of research. That story is ready to go. When I pen it, it will take me under 2 weeks for a viable first draft.
This isn't the point. Most likely, he had a 3 week deadline anyway to bang out the draft.
But you don't market the script by saying that it was only written in so-and-so amount of time. It puts a preconceived notion inside somebody's mind who hasn't YET opened the script. It may lower one's expectations or even keep one from reading it.
Most of the comments are judging Dustin's script based on the "8-day" mention - and most of these people who have commented didn't even read the script yet.
Writing films to a decent standard quickly is an asset, isn't it?
It is. I've had to knock out scripts for producers many times with a 4-6 week deadline (and that's for multiple drafts).
But when producers pitch to investors, the amount of time it took to write the script is pretty much never brought up.
It's the story that sells. The premise. Producers rarely care about the back story to the script and how it was developed (or how long it took to write) - now, saying that it's based on a true story or true life experiences is a different story. If they are interested in the premise, the "true story" claim adds to the credence of the script. And some producers really dig that.
But as for mentioning it took so-and-so days to write? Not so much. Yeah, producers do appreciate a quick and efficient turn around when knocking out drafts, but they're not just going to take your word for it when you tell them you wrote a script in 8 days. And I doubt it would entirely impress them as studio writers (established writers with big resumes) knock out drafts in less time than that regularly.
If you mention in a query letter that your script took only 8 days to write, unless they're head over heels in love with your premise or recognize your name, they won't take you seriously. Most likely, they'll toss your query letter into their circular file, if you know what I mean.
What I'm getting at is that they could care less about the writer and his journey (unless they are a name writer or have written produced work) - they care more about the product.
Actually, Rocky was a true story about an actual boxer. So was R-2 and R-3. The guy fianally sued and was eventually compensated.
Shawn.....><
Shawn, it wasn't completely a true story. It was inspired by the Ali/Wepner fight. Wepner (the Bayonne Bleeder) was a huge underdog, but somehow managed to knock Ali down. However, unlike the film, Wepner didn't last the final bell - he was knocked out in the final round.
And Wepner wasn't exactly a no-name fighter. He had a good record and climbed the ranks - he fought Sonny Liston, who before Ali, was THE premiere fighter.
Unlike Rocky 2, there was never a rematch. And though parts of Rocky 3 were based on Wepner (the wrestling spiel near the beginning), the Rocky films were pretty much based on real life boxing events in general - when Rocky fights Clubber Lang in the climax, he wears Clubber Lang down (ala Ali's rope-a-dope tactics against the highly favored George Foreman).
And Apollo Creed's character was based on Ali's bravado.
I'm glad Wepner finally got his money, especially after years of Stallone going back and forth on what inspired Rocky - though ultimately, he admits it was inspired by the Wepner/Ali fight.
It is. I've had to knock out scripts for producers many times with a 4-6 week deadline (and that's for multiple drafts).
But when producers pitch to investors, the amount of time it took to write the script is pretty much never brought up.
It's the story that sells. The premise. Producers rarely care about the back story to the script and how it was developed (or how long it took to write) - now, saying that it's based on a true story or true life experiences is a different story. If they are interested in the premise, the "true story" claim adds to the credence of the script. And some producers really dig that.
But as for mentioning it took so-and-so days to write? Not so much. Yeah, producers do appreciate a quick and efficient turn around when knocking out drafts, but they're not just going to take your word for it when you tell them you wrote a script in 8 days. And I doubt it would entirely impress them as studio writers (established writers with big resumes) knock out drafts in less time than that regularly.
If you mention in a query letter that your script took only 8 days to write, unless they're head over heels in love with your premise or recognize your name, they won't take you seriously. Most likely, they'll toss your query letter into their circular file, if you know what I mean.
What I'm getting at is that they could care less about the writer and his journey (unless they are a name writer or have written produced work) - they care more about the product.
Yeah I thought so. So we're on the same page then. I see no problem with getting a script together within a month. Indeed I'd take a free challenge from any producer... I'd write a script on spec using their premise and characters within a month. If it's not better than anything anyone else is doing then no harm done, I take the script, remodel it and sell it somewhere else, or try to.
Obviously in a query letter to a producer I wouldn't mention the 8 day thing as it would appear as though I'm trying some type of distraction technique. The selling point of this script is its profitability... which is something I consider with all of my scripts.
Most likely, he had a 3 week deadline anyway to bang out the draft
It cerainly was to a dead-line. And having that ability is pretty important. If you've worked with producers and the like, then you'll know that having the ability to pull out a new draft quickly is important, and certainly an asset.
This is a first draft. If it gets interest, it'll go through a number of re-writes. And then the time taken to write it will be longer in total. Off the first this is not a problem.
And as for pre-conceived notions, I think this is something that people need to pull away from, because it's a false criteria. Any judgement needs to be based on the material - else, yes, you're going to miss stuff that's really worth-while.
That's hilarious. The way you write 'the life'... Now that's wooden. Maybe fly in the 70's but this is the 21st century. Also something somebody without any experience (aside from what they've read and seen on TV) would say.
The life, the mob, gang, hoodlums, borgata, syndicate, outfit.
Same thing.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
DTV as in Digital TV? I just googled and that's what I'm getting. It could be a US tv channel for all I know. Is it?
Direct-to-video.
Maybe I should have used STV instead -- straight-to-video.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I haven't written a film based around the mob. This is set in London and is about guys lower down the scale. Although there are big boys involved (none of them the Italian mafia) their parts are minimal.
Either way, they're coming across as gangsters in those first few pages.
Problem is -- they don't sound like gangsters -- whether they are from London or not.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You can also read whatever you want... it's not going to replace actual experience.
Well, I already pointed out examples in my first post of why I think it's not natural. Maybe again?
INT. KNIGHT'S ARMS - NIGHT
The young black men walk into the bar. Feliks' face changes to one of contempt.
FELIKS Where is your respect?
A tall, powerfully built man named DELROY (1, a mouthful of gold teeth, removes his scarf.
DELROY We're at war Feliks.
FELIKS You talk shit. We are not at war.
DELROY As of now.
FELIKS This is my son's party. If you wanted to hit me you could have done it any time.
DELROY I did choose any time. I chose now.
Rival gang #1 just crashed rival gang #2's party and rival #2 is just gonna chit-chat about it? I cringed when I read this. The guns should have been out first thing soon as they walked in the door. Instead, they exchange words with each other that just sounds like a scene out of a really bland STV-movie. And why are these guys entering a bar to do their dirty. Aren't they worried about law-enforcement and the possibility of a live-bug somewhere in that joint, being caught on tape trying to assassinate someone? Or maybe there's surveillance across the street a few windows up?
or
ALEXANDER I've just got out of fucking jail.
PO If you continue being aggressive you will leave me no choice but to call the police.
How about instead "Watch your tone, jerk-off."
Quoted from DustinBowcot
No... you're really not.
I'm sorry, dude... but there are a lot of scripts that have been posted on here about mobsters/gangsters/mob/gangs -- and I couldn't get through more than 5 pages because 1-the writing needs work (or some flash, style,etc) 2- the characters seem unrealistic 3- dialogue is terrible, doesn't feel "real"
Of course, I have stated I am not a professional screenwriter, so you can take it or leave it.
But there was another member that felt the same way as me, so that's two people, and the rest seem to just be talking about how many days it should take to write a screenplay instead of giving you input on the script itself... so maybe you should consider some of my comments and sleep on it.
It cerainly was to a dead-line. And having that ability is pretty important. If you've worked with producers and the like, then you'll know that having the ability to pull out a new draft quickly is important, and certainly an asset.
This is a first draft. If it gets interest, it'll go through a number of re-writes. And then the time taken to write it will be longer in total. Off the first this is not a problem.
And as for pre-conceived notions, I think this is something that people need to pull away from, because it's a false criteria. Any judgement needs to be based on the material - else, yes, you're going to miss stuff that's really worth-while.
Yes, I know, having written for producers, that writing a new draft by deadline is important and an asset. But I think the a point of this discussion is being overlooked. The point is why even mention the script was written in 8 days before anybody has had a chance to read it? It's not going to earn you points. After the fact, when the work is produced and on screen, maybe then brag about how the first draft was written in 8 days (which is often the standard anyway and not really worth bragging about).
And your comment about pre-conceived notions... there's a lot things that people SHOULD pull away from, but producers (who aren't just busy reading scripts, but reading tons of query letters, putting together budget plans for features in development, etc) are not going to read a script based on the fact that it was written in 8 days and they will not hire you solely based on this fact either. Like you said, it's the material that is important, right? So why mention it's written in 8 days? It's just like if the log line is weak or is not something they're interested in, they're not going to read it. And for all they know, it could be the next Chinatown, but they wouldn't know because they're just not interested.
I know from having my feature "The Suicide Theory" produced (the first draft was finished within a week) that producers/directors/etc will have you rewrite the script several times (three months of rewrites before pre-prod and 4 years of rewrites when it was in the hands of other producers before that). And most of the time, a feature will NOT move into pre-production until at least 5-10 drafts have been completed (just an average, but how ever many drafts it will take to get it right and meet certain budget needs, casting needs, location needs).
Saying that you wrote a script in a certain amount of days (and Dustin has stated that he only mentioned it here, and not to the producers, so that should have ended the discussion) does not benefit your script or your chances of getting hired. It's about the quality and whether it fits what they are looking for.
I'm just looking at the link-in between Peacock and Danny - it sounds like he's just the DJ, but I'm wondering if there's more between them - and if there isn' then maybe there needs to be? Peacock (Johnny) gets Danny's compliance pretty easy - maybe the Oddball/Danny exchange needs to show that this is Danny's big chance, like he's been waiting for this for years - it's just that him taking the brief-case is quite central, and I'm not sure of his motivation at this stage.
Yeah - certainly shorten the following Alexander scene in the doorway - maybe even intercut with Danny once or twice.
I'm not totally getting the relationship between Alexander and Danny at this stage, and I feel that this needs to be cleared up - is this deliberate? I'm not too sure it works - you don't specify until p.18, and I don't now if this is a tactic or not.
I liked Danny's 'course it will.' line. We all know this is going to go tits-up, and we can just sit back and watch it.
For some reason, this didn't sit true for me:
Alexander hands Oddball the case but he refuses totouch it. ODDBALL Explain
Maybe:
Alexander offers Oddball the case. Oddball doesn't shift.
ALEXANDER (It's) From the club.
&
Oddball's face changes to one of instant understanding and he snatches the case.
Oddball gets it, and grabs the case. (?).
Delroy's £2k is skipped over a little ...? And there's a chance of a little play here - we don't really know it's £2k, so maybe have Delroy say it - Shotterz question it - Delroy point out it's the 'market value'? Far as I understand it's £10k a hit, but like I'm saying, values drop??
How come you want to cut Aggro? I think he works well as a contrast.
Okay Michael - I don't want to split hairs here. I guess Dustin was chuffed, and yes, I do conceed that it's probably early for bragging rights; but in all honesty, it's not something that bothers me - it wouldn't put me off a read, but clearly it would others, so maybe that has to be taken into account.
I decided to delve into this a little bit more than 5 pages, just out of curiosity. Here's some notes I took down.
Page 5 - Who are these girls that Oddball produces the E for? They suddenly appear out of nowhere -- are they partying teens, sleazy hookers? I'll assume partying teens for now, but how come they don't get a proper introduction (all caps)? The doorman does, and I assume he doesn't do anything besides being the doorman. Why don't the girls follow after Oddball? He just gave them E -- you'd think they'd follow him all night expecting free drugs or something. Now that I think about it, E goes for, what, ten dollars a pill? That's twenty bucks he just blew on some chicks that aren't even -- at the very least -- doing him sexual favors. For being pretty far down the food chain, these guys don't act like it.
Page 7 - "Just look away and this nightmare will be over." Definitely another line of dialogue you have to cut.
Page 9 - "Danny throws a couple of lines down next to the sink and snorts them both." Lines of what? And why is he throwing it? Is he mad all of a sudden? What's next to the sink, air? Danny snorts lines through the air. Instead of using a sink, why don't you just say "Danny pulls out a bag of [drug of choice], sticks a straw in it, snorts."
Page 19 - I'm assuming what Danny was snorting on page 9 is now cocaine. I also take notice that not one of your characters know how to snort some blow. They keep getting it all over their noses and have to wipe it off. Don't they ever use straws or rolled up dollar bills? However, you refer to a "special snorting tube" on this page that seems to appear out of thin air. It's mentioned after Oddball snorts his coke.
Page 24 - You might have to butcher some scenes. As it stands, in the first 5 pages, you have a baby having it's hand chopped off (followed later by several scenes of drug use) and then, here, you have two guys penetrating a girl orally and vaginally, at the same time -- all within the first half hour. You might be bordering on an X/NC-17 rating here.
Page 31 - Oddball should be bouncing off the walls now with all the coke he's been shoveling up his nose, yet he's pretty serene.
Page 37 - Two million dollars and 7 keys are not fitting in one simple briefcase.
Page 38 - Oddball is now finally being described as wired.
Page 40-42 - The fact that Delroy hasn't taken Johnny out back and put three in his head already doesn't ring true for me. I'm going to stop here, but the flashback with a "contract being signed" intrigues me. And not in a good way. These guys are gangsters and they are using force to have someone sign a paper to obtain property? I thought gangsters took whatever they wanted whenever they wanted by use of force. Since when do they sign papers asking for anything? This doesn't ring true for me, either. You also stated earlier that this is based around small-timers, but so far this seems like a bunch of big-timers to me. Small-timers sell dime bags of weed so they can have enough money to pay for gas. They don't throw around two million dollars and pounds upon pounds of blow.
Maybe I should have used STV instead -- straight-to-video.
Nope, STV would have confused me too. Sounds like a US tv station to me. I say straight to DVD. But even if you put STDVD I still would have been confused.
Either way, they're coming across as gangsters in those first few pages.
Problem is -- they don't sound like gangsters -- whether they are from London or not.
Do you just read certain keywords? I didn't say they are not gangsters, I said they are not part of the mob. Also your only experience in regards to how gangsters sound, by your own admission, is from reading books and watching TV. You have no idea what's actually real... let alone how people in the UK do things.
Well, I already pointed out examples in my first post of why I think it's not natural. Maybe again?
INT. KNIGHT'S ARMS - NIGHT
The young black men walk into the bar. Feliks' face changes to one of contempt.
FELIKS Where is your respect?
A tall, powerfully built man named DELROY (1, a mouthful of gold teeth, removes his scarf.
DELROY We're at war Feliks.
FELIKS You talk shit. We are not at war.
DELROY As of now.
FELIKS This is my son's party. If you wanted to hit me you could have done it any time.
DELROY I did choose any time. I chose now.
Rival gang #1 just crashed rival gang #2's party and rival #2 is just gonna chit-chat about it? I cringed when I read this. The guns should have been out first thing soon as they walked in the door. Instead, they exchange words with each other that just sounds like a scene out of a really bland STV-movie.
In real situations where people are shot in a public place there are often words first. I don't like the last bit of dialogue from Delroy though, that is a bit cheesy.
And why are these guys entering a bar to do their dirty. Aren't they worried about law-enforcement and the possibility of a live-bug somewhere in that joint, being caught on tape trying to assassinate someone? Or maybe there's surveillance across the street a few windows up?
PO If you continue being aggressive you will leave me no choice but to call the police.
How about instead "Watch your tone, jerk-off."
Because we don't say jerk-off in the UK we say wanker... and a PO wouldn't say that to somebody just out of prison. What works in the US, doesn't work here.
I'm sorry, dude... but there are a lot of scripts that have been posted on here about mobsters/gangsters/mob/gangs -- and I couldn't get through more than 5 pages because 1-the writing needs work (or some flash, style,etc) 2- the characters seem unrealistic 3- dialogue is terrible, doesn't feel "real"
Of course, I have stated I am not a professional screenwriter, so you can take it or leave it.
But there was another member that felt the same way as me, so that's two people, and the rest seem to just be talking about how many days it should take to write a screenplay instead of giving you input on the script itself... so maybe you should consider some of my comments and sleep on it.
You're seriously the last person I would ever take dialogue advice from. Thanks.
I'm just looking at the link-in between Peacock and Danny - it sounds like he's just the DJ, but I'm wondering if there's more between them - and if there isn' then maybe there needs to be? Peacock (Johnny) gets Danny's compliance pretty easy - maybe the Oddball/Danny exchange needs to show that this is Danny's big chance, like he's been waiting for this for years - it's just that him taking the brief-case is quite central, and I'm not sure of his motivation at this stage.
Yeah - certainly shorten the following Alexander scene in the doorway - maybe even intercut with Danny once or twice.
I'm not totally getting the relationship between Alexander and Danny at this stage, and I feel that this needs to be cleared up - is this deliberate? I'm not too sure it works - you don't specify until p.18, and I don't now if this is a tactic or not.
I liked Danny's 'course it will.' line. We all know this is going to go tits-up, and we can just sit back and watch it.
For some reason, this didn't sit true for me:
Alexander hands Oddball the case but he refuses totouch it. ODDBALL Explain
Maybe:
Alexander offers Oddball the case. Oddball doesn't shift.
ALEXANDER (It's) From the club.
&
Oddball's face changes to one of instant understanding and he snatches the case.
Oddball gets it, and grabs the case. (?).
Delroy's £2k is skipped over a little ...? And there's a chance of a little play here - we don't really know it's £2k, so maybe have Delroy say it - Shotterz question it - Delroy point out it's the 'market value'? Far as I understand it's £10k a hit, but like I'm saying, values drop??
How come you want to cut Aggro? I think he works well as a contrast.
p.30:
where Johnny is waiting, anxiously pacing up
Johnny anxiously paces up ... etc
Stopping here for now ... nice plot twist.
Yep those suggestions are excellent, thanks. All of them. Thanks. I could read those things over and over again before realising a quicker way to cut them down, maybe... so thanks.
The thing with Aggro is that he can't really play a part unless I use him as the pivotal character I wanted him to be. I suppose he could play some part but he'd be pretty superfluous. As you get to the end you'll realise why he needs to be dropped I think.
In regards to hits these days they are cheaper. I don't think anyone actually gets paid anymore, lol. These days just put a gun in a 14 year olds hands and say... that one there. They'll do it for the prestige. But yeah point taken, it is a little cheap for the purposes of a film like this.
I decided to delve into this a little bit more than 5 pages, just out of curiosity. Here's some notes I took down.
Page 5 - Who are these girls that Oddball produces the E for? They suddenly appear out of nowhere -- are they partying teens, sleazy hookers? I'll assume partying teens for now, but how come they don't get a proper introduction (all caps)?
Now that I think about it, E goes for, what, ten dollars a pill? That's twenty bucks he just blew on some chicks that aren't even -- at the very least -- doing him sexual favors. For being pretty far down the food chain, these guys don't act like it.
No mate... pills go for around a quid a pill around here. Pure MDMA around 40 quid (that's Sterling) a G if you buy on the streets. Knowing someone could get you it a little cheaper. Can't stand the stuff myself. I took a G one day and was ill for a week. Thought I was going to die... seriously. Couple of pills isn't much, certainly not worth hooking yourself out for.
Page 9 - "Danny throws a couple of lines down next to the sink and snorts them both." Lines of what? And why is he throwing it? Is he mad all of a sudden? What's next to the sink, air? Danny snorts lines through the air. Instead of using a sink, why don't you just say "Danny pulls out a bag of [drug of choice], sticks a straw in it, snorts."
Have you ever snorted straight out of a bag, mate? I have. And it's not a clever thing to do. It destroys your nose. I ended up having to try and blow it all out again, eyes pissing with water. That nostril is still knackered to this day.
I will add, that any producer in the UK will know exactly what throwing a couple of lines down will mean... also in regards to the sink. It all depends where it is filmed as to the description of that. Whatever happens to be handy. In most bars the sinks have marble surfaces next to them that are ideal for snorting off. Not that I do that kind of thing any more myself.
Page 19 - I'm assuming what Danny was snorting on page 9 is now cocaine. I also take notice that not one of your characters know how to snort some blow. They keep getting it all over their noses and have to wipe it off. Don't they ever use straws or rolled up dollar bills? However, you refer to a "special snorting tube" on this page that seems to appear out of thin air. It's mentioned after Oddball snorts his coke.
It depends how you snort the coke... when out and about it is faster to have it pre chopped, unless you buy it like that already, and pour it into the crook of your fist, but put your thumb inside the fist so you make a line. Depending on how your nostrils are it's quite easy to end up with it on your nose. You then use thumb and forefinger to wipe it away... look at them, if there's some there then wipe it on the gums.
Page 24 - You might have to butcher some scenes. As it stands, in the first 5 pages, you have a baby having it's hand chopped off (followed later by several scenes of drug use) and then, here, you have two guys penetrating a girl orally and vaginally, at the same time -- all within the first half hour. You might be bordering on an X/NC-17 rating here.
I'm going to stop here, but the flashback with a "contract being signed" intrigues me. And not in a good way. These guys are gangsters and they are using force to have someone sign a paper to obtain property? I thought gangsters took whatever they wanted whenever they wanted by use of force. Since when do they sign papers asking for anything? This doesn't ring true for me, either.
Ownership papers for the club. Criminals can't own anything... this is explained in the script. I'm not going to do it here.
You also stated earlier that this is based around small-timers, but so far this seems like a bunch of big-timers to me. Small-timers sell dime bags of weed so they can have enough money to pay for gas. They don't throw around two million dollars and pounds upon pounds of blow.
I didn't say small timers... what's wrong with you? I said guys lower down the scale. This film encompasses a few different levels but is based around guys lower down the scale. They're working for the big boys, that is explained in the script too.
And on that note, after reading 40 pages of your script, I won't continue after that.
You sound like you're pretty set on what you have, and any kind of input I offer will be of no use.
I won't waste any more of my time.
At least I read a good chunk of it... most people aren't even doing that.
They're talking about something totally different then what's going on IN your script, and not giving you any kind of input.
I did, and I feel like an ass for doing so.
You're an American, your input on this script will be of little benefit if you are going to throw accusations of poor dialogue when you have no idea how we speak. You then suggest a replacement that's just insane. We'd never say jerk-off here, never ever.
Have you ever had a meeting with a probation officer in the UK? Nope... but you give the benefit of your no-experience anyway. Same as with the realism aspect... you even suggest that you are well-versed because of what you have read and seen about The Mafia. You've even watched documentaries. Wow.
A mate of mine has said that you're doing it to wind me up... but I honestly think that you really believe you are right.
It would be like me going into your script and telling you how people wouldn't speak like that in the US... they'd speak like this: 'alright mate, how's it going? You still taking it up the gary?'
So then most people who comment on this script will be doing it for nothing because I guarantee you there aren't a lot of people from the UK on here.
But you must expect some kind of criticism... you're posting your script on a forum where people read and review your work.
Ok, your slang and lingo might be one thing. You got me there.... but to me the delivery of it is off.
OK, maybe that's a probation officer in the UK... regardless his dialogue sounds on the nose. OK, maybe you don't say "jerk off" over there, but it was a suggestion, an idea to make it less rigid.
I'm not doing this to "wind you up." I have been a member on here for years on and off, and never once have I ever done that to anybody.
I'm just taking a strong stance that your writing isn't great, and needs work.
You feel otherwise.
I guess we can agree to disagree.
If I was you, I'd ask people to start commenting on your script, and stop talking about Willy Wonka and Rocky Balboa. You have 4 pages here, and only 2 people other than me have commented on what you have written. This thread is getting more attention than it deserves.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
How do you know he didn't just sell it to them?
Oddball shoves his hand down the front of his trousers and fiddles around for a little bit before retrieving two ecstasy tablets. He places one onto each of the girls tongues and then leans in to kiss one of them.
Because nowhere in this description, does any selling happen. Oddball walks over, takes out pills, sticks it in their mouth, and walks into the club. For it to be a drug deal, the girls would have to offer him money. Nowhere is it clear or specific in your writing. Nothing before or after. He just gives 2 random girls pills and leaves.
So then most people who comment on this script will be doing it for nothing because I guarantee you there aren't a lot of people from the UK on here.
What's a lot? I've seen a few... which is enough for me. I also don't mind anyone from the US commenting, but if they're going to tell me how we speak here, when they have no idea... I'm going to take issue with that.
OK, maybe that's a probation officer in the UK... regardless his dialogue sounds on the nose. OK, maybe you don't say "jerk off" over there, but it was a suggestion, an idea to make it less rigid.
That is how a probation officer would speak here. It isn't on the nose at all and will be completely deleted anyway, so I'm not sure why I'm arguing about it.
I'm just taking a strong stance that your writing isn't great, and needs work.
You feel otherwise.
I guess we can agree to disagree.
No that's a different thing to what you are actually doing. You were telling me that my dialogue is poorly delivered because you have no experience in our slang or idioms. You're also telling me that gangsters don't act that way because you've seen it on American TV and read books about it.
If I was you, I'd ask people to start commenting on your script, and stop talking about Willy Wonka and Rocky Balboa. You have 4 pages here, and only 2 people other than me have commented on what you have written. This thread is getting more attention than it deserves.
I quite enjoyed the rocky and willy wonka conversations. I couldn't care less, tbh.
Oddball shoves his hand down the front of his trousers and fiddles around for a little bit before retrieving two ecstasy tablets. He places one onto each of the girls tongues and then leans in to kiss one of them.
Because nowhere in this description, does any selling happen. Oddball walks over, takes out pills, sticks it in their mouth, and walks into the club. For it to be a drug deal, the girls would have to offer him money. Nowhere is it clear or specific in your writing. Nothing before or after. He just gives 2 random girls pills and leaves.
This is just getting silly. The fact we don't see money exchanging is neither here nor there. Should I include a flashback with the scene showing the girls paying him earlier in the day while they were at granny's smoking weed?
I would like to get further into the script when I have time but I will just comment on the first three pages that I read.
I agree that the script reads quick.
I know reaper mentioned that your dialogue is not very strong or appears wooden and you two have been "discussing" that. Personally, I think your dialogue is over-melodramatic. I wouldn't go so far as to say its wooden, because I feel that it has emotion in it. It's just that it comes off as over-melodramatic to me.
"FELIKS How fucking dare you! How fucking... CRACK!"
I laughed here. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. But I did laugh.
Also my fear is that the over-melodramatic nature of the script makes me feel like this is going to be a film that is taking itself too seriously. The beginning had a certain TV show / Cable TV movie feel to it for me.
Again, I'd like to give the script a closer read when I have time but these are my initial thoughts.
I would like to get further into the script when I have time but I will just comment on the first three pages that I read.
I agree that the script reads quick.
I know reaper mentioned that your dialogue is not very strong or appears wooden and you two have been "discussing" that. Personally, I think your dialogue is over-melodramatic. I wouldn't go so far as to say its wooden, because I feel that it has emotion in it. It's just that it comes off as over-melodramatic to me.
"FELIKS How fucking dare you! How fucking... CRACK!"
I laughed here. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. But I did laugh.
Also my fear is that the over-melodramatic nature of the script makes me feel like this is going to be a film that is taking itself too seriously. The beginning had a certain TV show / Cable TV movie feel to it for me.
Again, I'd like to give the script a closer read when I have time but these are my initial thoughts.
-J.S.
JS... first of all you appear to be confusing overly dramatic with melodramatic. You can't really be overly melodramatic, you're either melodramatic or you aint.
I'll go with melodrama though... which is a real danger whenever writing a scene like this as I am aware. However, I don't feel that I have crossed that line in the piece of dialogue you mentioned. I agree that some of the rest of it does cross the line... but not here.
In regards to a film taking itself too seriously. This is the complete opposite. I feel that a baby having its hand cut off is a moment of high drama, and will shock most people. It would shock me. So I'll take the accusation of melodrama on the build up to that... however, this film certainly doesn't take itself too seriously as you would know were you able to manage reading more than 3 pages in one go.
I have stated that I wrote this film purely for entertainment value. Not to win any oscars. How is that in any way shape or form attempting to make a film that takes itself too seriously? Pull the other one, son.
JS... first of all you appear to be confusing overly dramatic with melodramatic. You can't really be overly melodramatic, you're either melodramatic or you aint.
I'll go with melodrama though... which is a real danger whenever writing a scene like this as I am aware. However, I don't feel that I have crossed that line in the piece of dialogue you mentioned. I agree that some of the rest of it does cross the line... but not here.
In regards to a film taking itself too seriously. This is the complete opposite. I feel that a baby having its hand cut off is a moment of high drama, and will shock most people. It would shock me. So I'll take the accusation of melodrama on the build up to that... however, this film certainly doesn't take itself too seriously as you would know were you able to manage reading more than 3 pages in one go.
I have stated that I wrote this film purely for entertainment value. Not to win any oscars. How is that in any way shape or form attempting to make a film that takes itself too seriously? Pull the other one, son.
No Dustin, I meant overly melodramatic. As in, it's too melodramatic, especially in the tight space of 3 pages that I read. Like I said, I'll get further into it, and I'll explain this in further detail with specific examples for you. I'm unable to at the moment, but I would like to because it appears to be a quick read.
Also, in my opinion, when a film is melodramatic it almost always takes itself too seriously. 9 out of 10 times they go hand in hand. Again, I'll give you specific examples and a full explanation at a later time. And I disagree that this film is for "purely entertainment value" as I don't think melodramatic films are very entertaining. Now, that doesn't mean what I read wasn't entertaining. There was some entertainment in it, but I'd like to leave that for my more detailed response.
-J.S.
P.S.
Around what page would you say Act I ends and Act II begins?
No Dustin, I meant overly melodramatic. As in, it's too melodramatic, especially in the tight space of 3 pages that I read. Like I said, I'll get further into it, and I'll explain this in further detail with specific examples for you. I'm unable to at the moment, but I would like to because it appears to be a quick read.
Also, in my opinion, when a film is melodramatic it almost always takes itself too seriously. 9 out of 10 times they go hand in hand. Again, I'll give you specific examples and a full explanation at a later time. And I disagree that this film is for "purely entertainment value" as I don't think melodramatic films are very entertaining. Now, that doesn't mean what I read wasn't entertaining. There was some entertainment in it, but I'd like to leave that for my more detailed response.
-J.S.
P.S.
Around what page would you say Act I ends and Act II begins?
Act 1 ends on page 24. Do you really need to know when Act 2 begins?
You appear to have gone from saying the dialogue is melodramatic to accusing the whole film of being so after reading just three pages.
The thing with the word melodrama is that it already means overly emotional, or overly sentimental, or stereotypical. So if we use the word within the confines of its own definition then placing overly or over before it does not work. You can't even be overly stereotypical, you either are or you aren't.
The thing with the word melodrama is that it already means overly emotional, or overly sentimental, or stereotypical.
No, it doesn't. Melodrama means that elements of the piece are exaggerated for a specific intended effect. If they are exaggerated to such a point that the audience feels a disconnect with the film, those elements are overly melodramatic, ie, the device has been pushed too far and has broken down. What J.S. and Reaper are saying (I think), and I've read the first ten and feel the same way, is that the dialogue in the opening sequences seems exaggerated to the point where it's difficult to connect with. That doesn't mean it's not entirely realistic, and it doesn't mean it's not a matter of cultural perception, but it does mean that at least three people have had a similar reaction to the opening sequence of your script. Those three reactions, you can take or leave.
Act 1 ends on page 24. Do you really need to know when Act 2 begins?
Yes, Dustin. It's imperative I know.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You appear to have gone from saying the dialogue is melodramatic to accusing the whole film of being so after reading just three pages.
Well first of all, there is no film. It's a script. Second of all, I did no such thing. I was speaking generally about such films.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
The thing with the word melodrama is that it already means overly emotional, or overly sentimental, or stereotypical. So if we use the word within the confines of its own definition then placing overly or over before it does not work. You can't even be overly stereotypical, you either are or you aren't.
No, it doesn't. Melodrama means that elements of the piece are exaggerated for a specific intended effect. If they are exaggerated to such a point that the audience feels a disconnect with the film, those elements are overly melodramatic, ie, the device has been pushed too far and has broken down. What J.S. and Reaper are saying (I think), and I've read the first ten and feel the same way, is that the dialogue in the opening sequences seems exaggerated to the point where it's difficult to connect with. That doesn't mean it's not entirely realistic, and it doesn't mean it's not a matter of cultural perception, but it does mean that at least three people have had a similar reaction to the opening sequence of your script. Those three reactions, you can take or leave.
There is no such thing as overly melodramatic, you either are or you aren't. When you are overly dramatic this is the same as saying melodramtic. so you are overly overly dramatic? Makes no sense at all.
And you were actually speaking about mine, clearly.
"And I disagree that this film is for "purely entertainment value" as I don't think melodramatic films are very entertaining. Now, that doesn't mean what I read wasn't entertaining."
If this is what you're referring to then I apologize for not including the phrase "assuming this script is one of them" after melodramatic films. I thought it was obvious from the context.
"And I disagree that this film is for "purely entertainment value" as I don't think melodramatic films are very entertaining. Now, that doesn't mean what I read wasn't entertaining."
If this is what you're referring to then I apologize for not including the phrase "assuming this script is one of them" after melodramatic films. I thought it was obvious from the context.
You can't disagree with the film being written purely for entertainment value then. I also wrote it and should know the reasons why better than anyone.
Just a question, Dustin... if this script is all ready in the hands of producers, why even post it? You seem pretty dead set with everything. And all the criticism you've received (about the script itself) seems to have been met with a negative rebuttal. Though I thought the "First act ends on page 24. Do you really need me to tell you when Act 2 ends?" bit was pretty funny.
I, for one, love British gangster films (Layer Cake, Sexy Beast, The Krays, the Michael Caine Get Carter, The Business, Lock Stock, I can go on forever) and thought this script was fairly decent (whether it's a first draft or not). No, I didn't grow up in the criminal underbelly that you came up in (I'm from Philly and lived in NYC for 10 years), but I do have an extensive knowledge of film, and as I've said, I'm a huge fan of British cinema as a whole as well as the British gangster film sub genre.
That being said, I agree with some of the criticisms concerning the dialogue. I know the story doesn't take itself too seriously, but I don't think you intended this for a B-movie audience, which at parts, seems to be (though as a whole, I didn't get that vibe).
The baby getting its hand cut off for instance. Yeah, it can be shocking, and it's not really expected, but I feel it would be more shocking and emotional if you had set a different tone right from jump street. And the dialogue really does set a B-movie tone (borderline cliche dialogue, and the scene opens on the day of someone's wedding which is done often in gangster films) -- and when the baby got it's hand cut off, I kind of laughed (maybe I'm just a sick fuck ) -- for some reason, I heard that cheesy B-movie, overly dramatic music (ala Drive) in my head when that happened. I had the same reaction to Machete and Hobo with a Shotgun. And sad to say, I also laughed in Punisher War Zone when Ray Stevenson came in and killed a bunch of mobsters sitting around a table.
It just seemed cartoon-like to me.
But if you're happy with it, and it's all ready in the hands of producers, what's the point of having people put in the time to read the whole thing (it is a fast read, but I digress) and then comment on it?
Just my personal opinion. I think you're a good writer and I do think this script is decent. But people are going to have their opinions and not everybody is going to "get" the script, as is the same with audiences with films. You wrote it and they didn't, so obviously, not everybody is going to see eye to eye with you.
Just a question, Dustin... if this script is all ready in the hands of producers, why even post it? You seem pretty dead set with everything. And all the criticism you've received (about the script itself) seems to have been met with a negative rebuttal. Though I thought the "First act ends on page 24. Do you really need me to tell you when Act 2 ends?" bit was pretty funny.
I, for one, love British gangster films (Layer Cake, Sexy Beast, The Krays, the Michael Caine Get Carter, The Business, Lock Stock, I can go on forever) and thought this script was fairly decent (whether it's a first draft or not). No, I didn't grow up in the criminal underbelly that you came up in (I'm from Philly and lived in NYC for 10 years), but I do have an extensive knowledge of film, and as I've said, I'm a huge fan of British cinema as a whole as well as the British gangster film sub genre.
That being said, I agree with some of the criticisms concerning the dialogue. I know the story doesn't take itself too seriously, but I don't think you intended this for a B-movie audience, which at parts, seems to be (though as a whole, I didn't get that vibe).
The baby getting its hand cut off for instance. Yeah, it can be shocking, and it's not really expected, but I feel it would be more shocking and emotional if you had set a different tone right from jump street. And the dialogue really does set a B-movie tone (borderline cliche dialogue, and the scene opens on the day of someone's wedding which is done often in gangster films) -- and when the baby got it's hand cut off, I kind of laughed (maybe I'm just a sick fuck ) -- for some reason, I heard that cheesy B-movie, overly dramatic music (ala Drive) in my head when that happened. I had the same reaction to Machete and Hobo with a Shotgun. And sad to say, I also laughed in Punisher War Zone when Ray Stevenson came in and killed a bunch of mobsters sitting around a table.
It just seemed cartoon-like to me.
But if you're happy with it, and it's all ready in the hands of producers, what's the point of having people put in the time to read the whole thing (it is a fast read, but I digress) and then comment on it?
Just my personal opinion. I think you're a good writer and I do think this script is decent. But people are going to have their opinions and not everybody is going to "get" the script, as is the same with audiences with films. You wrote it and they didn't, so obviously, not everybody is going to see eye to eye with you.
I have maintained throughout this thread that I will edit the script before sending it to producers. Lots of times now. It isn't already in the hands of anyone aside from a few actors. I'm finishing a draft on my 3-part drama and then I will do a few things on this before sending it out anywhere.
You have experience in British film which qualifies you to an opinion far more than somebody that hasn't and I have already agreed with you. Yes, in parts I do hit melodrama. It doesn't open on a wedding though, but it is a family gathering to celebrate the birth of a baby, so not exactly dissimilar. I could certainly be more inventive about that, but as it is just a flashback, aside from cleaning up the dialogue I think the scene stands fine. If a producer tells me to get more inventive over that then I will switch it up. I will clean up the dialogue though.
In regards to B movie audience... no that isn't my over all aim... but it is an initial one. I think a film should start out B and then make it big. Most of the films that start out big are really a pile of rubbish, their only saving grace being that people fall for the hype over and over again. So I'd like to make an A movie on a B movie budget. So obviously melodrama, and I do see it myself in parts, is something I should avoid and I am grateful for it being pointed out. However I reject that the whole script is like it which is what it seems to turn into once an admission has been made.
Yes, in the same way that food is never overly salty. It is salty or it isn't, right?
I hate to jump into a thread this is already "overly" bloated, but this little niggle is driving me nuts.
Melodrama is a stand-alone genre. And you can have too much of it (for some tastes).
Not saying that you do, specifically, but it is possible. Would you contend that a film could not be "overly" violent?
Melodrama means overly dramatic. It's the same thing. It's a grammar thing. You can't put overly melodramatic together. the correct phrase is overly dramatic. One is overly dramatic, or melodramatic, they are not overly melodramatic. Ridiculous.
In regards to violence... you can't over murder somebody either. You either kill them or you don't.
Hey Dustin. Disappointed to hear that this is actually a melodrama - should've stuck than in the log-line 'cos it could get missed. Wind-swept oceans, flowing capes, get 'em all in. Somehow. And drugs. They're illegal by the way, so careful.
Back to it.
p.31 - I wouldn't start a new scene straight into dialogue. Maybe go with Honey double, or sprawling, or Tony stepping in.
Minor on this one: Johnny never steps in the house, but storms out of it (he's in on/by Tony's dialogue).
p.36 -
INT. DELBOY'S etc
The men ...
-- think about your breakdown. There's a couple of bits like this that are a bit off - I know it's nothing major but it is a new scene, and better is 'The Cobo's ...' or similar.
p.37 - okay - I'm guessing (or had thought) that we were working with two cases - at this point, I'm still thinking that. If that's true ... do you need an identifier for Johnny's case? It's just that if a case came out - then I'm thinking it could be either Benny's or Johnny's, but as you're specifying in the description, I'm wondering how I know this, and how I know it's not Benny's?
p.38 From the dialogue 'You've done well my friend.' I got the feeling the guys almost had the wrong dialogue? Would the 'If only things were that simple' not belong to the Cobo's?
p.39 DANNY To be honest with you, I don't think they will. -- got give-away written all over it. DANNY To be honest with you... -- or DANNY I don't think they... -- maybe play with it.
p.44 - exposition on the Turks is too heavy: needs a re-work. Angle's fine.
Okay - I'm out for tonight. Only thing I'm wondering at close-ish to half way is the Alexander role ...?
This is really getting side-tracked with minutiae. Let's take it all the way back, then. There's no music, so how can it be melodramatic? Because that's what is means: from the Greek 'Melos' (Music) + the French 'Drame' (Drama). So it's not melodramatic unless we get Beethoven's 1st (or whatever) blasting all over it.
Let's be frank - this has all come about due to J.S.'s dim and inaccurate take that this is melodramatic - all off some badly phrased early dialogue that's Dustin's said is going to be cut.
And yeah - where is Jeff?? Pitch in b*itch! - this is all his territory - 'cept I guess he's not a fan of Brit flicks.
1. Having the excitement and emotional appeal of melodrama: "a melodramatic account of two perilous days spent among the planters" (Frank O. Gatell). 2. Exaggeratedly emotional or sentimental; histrionic: "Accuse me, if you will, of melodramatic embroidery" (Erskine Childers). 3. Characterized by false pathos and sentiment.
melodrama
a. A drama, such as a play, film, or television program, characterized by exaggerated emotions, stereotypical characters, and interpersonal conflicts. b. The dramatic genre characterized by this treatment. 2. Behavior or occurrences having melodramatic characteristics.
From this, I would say "Exaggeratedly emotional or sentimental" applies to film.
And I would say that being melodramatic is often a deliberate style choice. It's an acceptable form.
And from that I would say it's possible to go too far with it. In other words...overly-melodramatic.
So the use of the description would be acceptable and useful. Not saying it applies here, I have not read enough to know. But it's valid for a reviewer to use the word.
Alright Dustin. I'm giving this one a go. I'm being completely honest with my comments here. I'll try to explain myself where necessary. I may be saying things that have been already mentioned before. I didn't read through all of the comments, however
pg. 1, "A tall, powerfully built man named DELROY (18.), a mouthful of gold teeth, removes his scarf."
You might want to place 'a mouth of gold teeth' at the end since that's revealed after he removes his scarf.
pg. 2, "Feliks screams and strides towards Delroy in a rage, spittle flying from his mouth."
I don't get this. I think this would look goofy on screen. Now if you mean he screams the dialogue as he strides toward him, that's different. But just him screaming and striding is very, very odd.
"FELIKS Don't... you... fucking... hurt... my son."
It's at this point where I think you're on the course to channeling melodrama. BUT, having said that, I think in the hands of the right director and the right cast it doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted that way. I'm just saying that most actors, especially method actors, will likely go in that direction. I can perfectly picture an actor cheweing up the scenery with this.
"You don't get it Feliks. This aint even about you, man. This is about all of them."
This too.
"Delroy raises the machete and slices off the baby's hand. The hand falls onto the floor amidst the baby's terrible, terrified screams. Everyone in the bar screams too -- completely horrified."
Okay, so at this point the red flags are going off. Why go that deep into the violence so early on when it has little to no context? What purpose does this have but to gross out the audience? You're inserting violence just 'cause. If I was watching this movie, I would go, "yeah, this is pointless." There's no build up here. "It's a meaningless gore flick, I'll pass." That would be my reaction more or less. Let me give you an example for reference. Look at a movie like Oldboy or I saw the devil. Excellent films with plenty of violence. There might have been a moment or two where I felt like the violence was stretched out for a beat too long, but generally, it was done very well. I was entertained and I felt that whatever violence I saw was completely warranted. I can't say that about this part here. This is like one of the highest levels of darkness and you stick it right at the beginning of your script?? How do you raise your audience back up after this scene, I have no idea. Anyway, I'm moving forward.
"EVA No!"
This too.
"Feliks holds out his hand to his wife, mouths the words "I Love You", and dies."
This too. The "I Love You" is a huge one here.
"Don't kill my baby, please don't kill my baby."
This too.
"Eva spits in Delroy's face. EVA Tell them yourself."
Okay, now she has a change of tone here, which I'm having trouble reconciling in my mind.
So all in all, I don't feel like you hit the ceiling of melodrama (i.e. overly-melodramatic). But it's certainly melodrama.
"Alexander sits opposite....."
Who's Alexander, how old is he, and what does he look like?
The Oddball/Danny exchange you have is not bad but I don't understand why it's relevant.
"a couple of inches off the floor before he falls flat on his back"
Should probably change to ground rather than floor since its outside.
This next scene, between Alexander and the three Males, was pretty good.
"Two cars pull up side by side. Lights go off, engines die. A door opens and somebody gets out -- runs around to the driver side of the other car. CRACK! CRACK! CRACK! Three pistol shots. The GUNMAN opens the car door and pulls a suitcase from inside. The dead body of a middle-aged white man falls out."
Initially, I couldn't understand what's going on here. It was only after I read the next action line that I got it. So reword this so it's clear.
"Tell him... tell him, the shit has hit the fan."
Nice
I'm having a minor issue with Alexander being so obliging when he meets Oddball. Okay, he takes the case to the guy, I'll buy that. But Oddball's trustworthiness of him I feel iffy on. Then Alexander's sure-I've-got-nothing-better-to-do-then-follow-you-around-town attitude is where I'm not as satisfied. If he backed off, or at the very least questioned Oddball, simply said, "Look, man, I don't want any part of this shit, whatever the hell it is." I could buy that. I'm assuming he's got some idea as to what his friend Danny is involved in so he might have some idea that if cops are involved, then this shit's hitting the fan from both sides and maybe it might be wise to stay out of it. All I'm saying is that it's a convenient stretch for the screenwriter to make and personally it's not a big buy from me. But I'll go along with as it doesn't bother me that much.
"skims through the pictures, chuckling occasionally."
What are "the" pictures? Pictures on the phone? Should make this more clear.
"ALEXANDER I met your friend tonight.18. ODDBALL His name is Danny... you met him tonight? ALEXANDER Yeah, tonight."
Okay, Dustin, I can't believe this. I thought the two knew each other, in which case I was going to cut you some slack for what I mentioned above about Alexander's readiness to oblige, but at this point I can't believe what just transpired. It's far fetched to have Alexander just conveniently do go through all this for someone he just met!!! I can't believe these plot points. I can't believe Alexander is doing this guy the favor. I can't believe Oddball is so easily trustworthy with Alexander. And I can't believe Alexander would follow Oddball. Having said that, I think you could find a better way to lay down these plot points. As they stand, they're very unbelievable.
ALEXANDER I'm not really from anywhere. I grew up in care and since then I've been in and out of prison.
You should rework this. It feel forced. It could be just a phrasing thing.
"No mate... you're going nowhere till Danny shows up."
I neither understand the logic behind this plot point nor can I believe it. Oddball's very conveniently inviting Alexander into this is not wise I think and not very believable, especially how quickly it happens.
"Look. This isn't going to get us anywhere. Now Danny, look... there's a lot of fucking money in that case. Everything we've worked for is in that case. Can you think of anywhere that fucking mug could be right now?"
Las Vegas!!! No, I kid But that was my first thought as I was reading this.
"A shot from behind the settee shows that the case is gone."
I don't understand this. Is this like a thought bubble or something? Or a shot back at the safe house?
"ODDBALL Fuck. DANNY Yeah, fuck. Danny looks at Alexander. DANNY You as well."
I don't understand these reactions either. Is it because they're not at the safe house like they're suppose to be and they're just screwing around like little kids?
Alright so I'm stopping at scene bottom of page 30. I'm going along with it, despite some of those hard to believe plot points.
From what I read so far I would say a good portion of your action lines are very well written. There's no superfluous words. You get right to it. Some could definitely use tweaking, others need more clarity. But overall you get good marks from me on that aspect.
I can't say much about the dialogue for right now. It does come off as wooden at times. Sort of fades in and out for me. And true, it's nothing like your opening scenes which I can't take seriously by the way, and probably would not continue watching the movie because of them. But thank God they were only 3 minutes long. Actually the more I think about it, it's probably the odd combination of sentimentality and violence, and it's right in the beginning too.
Anyway, enough from me for now. I don't have further thoughts on this at this time. I'll get back to this later.
Hey Dustin. Disappointed to hear that this is actually a melodrama - should've stuck than in the log-line 'cos it could get missed. Wind-swept oceans, flowing capes, get 'em all in. Somehow. And drugs. They're illegal by the way, so careful.
Back to it.
p.31 - I wouldn't start a new scene straight into dialogue. Maybe go with Honey double, or sprawling, or Tony stepping in.
Minor on this one: Johnny never steps in the house, but storms out of it (he's in on/by Tony's dialogue).
p.36 -
INT. DELBOY'S etc
The men ...
-- think about your breakdown. There's a couple of bits like this that are a bit off - I know it's nothing major but it is a new scene, and better is 'The Cobo's ...' or similar.
p.37 - okay - I'm guessing (or had thought) that we were working with two cases - at this point, I'm still thinking that. If that's true ... do you need an identifier for Johnny's case? It's just that if a case came out - then I'm thinking it could be either Benny's or Johnny's, but as you're specifying in the description, I'm wondering how I know this, and how I know it's not Benny's?
p.38 From the dialogue 'You've done well my friend.' I got the feeling the guys almost had the wrong dialogue? Would the 'If only things were that simple' not belong to the Cobo's?
p.39 DANNY To be honest with you, I don't think they will. -- got give-away written all over it. DANNY To be honest with you... -- or DANNY I don't think they... -- maybe play with it.
p.44 - exposition on the Turks is too heavy: needs a re-work. Angle's fine.
Okay - I'm out for tonight. Only thing I'm wondering at close-ish to half way is the Alexander role ...?
There is only one case. I'll certainly need to make that clearer. No this isn't a melodrama.
On page 38, the implication here is that The Colombians set up Johnny and Tony as they were going to deposit their money into a Colombian bank. I'll need to make that connection clearer, either earlier or around this point in the meeting with Delroy and the Colombians.
I'll sort out the scenes where I go straight to dialogue.
I'm hoping to come back to this script on Monday and spend a few days editing so these notes will be open as I'm going along. Cheers.
Wow, you really stick to your guns on things, don't you?
Have you even done a little digging into the possibility that you are mistaken? Even a dictionary or something?
Anyways, done here. Sail on, good Sir. Where is Jeff when I actually need him?
Have you? I've done a lot more digging than you have, obviously.
Do a little test. First, google: overly dramatic and see what happens. Then google, overly melodramatic and see what happens.
You will note that searching for overly melodramatic will pull up only the word melodramatic on its own. However the search for overly dramatic will show those words going together all the time.
Also if you do a search on synonyms of melodrama you will find overly dramatic meaning the same thing. Likewise backwards too, here: http://thesaurus.com/browse/over-dramatic
So if melodrama is the same as being overly dramatic, which let's face it... it is... then to place over before melodramatic is a blunder.
Nobody uses over melodramtic together, nobody. People say overly dramatic, that's it. If you guys want to take on this mistake and perpetuate it that's fine. That's all I have to say on it.
"So if melodrama is the same as being overly dramatic, which let's face it... it is... then to place over before melodramatic is a blunder."
This is where you're wrong and have been wrong the entire time.
Melodrama is a noun. It's a sub genre of film. Overly dramatic is an adjective with an adverb modifier.
We can say, "I'm going to see that Melodrama tonight." We CAN'T say "I'm going to see that Overly Dramatic tonight."
What you've been so adamant on, it appears to me, is that melodrama has one meaning and one meaning only. Come on, Dustin. You should know better than that.
As Bert, and others, have correctly pointed out to you numerous times, Melodrama is a genre. So the adjective melodramatic used in this context is a "descriptor" of that genre. And that's what we mean. One more time, in this context when we say melodramatic we are referring to the genre of melodrama.
You of course ignore this and keep repeating the same thing, saying it means overly dramatic or over dramatic. True, the word melodramatic does also mean this. But that's not the same word we're talking about. That word is more or less referring to "extravagant in speech, or behavior."
Alright Dustin. I'm giving this one a go. I'm being completely honest with my comments here. I'll try to explain myself where necessary. I may be saying things that have been already mentioned before. I didn't read through all of the comments, however.
pg. 2, "Feliks screams and strides towards Delroy in a rage, spittle flying from his mouth."
I don't get this. I think this would look goofy on screen. Now if you mean he screams the dialogue as he strides toward him, that's different. But just him screaming and striding is very, very odd.
It's meant to look odd because when people get really mad that's how they look, and most people when they get really mad, they can't speak. It's just noise. I want a guttural roar. I think I'll change it to guttural roar. I expect pure anger in this scene. The man's wife and son are there and gangsters have just walked in. That's not how it's done. They could hit him anywhere and they walk into a family event. Fear and anger will reign. He doesn't care if he dies himself, he just wants his family to be OK. If you have kids yourself then you should understand what I mean... and genuinely put yourself in that situation, you may well be overly dramatic.
"FELIKS Don't... you... fucking... hurt... my son."
It's at this point where I think you're on the course to channeling melodrama. BUT, having said that, I think in the hands of the right director and the right cast it doesn't necessarily have to be interpreted that way. I'm just saying that most actors, especially method actors, will likely go in that direction. I can perfectly picture an actor cheweing up the scenery with this.
I can't agree. the guy has been shot twice, he has a new baby in the hands of the guy that shot him... ah, ok... perhaps you are right. He would beg at this stage. He would beg for his son's life. He can't move, cannot do anything else, the only thing left is to appeal for mercy (for the baby).
"Delroy raises the machete and slices off the baby's hand. The hand falls onto the floor amidst the baby's terrible, terrified screams. Everyone in the bar screams too -- completely horrified."
Okay, so at this point the red flags are going off. Why go that deep into the violence so early on when it has little to no context? What purpose does this have but to gross out the audience? You're inserting violence just 'cause. If I was watching this movie, I would go, "yeah, this is pointless." There's no build up here. "It's a meaningless gore flick, I'll pass." That would be my reaction more or less. Let me give you an example for reference. Look at a movie like Oldboy or I saw the devil. Excellent films with plenty of violence. There might have been a moment or two where I felt like the violence was stretched out for a beat too long, but generally, it was done very well. I was entertained and I felt that whatever violence I saw was completely warranted. I can't say that about this part here. This is like one of the highest levels of darkness and you stick it right at the beginning of your script?? How do you raise your audience back up after this scene, I have no idea. Anyway, I'm moving forward.
It's only had its hand cut off, there are far worse things that could happen. It is done for effect and the actor I wrote the part for actually really only has one hand. You can tell from the logline what is going to happen. The baby is the son who gets revenge on his father's killer. So obviously the baby plays a part further down the line and it isn't just a senseless gore flick.
"Two cars pull up side by side. Lights go off, engines die. A door opens and somebody gets out -- runs around to the driver side of the other car. CRACK! CRACK! CRACK! Three pistol shots. The GUNMAN opens the car door and pulls a suitcase from inside. The dead body of a middle-aged white man falls out."
Initially, I couldn't understand what's going on here. It was only after I read the next action line that I got it. So reword this so it's clear.
I'm having a minor issue with Alexander being so obliging when he meets Oddball. Okay, he takes the case to the guy, I'll buy that. But Oddball's trustworthiness of him I feel iffy on. Then Alexander's sure-I've-got-nothing-better-to-do-then-follow-you-around-town attitude is where I'm not as satisfied. If he backed off, or at the very least questioned Oddball, simply said, "Look, man, I don't want any part of this shit, whatever the hell it is." I could buy that. I'm assuming he's got some idea as to what his friend Danny is involved in so he might have some idea that if cops are involved, then this shit's hitting the fan from both sides and maybe it might be wise to stay out of it. All I'm saying is that it's a convenient stretch for the screenwriter to make and personally it's not a big buy from me. But I'll go along with as it doesn't bother me that much.
There are people in this world James that walk into trouble. That is what this film is about. The fact that it may be dangerous is what is attractive.
"ALEXANDER I met your friend tonight.18. ODDBALL His name is Danny... you met him tonight? ALEXANDER Yeah, tonight."
Okay, Dustin, I can't believe this. I thought the two knew each other, in which case I was going to cut you some slack for what I mentioned above about Alexander's readiness to oblige, but at this point I can't believe what just transpired. It's far fetched to have Alexander just conveniently do go through all this for someone he just met!!! I can't believe these plot points. I can't believe Alexander is doing this guy the favor. I can't believe Oddball is so easily trustworthy with Alexander. And I can't believe Alexander would follow Oddball. Having said that, I think you could find a better way to lay down these plot points. As they stand, they're very unbelievable.
No... they're not. You just have no idea about that type of mindset.
"No mate... you're going nowhere till Danny shows up."
I neither understand the logic behind this plot point nor can I believe it. Oddball's very conveniently inviting Alexander into this is not wise I think and not very believable, especially how quickly it happens.
Alexander is homeless, jobless, but he's gotta eat regardless (Dead Prez). Oddball hasn't invited him in, he's already in. Lot of drugs involved. You'd be surprised what can happen in one crazy night.
"Look. This isn't going to get us anywhere. Now Danny, look... there's a lot of fucking money in that case. Everything we've worked for is in that case. Can you think of anywhere that fucking mug could be right now?"
Las Vegas!!! No, I kid But that was my first thought as I was reading this.
"A shot from behind the settee shows that the case is gone."
I don't understand this. Is this like a thought bubble or something? Or a shot back at the safe house?
If you check the slug, they are actually in the safe house.
"ODDBALL Fuck. DANNY Yeah, fuck. Danny looks at Alexander. DANNY You as well."
I don't understand these reactions either. Is it because they're not at the safe house like they're suppose to be and they're just screwing around like little kids?
From what I read so far I would say a good portion of your action lines are very well written. There's no superfluous words. You get right to it. Some could definitely use tweaking, others need more clarity. But overall you get good marks from me on that aspect.
I can't say much about the dialogue for right now. It does come off as wooden at times. Sort of fades in and out for me. And true, it's nothing like your opening scenes which I can't take seriously by the way, and probably would not continue watching the movie because of them. But thank God they were only 3 minutes long. Actually the more I think about it, it's probably the odd combination of sentimentality and violence, and it's right in the beginning too.
In any scene like that we run the risk of over dramatising as it is a highly dramatic event. Several people are killed and a baby has its hand cut off. emotions would be running high.
"So if melodrama is the same as being overly dramatic, which let's face it... it is... then to place over before melodramatic is a blunder."
This is where you're wrong and have been wrong the entire time.
Melodrama is a noun. It's a sub genre of film. Overly dramatic is an adjective with an adverb modifier.
We can say, "I'm going to see that Melodrama tonight." We CAN'T say "I'm going to see that Overly Dramatic tonight."
What you've been so adamant on, it appears to me, is that melodrama has one meaning and one meaning only. Come on, Dustin. You should know better than that.
As Bert, and others, have correctly pointed out to you numerous times, Melodrama is a genre. So the adjective melodramatic used in this context is a "descriptor" of that genre. And that's what we mean. One more time, in this context when we say melodramatic we are referring to the genre of melodrama.
You of course ignore this and keep repeating the same thing, saying it means overly dramatic or over dramatic. True, the word melodramatic does also mean this. But that's not the same word we're talking about. That word is more or less referring to "extravagant in speech, or behavior."
Are you converted now?
Are you having a laugh mate?
You said the dialogue in my first 3 pages was overly melodramatic. You didn't accuse it of being a melodrama.
You said the dialogue in my first 3 pages was overly melodramatic. You didn't accuse it of being a melodrama. That's complete b/s mate.
Dustin, please carefully read what I wrote.
"As Bert, and others, have correctly pointed out to you numerous times, Melodrama is a genre. So the adjective melodramatic used in this context is a "descriptor" of that genre. And that's what we mean."
It's meant to look odd because when people get really mad that's how they look, and most people when they get really mad, they can't speak. It's just noise. I want a guttural roar. I think I'll change it to guttural roar. I expect pure anger in this scene. The man's wife and son are there and gangsters have just walked in. That's not how it's done. They could hit him anywhere and they walk into a family event. Fear and anger will reign. He doesn't care if he dies himself, he just wants his family to be OK. If you have kids yourself then you should understand what I mean... and genuinely put yourself in that situation, you may well be overly dramatic.
Dude, I just said it looks goofy to me. No need to force me to sympathize with it.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I can't agree. the guy has been shot twice, he has a new baby in the hands of the guy that shot him... ah, ok... perhaps you are right. He would beg at this stage. He would beg for his son's life. He can't move, cannot do anything else, the only thing left is to appeal for mercy (for the baby).
Both would be melodramatic, no doubt. That wasn't my point.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
It's only had its hand cut off, there are far worse things that could happen. It is done for effect and the actor I wrote the part for actually really only has one hand. You can tell from the logline what is going to happen. The baby is the son who gets revenge on his father's killer. So obviously the baby plays a part further down the line and it isn't just a senseless gore flick.
My impression, if I knew nothing about a movie version of this, would be that this is a senseless gore flick because in my mind anyway, you must build to it like suspense. This is just my taste.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Don't agree.
Don't agree. Do you have a wife? Do you love her?
A woman would scream that if she felt powerless after seeing her husband killed and several other men in the bar. The guy now has her baby.
My feelings are that when this kind of sentimentality is portrayed on film I can't take it seriously. I am incapable of it. I know it's fake. Just like I know the blood in a bad or great movie is fake. But the difference is when I'm immersed in the story in a great movie, the violence, blood, gore, and occasionally sentimentality, when properly executed, only intensifies what I'm already immersed in. It doesn't add to it. It's not something that just dangles out there on its own. And to me, both your sentimentality and your violence dangle in the opening. That's my feeling. Don't get offended. I'm just giving you my opinion because I'm sure you'll get plenty similar opinions as mine especially if this gets produce. In no way shape or form should you take this to be personally against you. Just my opinion, dude.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
He's already done his worst, now she is beyond caring.
I still don't get it. I'm being honest. I don't understand that instant switch you make her do.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
There are people in this world James that walk into trouble. That is what this film is about. The fact that it may be dangerous is what is attractive.
It seems extremely unlikely that the events you plotted would transpire. Perhaps I'm wrong and this is a cultural thing and it does in fact work. I don't know. I'm just saying that if I saw this movie, that's how I would feel about it.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
No... they're not. You just have no idea about that type of mindset.
Well they are to me. I can't get my head around the idea that these two people that just met became so quickly trusting of one another. Again, just my gut reaction.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Alexander is homeless, jobless, but he's gotta eat regardless (Dead Prez). Oddball hasn't invited him in, he's already in. Lot of drugs involved. You'd be surprised what can happen in one crazy night.
Yeah, I certainly don't get the logic behind this. Sorry, dude.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
If you check the slug, they are actually in the safe house.
pg. 24, "Danny puts his thinking cap on. A shot from behind the settee shows that the case is gone."
There isn't a slug there. Check the page. Sorry for not putting page numbers next to my comments.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
They're only hard to believe for you because you don't understand what it's like to be homeless, jobless but you gotta eat regardless.
Again, could be. I think a great writer should be able to make me understand. I've never lived in Russia nor do I understand the Russian life but I still enjoyed and could sympathize with the characters in "The Brothers Karamazov". But as you said, this is geared to a specific audience. So obviously I won't criticize you for doing something you didn't set out to do.
"As Bert, and others, have correctly pointed out to you numerous times, Melodrama is a genre. So the adjective melodramatic used in this context is a "descriptor" of that genre. And that's what we mean."
Here is where I accused you of calling my film a melodrama.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You appear to have gone from saying the dialogue is melodramatic to accusing the whole film of being so after reading just three pages.
Well first of all, there is no film. It's a script. Second of all, I did no such thing. I was speaking generally about such films.
A melodrama can be any genre... romance, thriller, comedy (pantomime). All you have to do is go too far to the point that it is unrealistic. You have to overdo it. Then it becomes melodrama. It is already over done.
I would like to get further into the script when I have time but I will just comment on the first three pages that I read.
...
Also my fear is that the over-melodramatic nature of the script makes me feel like this is going to be a film that is taking itself too seriously.
So it should be obvious from the context that when I accused your script of having an "over-melodramatic nature" I am "comment[ing] on the first three pages that I read."
My impression, if I knew nothing about a movie version of this, would be that this is a senseless gore flick because in my mind anyway, you must build to it like suspense. This is just my taste.
You already said that and I don't agree with it. Senseless violence, yes... but gore. Long, long way away. You have real difficulty defining genres it seems.
My feelings are that when this kind of sentimentality is portrayed on film I can't take it seriously. I am incapable of it. I know it's fake. Just like I know the blood in a bad or great movie is fake.
You are incapable of it for different reasons than it being fake. You have no idea what real is. You've never been there while people have been shot around you, your wife shot in front of you. Your child about to be harmed. You have no idea what is real and what isn't. You cannot say what people would or wouldn't say in that situation. When people really panic they can say crazy things that make no sense at all... but doing that in a script would be hard. Kind of thing you need to do on set with the actor. As that is where a lot of dialogue is changed anyway. As writers we only need to convey the sentiment and an approximation of dialogue.
It seems extremely unlikely that the events you plotted would transpire. Perhaps I'm wrong and this is a cultural thing and it does in fact work. I don't know. I'm just saying that if I saw this movie, that's how I would feel about it.
You already said that and I gave you my response. That's how it works. You repeating yourself over and over again isn't helping much.
Well they are to me. I can't get my head around the idea that these two people that just met became so quickly trusting of one another. Again, just my gut reaction.
Again... you've said this once already. The fact that you still don't get it after an explanation doesn't matter one iota.
Again, could be. I think a great writer should be able to make me understand. I've never lived in Russia nor do I understand the Russian life but I still enjoyed and could sympathize with the characters in "The Brothers Karamazov". But as you said, this is geared for a specific audience. So obviously I won't criticize you for doing something you didn't set out to do.
You don't want to understand, you've already demonstrated that.
So it should be obvious from the context that when I accused your script of having an "over-melodramatic nature" I am "comment[ing] on the first three pages that I read."
That's pure and simple context for you.
A thriller script... which this is... a crime thriller... with a logline to boot. Nowhere does it say melodrama. So... in that vein, a thriller script can only be melodramatic as in overly dramatic. You can't use overly melodramatic... it's poor grammar. But, if you wish to continue being ignorant then that is up to you.
"Nobody uses over melodramatic together, nobody. People say overly dramatic, that's it. If you guys want to take on this mistake and perpetuate it that's fine."
I have no stake in the argument, I actually just appreciated the logic of Dustin's original argument, and as a diversion, wanted to look into it myself.
Which I did. And the only online dictionary I went to did not have over dramatic as the definition for melodramatic. I posted what it did have above.
And my logic was decisive, Dustin. It is acceptable to use overly melodramatic. Just like it might be fair to describe something as excessively over the top. Over the top could be a chosen style, but its possible to go too far. Thus the excessive, even though a certain amount of excess is implied in over the top itself.
Sorry, Dustin. You're wrong this time. But let's look at your own words, quoted above. You place double emphasis on "nobody uses" overly dramatic. And then a few words later you refer to perpetuating a mistake, which indicates that you are aware that people do in fact use the combination of words. Which you know from googling it.
"Nobody uses over melodramatic together, nobody. People say overly dramatic, that's it. If you guys want to take on this mistake and perpetuate it that's fine."
I have no stake in the argument, I actually just appreciated the logic of Dustin's original argument, and as a diversion, wanted to look into it myself.
Which I did. And the only online dictionary I went to did not have over dramatic as the definition for melodramatic. I posted what it did have above.
Overly dramatic is a synonym of melodramatic. So melodramatic can be defined as being overly dramatic.
And my logic was decisive, Dustin. It is acceptable to use overly melodramatic. Just like it might be fair to describe something as excessively over the top. Over the top could be a chosen style, but its possible to go too far. Thus the excessive, even though a certain amount of excess is implied in over the top itself.
Give me an example of going too far with melodrama. Melodrama is OTT drama, so I'd love to know what could top that.
Sorry, Dustin. You're wrong this time. But let's look at your own words, quoted above. You place double emphasis on "nobody uses" overly dramatic. And then a few words later you refer to perpetuating a mistake, which indicates that you are aware that people do in fact use the combination of words. Which you know from googling it.
I did not say that at all, I said nobody uses "Overly Melodramatic"... I also said that everybody knows and uses "overly dramatic". It's well known. Overly dramatic, same as saying melodramatic... because they are synonyms. Anyway, I'm not here to give fellow writers English lessons. Continue using overly melodramatic together for all I care... it's not me looking stupid.
1. Having the excitement and emotional appeal of melodrama: "a melodramatic account of two perilous days spent among the planters" (Frank O. Gatell). 2. Exaggeratedly emotional or sentimental; histrionic: "Accuse me, if you will, of melodramatic embroidery" (Erskine Childers). 3. Characterized by false pathos and sentiment.
Again, this could be a style choice. And it's possible to use too much of it, to go too far.
From this link, you can see a listing of melodramatic films and a description of what the genre entails. In fact, they used to be the predominant style of film for decades. Films consisted of exaggerated and heightened emotional plots.
Going too far with such a plot might be deliberate, and a form of comedy. But more often it's an unintentional mistake by the creators of the film. They exaggerate...too much. I don't have to define too much, do I? A film can be overly exaggerated, and it can be overly melodramatic.
This is not even a judgment call, Dustin. You are just plain old fashioned wrong. It happens. I can tell you honestly that when I looked at your original argument, I really didn't know. Your point seemed possible. But 2 minutes of research combined with basic logic shows that there is simply no doubt...overly melodramatic is a fair criticism and probably a very common one.
And yes...you said nobody uses overly melodramatic...and then you said it was a mistake that has been perpetuated, a contradiction. You believe the use of overly melodramatic is a mistake, but it's obviously one you've seen enough to consider a problem you don't want to perpetuate.
You're a reasonably intelligent guy, so I enjoy the occasional joust. Like all people, you are capable of being wrong, and this is one of those times. It just is. Accept it and move on.
Going too far with such a plot might be deliberate, and a form of comedy. But more often it's an unintentional mistake by the creators of the film. They exaggerate...too much. I don't have to define too much, do I? A film can be overly exaggerated, and it can be overly melodramatic.
Show me an example of an overly melodramatic film. Just one. I bet you they are simply termed as melodramtic, as they are already overly dramatised.
And yes...you said nobody uses overly melodramatic...and then you said it was a mistake that has been perpetuated, a contradiction. You believe the use of overly melodramatic is a mistake, but it's obviously one you've seen enough to consider a problem you don't want to perpetuate.
Because there has been more than one taker for the case of overly melodramatic on this board, you are yet another member to join... so as I fear this ignorance is spreading. Much like in our country when people mispronounce wow. It's catching. Admittedly this helps form new definitions. Lots of words change meanings over time and most of them are down to people misunderstanding the true definition of the word. It is so powerful that it changes the meanings of words. Anyway... I digress.
This is the first time I've ever, ever heard anyone mix up overly dramatic and melodramatic before. He even, at one point, hyphenated them like this: over-melodramatic
I'm not forcing anything... you obviously lack the capability to empathise. That doesn't make it melodrama.
I lack the ability (not capability; check your usage notes) to empathize because I think your portrayal of emotions in the first three pages of your script are pedestrian? Air tight logic.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
No it wouldn't. It would be highly dramatic, that isn't the same as overly dramatic, which is of course melodrama.
Of course, yes, of course. You're the one that wrote the dictionary, of course. Dude, seriously, it's getting sad how wrong you are about this and how big of a hole you're digging for yourself. Hey, it's your hole. Eventually the dirt will start falling on your head.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You already said that and I don't agree with it. Senseless violence, yes... but gore. Long, long way away. You have real difficulty defining genres it seems.
Well I imagined the scene gore-y. We can't predict how the director chooses to deal with it, true. But if it's shown on screen, I would consider it gore. And therefore I would consider the first three minutes of the film gore, and deduce from that that the rest of it will be just as gore-y. Obviously, that's not the case. I'm just saying those would be my impressions as an audience member.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You are incapable of it for different reasons than it being fake. You have no idea what real is.
Haha I have no idea what real is when I'm watching fiction. Air tight logic.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You've never been there while people have been shot around you, your wife shot in front of you. Your child about to be harmed. You have no idea what is real and what isn't. You cannot say what people would or wouldn't say in that situation. When people really panic they can say crazy things that make no sense at all... but doing that in a script would be hard. Kind of thing you need to do on set with the actor. As that is where a lot of dialogue is changed anyway. As writers we only need to convey the sentiment and an approximation of dialogue.
So now to recover from my criticism you're going to blame the audience? This is why we have bad movies these days. This is exactly the reason why. Because screenwriters like yourself treat the audience like they're dimwits.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Why would I take it personally?
Based on what you've said thus far, you seem to have. Either that or your attitude is just inherently acrid.
I don't have a problem understanding good stories. True, I'm not a fan of all of the classic one's I've read. But that doesn't mean I don't understand them. I don't understand your script not because I don't want to, but because you're asking me to "understand" by ignoring what I think are far fetched plot points.
Good luck with your script, Dustin. I am not going to bother reading the rest of it because it's clear to me that you think I don't want to understand it. I hope you find the right people that do.
If you followed the link, Dustin, you would understand instead of just being obstinate. Your capacity to learn is significantly impaired by your general unwillingness to consider the possibility you are wrong.
Melodramatic does NOT mean "overly" dramatic. I've provided the dictionary definition for you twice. All you have to do is read it. I've led the horse to water, now take a sip.
Melodramatic is a form, and up until recent decades, it was the norm and the ideal. It is not a pejorative term. It simply means using exaggerated style. Films aimed to be melodramatic. Don't take my word. I didn't know this myself until today. I looked it up. I've done the work for you, all you have to do is read. Two minutes and your confusion will dissolve.
It is possible for a film to be insufficiently melodramatic. And it is possible for a film to be overly melodramatic.
It's not a "new" definition. You have the internet, presumably you've heard of google. Apply common standards and dictionary descriptions instead of your own. Or just keep making things up. Up to you.
Overly dramatic is a synonym of melodramatic. So melodramatic can be defined as being overly dramatic.
You like repeating yourself even when you've been proven wrong don't you? I underlined it for you and you still keep going. Wow, dude. That hole sure is looking deep from up here.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Give me an example of going too far with melodrama. Melodrama is OTT drama, so I'd love to know what could top that.
Now I see what the problem is. You don't even know what Melodrama is.
Of course, yes, of course. You're the one that wrote the dictionary, of course. Dude, seriously, it's getting sad how wrong you are about this and how big of a hole you're digging for yourself. Hey, it's your hole. Eventually the dirt will start falling on your head.
Yeah keep saying how wrong I am... that proves a lot.
Well I imagined the scene gore-y. We can't predict how the director chooses to deal with it, true. But if it's shown on screen, I would consider it gore. And therefore I would consider the first three minutes of the film gore, and deduce from that that the rest of it will be just as gore-y. Obviously, that's not the case. I'm just saying those would be my impressions as an audience member.
No they wouldn't be your impressions as an audience member they are your impressions as a script reader. Reading three pages every three hours. I can read that script in an hour. I've read it quite a few times now and I know where the bad bits are. There's a cringeworthy line at the end I need to clean up too. You've probably spent more time responding in this thread than you have reading the script.
So now to recover from my criticism you're going to blame the audience? This is why we have bad movies these days. This is exactly the reason why. Because screenwriters like yourself treat the audience like they're dimwits.
I believe I have created an entertaining script. I don't remember blaming the audience for anything. I also am not treating them like dimwits. I'm guessing you've been at this game a long time, James... hence your obvious aggression against an amazing script, penned in just 8 days by a relative newb.
Based on what you've said thus far, you seem to have. Either that or your attitude is just inherently acrid.
As far as I'm concerned we are just talking about this script. I'm not sure why I would take anything personally. I'm being extremely mild in my responses, I haven't thrown any insults, profanity is non existent. What attitude are you talking about? I'm simply arguing against your points... you may not like that, you may feel that I am being aggressive because of it... but that is a psychological issue on your own behalf that you should address. Just argue the points... no need to even mention anything about hurting people's feelings when we're simply shooting the Shiite (sorry for the Islamist joke there).
I don't have a problem understanding good stories. True, I'm not a fan of all of the classic one's I've read. But that doesn't mean I don't understand them. I don't understand your script not because I don't want to, but because you're asking me to "understand" by ignoring what I think are far fetched plot points.
Well I've lived that kind of life and there have been times where I've hooked up with crews and mad Shiite has happened all within 24 hours of meeting. Crazy mo'fo's out there. Half of them do it just for the buzz, I'm sure. Like they're playing a game of GTA or something. Guys just out of jail... but anyway... you don't want to hear about REAL EXPERIENCES... you just want to hear Shiite that sounds real to you. Which is in regards to this genre, a combination of everything you've seen and watched on TV. You've never been homeless or a criminal... you can't even imagine, at all, what it is like... so for you to have an opinion on what is realistic and what isn't is quite laughable.
If you followed the link, Dustin, you would understand instead of just being obstinate. Your capacity to learn is significantly impaired by your general unwillingness to consider the possibility you are wrong.
Melodramatic does NOT mean "overly" dramatic. I've provided the dictionary definition for you twice. All you have to do is read it. I've led the horse to water, now take a sip.
Melodramatic is a form, and up until recent decades, it was the norm and the ideal. It is not a pejorative term. It simply means using exaggerated style. Films aimed to be melodramatic. Don't take my word. I didn't know this myself until today. I looked it up. I've done the work for you, all you have to do is read. Two minutes and your confusion will dissolve.
It is possible for a film to be insufficiently melodramatic. And it is possible for a film to be overly melodramatic.
It's not a "new" definition. You have the internet, presumably you've heard of google. Apply common standards and dictionary descriptions instead of your own. Or just keep making things up. Up to you.
To be melodramatic doesn't take being overly dramatic, it doesn't take being overly emotional, or overly sentimental. Also overly dramatic is not a synonym of melodramatic... gotcha
So... back to reality where melodrama does mean all of those things. LOL. Indeed in my paper dictionary, which I will take a pic of if necessary. Melodrama is defined as: A sensational dramatic piece with crude appeals to the emotions and usu. a happy ending.
How does one crudely appeal to emotions? I'll leave you to answer that one without being overly dramatic, overly emotional or overly sentimental.
Also give me an example... write it yourself, of something not simply melodramatic, but overly melodramatic. shouldn't take you 5 minutes.
In the link I gave you, they give the example of the film High Noon as being indicative of the melodramatic style. If we were to take that film, and have the marshal sobbing and speaking to himself like some Shakespearian character, then the story would be overly melodramatic.
Melodramatic does not mean overly dramatic. Don't take my word, look it up if you think I doctored the dictionary definitions I merely pasted into the thread.
Overly would suggest something negative. Which does not make sense when melodrama is in fact the goal.
If you had asked me when this discussion started, I was inclined to agree with you, believe it or not. It seemed logical that using overly with melodramatic was redundant.
Two minutes of research reveals that to be an incorrect conclusion, because melodramatic simply does not mean "overly" dramatic. Again, look it up. You are not entitled to create your own dictionary any more than your own reality.
Having the capability to do something is the same as having the ability to do it. I see the English lesson continues. FFS!
"These nouns denote qualities that enable a person to achieve or accomplish something. Ability is the mental or physical power to do something: "To make a fortune some assistance from fate is essential. Ability alone is insufficient" (Ihara Saikaku). Capacity refers to the potential for acquiring that power: "The capability [women] have shown in the realm of higher education, their achievements in the business world, their capacity for organization . . . have been a revelation" (Susan B. Anthony)."
How's the hole coming along down there Dustin?
Quoted from DustinBowcot
No mate, I just think that you are incapable of empathising because you have never loved anyone.
Haha. Oh, dude, wow. I had a good laugh. And I remember just some odd dozen posts ago, my second post I believe, saying that melodramatic stories takes themselves too seriously. Not only that you take criticism too seriously. It's criticism, man! And, oh, I love how you say this isn't getting personal yet you're making statements like "you have never loved anyone." Wow, Dustin. Just wow. You're making things worse on yourself that's all I'll say and leave it at that. I don't mind what you think of me. I could care less. I was just trying to help. Think and say whatever you wish. I can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry. You're just too ridiculous. haha
Quoted from DustinBowcot
No they wouldn't be your impressions as an audience member they are your impressions as a script reader. Reading three pages every three hours. I can read that script in an hour.
Good for you, Dustin. Good for you. I'm happy for you, dude. I'm happy for you.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
hence your obvious aggression against an amazing script, penned in just 8 days by a relative newb.
Nothing wrong in thinking your script's amazing dude. It's your script be proud of it. But I can sense how ticked off you are that I called it melodramatic and that I'm criticizing it based on some of its far-fetched plot points. It clearly went bone deep. Sorry about that. I didn't know you were that overly sensitive.
In the link I gave you, they give the example of the film High Noon as being indicative of the melodramatic style. If we were to take that film, and have the marshal sobbing and speaking to himself like some Shakespearian character, then the story would be overly melodramatic.
Nope... that's melodrama. It would simply be indicative of its genre.
Melodramatic does not mean overly dramatic. Don't take my word, look it up if you think I doctored the dictionary definitions I merely pasted into the thread.
A word is more than its definition. It is also the sum of the words within that definition. I've done far more research than checking a single poxy definition in a dictionary.
If you had asked me when this discussion started, I was inclined to agree with you, believe it or not. It seemed logical that using overly with melodramatic was redundant.
That's because it is redundant. it is especially redundant within the context of this thread.
Two minutes of research reveals that to be an incorrect conclusion, because melodramatic simply does not mean "overly" dramatic. Again, look it up. You are not entitled to create your own dictionary any more than your own reality.
I didn't say it simply meant that... not at all. i said that to be melodramatic takes being overly dramatic, or overly emotional, or overly sentimental, or over acted... you're saying that it doesn't... and I can respect your stance. Well, I can't... because it's pretty obvious that it takes at least one of those things to be melodramatic.
Hey Dustin, just saying this to help you out man, you're a solid writer, and overall a stand-up guy (though it may not seem that way through this thread) - but producers and filmmakers DO roam these pages, and when they see a bloated thread, they tend to get curious. And the way this thread has blown up, it doesn't exactly depict you in a positive light. What I'm saying, through experience, is that things don't always go as planned - someone may like your script, but it may not fit their slate. But that same someone may hire you, based on the strength of that script, to write something else for them. But if you seem hard to work with, they may just move on to the next writer. And simplyscripts.com isn't the only place to look for writers. There's millions of us out there who work just as hard and are just as talented.
Whether you're right or someone else is wrong, you should probably just take the high road, respectfully agree to disagree and do what writers do - write.
Do whatever you think you need to do with this script and move on to the next project. Which I'm sure you're doing, but imagine how much more work you'd get done if you weren't giving a constant rebuttal to every bit of criticism you receive on this thread alone? (half of it really doesn't have anything to do with the script)
And if you question the credibility of the people reading and reviewing your script, take it to a professional for coverage (probably someone who is familiar with British cinema).
"These nouns denote qualities that enable a person to achieve or accomplish something. Ability is the mental or physical power to do something: "To make a fortune some assistance from fate is essential. Ability alone is insufficient" (Ihara Saikaku). Capacity refers to the potential for acquiring that power: "The capability [women] have shown in the realm of higher education, their achievements in the business world, their capacity for organization . . . have been a revelation" (Susan B. Anthony)."
How's the hole coming along down there Dustin?
Not sure what your point is... one of those nouns is: Capacity. I said that ability and capability are the same thing. Never mentioned capacity at all.
FYI here is what the dictionary says about capability:
1. The quality of being capable; ability. 2. A talent or ability that has potential for development or use. Often used in the plural: a student of great capabilities. 3. The capacity to be used, treated, or developed for a specific purpose:
Haha. Oh, dude, wow. I had a good laugh. And I remember just some odd dozen posts ago, my second post I believe, saying that melodramatic stories takes themselves too seriously. Not only that you take criticism too seriously. It's criticism, man! And, oh, I love how you say this isn't getting personal yet you're making statements like "you have never loved anyone." Wow, Dustin. Just wow. You're making things worse on yourself that's all I'll say and leave it at that. I don't mind what you think of me. I could care less. I was just trying to help. Think and say whatever you wish. I can't take you seriously, dude. Sorry. You're just too ridiculous. haha
I didn't realise I was getting personal, it was just a guess derived from your obvious lack of compassion for women or children. You weren't concerned about the baby, you simply mentioned the gore factor. You're not allowing your emotions in. So that tells me you're probably lonely. Maybe I'm wrong... I certainly wasn't trying to be personal... but now that I can see I've hit a sore spot, I'll leave it alone.
Nothing wrong in thinking your script's amazing dude. It's your script be proud of it. But I can sense how ticked off you are that I called it melodramatic and that I'm criticizing it based on some of its far-fetched plot points. It clearly went bone deep. Sorry about that. I didn't know you were that overly sensitive.
Not ticked off by anything you say mate. I don't think much of your opinion so it's water off a duck's back. I actually agreed on some parts being overly dramatic so I'm not sure why you feel your remarks would be hurtful. Obviously, now I can see, that was your intent. LOL.
So you are saying High Noon is an example of melodrama, but it is not melodramatic?
My argument would be that High Noon may fit into melodrama but it isn't overly melodramatic... it is simply melodramatic.
I've been thinking about this quite a lot... as you can tell. I've also done a fair amount more than 2 minutes research and I do believe that you are correct. Melodrama is not the overly dramatic, it is the overly, overly dramatic. It is the overly dramatic taken even further and drifted into melodrama. You can't get any further than melodrama, IMO.
As they say here in the States - don't sweat the petty things... pet the sweaty things. Though I'd probably disregard the second part of that little phrase. But you know what I'm saying.
Yes. High Noon is melodramatic. Exactly. I have no idea what your previous post meant when you questioned my telling you that High Noon was indicative of the melodramatic style. I'll assume you are now withdrawing that objection, since your current position is merely repeating what I had said.
I did not say High Noon was overly melodramatic. What I did say was how it could have been made so. For example, having the marshal sobbing in every other scene and bemoaning his situation with overwrought dialogue.
As High Noon was made = melodramatic
Had they included more emotional outbursts and sentimental music = overly melodramatic.
Would you just be better off saying overly dramatic? Well, that is the question, isn't it?
And here's the thing: if you say our alternative version of High Noon is overly dramatic, you are leaving out information. You are not recognizing that the film aimed to be filled with exaggerated drama for effect.
If you say this alt High Noon is overly melodramatic, you are recognizing that exaggerated drama was the goal, but adding that it went too far. It went beyond the melodrama they were shooting for.
Hey Dustin, just saying this to help you out man, you're a solid writer, and overall a stand-up guy (though it may not seem that way through this thread) - but producers and filmmakers DO roam these pages, and when they see a bloated thread, they tend to get curious. And the way this thread has blown up, it doesn't exactly depict you in a positive light. What I'm saying, through experience, is that things don't always go as planned - someone may like your script, but it may not fit their slate. But that same someone may hire you, based on the strength of that script, to write something else for them. But if you seem hard to work with, they may just move on to the next writer. And simplyscripts.com isn't the only place to look for writers. There's millions of us out there who work just as hard and are just as talented.
Whether you're right or someone else is wrong, you should probably just take the high road, respectfully agree to disagree and do what writers do - write.
Do whatever you think you need to do with this script and move on to the next project. Which I'm sure you're doing, but imagine how much more work you'd get done if you weren't giving a constant rebuttal to every bit of criticism you receive on this thread alone? (half of it really doesn't have anything to do with the script)
And if you question the credibility of the people reading and reviewing your script, take it to a professional for coverage (probably someone who is familiar with British cinema).
Cheers,
Michael
Today I have done a draft on The Greatest Escape, also a draft on the 3rd part of my Drama. I wouldn't post here instead of writing. In fact it's almost my bedtime. I'm up at 0530 walking the dogs... I've got an American Bulldog and a Boxer. Just in case you're interested. Then I have some work to do, then I can start writing at 0900 till around 1500. I then also write from 1900 till bedtime quite a lot of the time.
Thanks for looking out spesh, i appreciate it. I'm cool with people that are cool, even when I disagree with them. I'm not going to hide who I am... that's fake. I'm not arguing against the criticism but the accusation of being 'overly melodramatic' whatever that means. that's been most of the argument.
Anyway I'm tired. I vowed last night that I would not argue anymore about melodrama... leave them to their ignorance... but, alas. So, I'm going to give it another go tonight.
I think I may be able to spend the next couple of days on this script. I'll change up what I want to change, for the most part the script is great. runs like a dream. I may get more inventive with the bar scene at the beginning, just to be original. Cut out the boring PO scene... and make a couple of other changes.
Honestly though... the days where I cared what other people think are long over. take it or leave it.
As they say here in the States - don't sweat the petty things... pet the sweaty things. Though I'd probably disregard the second part of that little phrase. But you know what I'm saying.
Why are people arguing over something that should have its own thread?
Why are people even arguing about it at all? lol
I mean, the actual script itself, is hardly on display here.
And when it is - rarely - the author shoots down everybody's opinions/thoughts - most of the time.
"I don't think much of your opinion" is a quote from the author himself.
Also, his "days where he cared what other people think are long over."
It's kind of aggravating seeing this on the portal constantly.
You don't submit a script on this board for any other reason except..... to see what people think of your script. If you don't like that fact, don't submit it.
Not sure what your point is... one of those nouns is: Capacity. I said that ability and capability are the same thing. Never mentioned capacity at all.
Actually you are right... for once. Impressive. But still... it's a melodrama. Whether its over-melodramatic or not is more debatable in my mind.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I didn't realise I was getting personal, it was just a guess derived from your obvious lack of compassion for women or children.
Haha I don't see it. I don't see anything that I wrote could possibly be construed to mean that I lack compassion for women or children. I lack interest in your characters and think what you wrote in the beginning is funny and I can't take it seriously. You want to force me to sympathize with something that ridiculous? Right in the beginning where I don't know anything about your characters? Yeah, okay. Uh-huh. Airtight logic, Dustin.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You weren't concerned about the baby, you simply mentioned the gore factor.
Who the hell would be concerned about the baby, Dustin?? It's on the third page, dude? This isn't live news coverage. It's freakin' fiction! Get a grip on reality. I don't care about your characters and what happens to them that early in the script. Plain and simple. Obviously you believe everything you see on screen. Sorry I don't share that mindset.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You're not allowing your emotions in. So that tells me you're probably lonely. Maybe I'm wrong... I certainly wasn't trying to be personal... but now that I can see I've hit a sore spot, I'll leave it alone.
Yes, you're right, Dustin. I'm not allowing my emotions in because I could care less about one dimensional characters in the first three pages that get massacred. Alternatively, tears must have been streaming down your face when you wrote that tragic, tragic scene.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Not ticked off by anything you say mate. I don't think much of your opinion so it's water off a duck's back. I actually agreed on some parts being overly dramatic so I'm not sure why you feel your remarks would be hurtful. Obviously, now I can see, that was your intent. LOL.
Oh you're not? Well, that's good then. I got the impression when I mentioned something about it being over-melodramatic, I don't know, some 80 odd posts ago and you haven't given up arguing. You became over-melodramatic with things such as:
"I'm guessing you've been at this game a long time, James... hence your obvious aggression against an amazing script, penned in just 8 days by a relative newb."
What game? What aggression? I've been calm the whole time, aside from the occasional bursts of laughter you've given me Honestly, Dustin, half the time I don't know what you're talking about.
" Guys just out of jail... but anyway... you don't want to hear about REAL EXPERIENCES... you just want to hear Shiite that sounds real to you. Which is in regards to this genre, a combination of everything you've seen and watched on TV. You've never been homeless or a criminal... you can't even imagine, at all, what it is like... so for you to have an opinion on what is realistic and what isn't is quite laughable."
You're not ticked off here? Language seems to suggest otherwise. Saying for me "to have an opinion on what is realistic and what isn't is quite laughable" is not you being ticked off? Wow, if that's the case, I'm surprised this is how you converse when you're calm. Most people in the modern and civilized world might interpret that differently, FYI.
You're just overly sensitive, Dustin. This has been evidenced to me by nearly all of your posts here.
"This is the thread that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on my friends. Some people started arguing about some silly little thing , not knowing what it was, And they'll continue arguing it forever just because This is the thread that never ends. . . ."
"This is the thread that never ends. Yes, it goes on and on my friends. Some people started arguing about some silly little thing , not knowing what it was, And they'll continue arguing it forever just because This is the thread that never ends. . . ."
She can do poetry as well! Add that to your resume
One thing we can dispense with for sure: that "nobody" uses overly melodramatic. It's very, very common, and some of these are published articles.
I'm certainly not going to argue about the word any more. When you said that you had articles I got a little excited... was expecting to see some peer reviewed papers. Not sure why a professor would write a whole paper on the correct usage of the word melodrama but there you go. Anyway, all you have produced are articles written by nobodies.
OK, maybe there are a few other people mixing up overly dramatic and overly melodramatic.... it's an easy thing to do, particularly when using words all the time. Words like overly dramatic and melodramatic can sometimes merge... it isn't the first time and it won't be the last.
What I need is a professor of English... in my opinion even if it is possible to add overly to something that is already overly done it is poor grammar to place the words together. I imagine that pretty soon we're going to have films that are overly thrilling and overly horrifying too.
Actually you are right... for once. Impressive. But still... it's a melodrama. Whether its over-melodramatic or not is more debatable in my mind.
What's a melodrama James? You've lost me. You still talking about the first three pages or have you changed your mind again?
Of course I'm right. So when I originally wrote the word 'capable' you read 'capacity'? You actually corrected me on the words able and capable... then when you try to prove me wrong you picked a different word entirely. That goes beyond confusion.
Haha I don't see it. I don't see anything that I wrote could possibly be construed to mean that I lack compassion for women or children. I lack interest in your characters and think what you wrote in the beginning is funny and I can't take it seriously. You want to force me to sympathize with something that ridiculous? Right in the beginning where I don't know anything about your characters? Yeah, okay. Uh-huh. Airtight logic, Dustin.
Are you gay?
It's what I do... I take little bits of information and make stories out of it. I don't know if I'm right... as I told you, it's just a guess based on things you've said to me, words you choose, your general attitude. I actually don't mean to be offensive. There isn't a thing wrong with lacking empathy for women or children, nor is there a thing wrong with being gay. That's not what I mean.
Who the hell would be concerned about the baby, Dustin?? It's on the third page, dude? This isn't live news coverage. It's freakin' fiction! Get a grip on reality. I don't care about your characters and what happens to them that early in the script. Plain and simple. Obviously you believe everything you see on screen. Sorry I don't share that mindset.
You can't get to know a baby. Anybody seeing a baby would be horrified at seeing its hand cut off. I am and I wrote it. Kids never get hurt in my scripts... this is a one off. The actor only has one hand and I decided to do it as a baby because it wouldn't hurt as bad as if he was older. Yeah I do feel for shit like that... in fact I would have to turn my head away. When I watch or read something I'm there to enjoy and believe it from the get go. I don't go in with the eye of a critic... that's the difference between you and I, obviously.
Yes, you're right, Dustin. I'm not allowing my emotions in because I could care less about one dimensional characters in the first three pages that get massacred. Alternatively, tears must have been streaming down your face when you wrote that tragic, tragic scene.
Almost. I have to admit that when Feliks mouths he love his wife, a little tear did form in my eye. For me it's real when I write it... very much so, yeah.
Oh you're not? Well, that's good then. I got the impression when I mentioned something about it being over-melodramatic, I don't know, some 80 odd posts ago and you haven't given up arguing. You became over-melodramatic with things such as:
"I'm guessing you've been at this game a long time, James... hence your obvious aggression against an amazing script, penned in just 8 days by a relative newb."
I smoke a lot of weed James, I'm pretty much detached from everything. I like arguing and to me that comment was just me bragging. You clearly struggle with the English language if you're calling that melodramatic.
What game? What aggression? I've been calm the whole time, aside from the occasional bursts of laughter you've given me Honestly, Dustin, half the time I don't know what you're talking about.
The game of screenwriting, James... look, this having-to-explain-everything-to-you thing is getting a little boring. It just goes straight over your head anyway.
" Guys just out of jail... but anyway... you don't want to hear about REAL EXPERIENCES... you just want to hear Shiite that sounds real to you. Which is in regards to this genre, a combination of everything you've seen and watched on TV. You've never been homeless or a criminal... you can't even imagine, at all, what it is like... so for you to have an opinion on what is realistic and what isn't is quite laughable."
You're not ticked off here? Language seems to suggest otherwise. Saying for me "to have an opinion on what is realistic and what isn't is quite laughable" is not you being ticked off? Wow, if that's the case, I'm surprised this is how you converse when you're calm. Most people in the modern and civilized world might interpret that differently, FYI.
So telling you that because you have never been homeless, jobless but gotta eat regardless means you can't have an opinion on what it is like to be that way... is me being angry? Saying that something is quite 'laughable' means one is angry?
To anyone that is posting in this thread simply to complain about the length of it... why?
What's a melodrama James? You've lost me. You still talking about the first three pages or have you changed your mind again?
Of course I'm right. So when I originally wrote the word 'capable' you read 'capacity'? You actually corrected me on the words able and capable... then when you try to prove me wrong you picked a different word entirely. That goes beyond confusion.
Are you gay?
It's what I do... I take little bits of information and make stories out of it. I don't know if I'm right... as I told you, it's just a guess based on things you've said to me, words you choose, your general attitude. I actually don't mean to be offensive. There isn't a thing wrong with lacking empathy for women or children, nor is there a thing wrong with being gay. That's not what I mean.
You can't get to know a baby. Anybody seeing a baby would be horrified at seeing its hand cut off. I am and I wrote it. Kids never get hurt in my scripts... this is a one off. The actor only has one hand and I decided to do it as a baby because it wouldn't hurt as bad as if he was older. Yeah I do feel for shit like that... in fact I would have to turn my head away. When I watch or read something I'm there to enjoy and believe it from the get go. I don't go in with the eye of a critic... that's the difference between you and I, obviously.
Almost. I have to admit that when Feliks mouths he love his wife, a little tear did form in my eye. For me it's real when I write it... very much so, yeah.
I smoke a lot of weed James, I'm pretty much detached from everything. I like arguing and to me that comment was just me bragging. You clearly struggle with the English language if you're calling that melodramatic.
The game of screenwriting, James... look, this having-to-explain-everything-to-you thing is getting a little boring. It just goes straight over your head anyway.
So telling you that because you have never been homeless, jobless but gotta eat regardless means you can't have an opinion on what it is like to be that way... is me being angry? Saying that something is quite 'laughable' means one is angry?
I think it's pretty clear who the sensitive one is here, eh ducky
Haha yikes, that really hit you hard, didn't it. Have fun, Dustin.
I have to agree with JS here. There's nothing to feel for these characters in the very beginning of the script. We have no idea who they are. We don't care if they get killed. The baby getting it's hand chopped off doesn't invoke emotion. It invokes a feeling of someone going for a cheap shock just for the sake of shock because he can't invoke anything else from his writing or story. I read 40 pages and not once did any of it -- the story or the characters -- pack an emotional punch. It felt like a poor, cheap imitation of a Guy Ritchie film. We follow around a bunch of paper-thin characters who come across as if they couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a flashlight, let alone a suitcase with two million dollars and seven kis of blow... If you're gonna write something that's been done a "million" times, you have to put a different spin on things, and you have to really work on your characters so we FEEL for them, so your story packs that emotional punch that makes us CARE about what happens to them. It's not happening here. We don't care that it's Alexander's "last fucking chance" because he's just the run-of-the-mill, same-old-same-old, one dimensional thug. I could care less if he makes it. There's no connection with him as a character, and I could care less if he exacts revenge. I think of "King of New York" with Christopher Walken. At the start of the film, he gets out of jail a changed man, and finds out the only thing that changed about the streets is that it's a whole lot tougher and unrelenting as ever. He wants to raise money to keep a hospital open in a crappy neighborhood, but is met with obstacles from criminals - and even cops - because of his past reputation. The writing, the story, combined with Walken's amazing acting talent, make us desperately want him to achieve his goals, and survive the streets. That's a story I connected with, and recommend. As it stands, "Out With the Old" just comes across as a poorly written story with no emotional punch and paper-thin characters.
I have to agree with JS here. There's nothing to feel for these characters in the very beginning of the script. We have no idea who they are. We don't care if they get killed. The baby getting it's hand chopped off doesn't invoke emotion. It invokes a feeling of someone going for a cheap shock just for the sake of shock because he can't invoke anything else from his writing or story. I read 40 pages and not once did any of it -- the story or the characters -- pack an emotional punch. It felt like a poor, cheap imitation of a Guy Ritchie film. We follow around a bunch of paper-thin characters who come across as if they couldn't find their own ass with two hands and a flashlight, let alone a suitcase with two million dollars and seven kis of blow... If you're gonna write something that's been done a "million" times, you have to put a different spin on things, and you have to really work on your characters so we FEEL for them, so your story packs that emotional punch that makes us CARE about what happens to them. It's not happening here. We don't care that it's Alexander's "last fucking chance" because he's just the run-of-the-mill, same-old-same-old, one dimensional thug. I could care less if he makes it. There's no connection with him as a character, and I could care less if he exacts revenge. I think of "King of New York" with Christopher Walken. At the start of the film, he gets out of jail a changed man, and finds out the only thing that changed about the streets is that it's a whole lot tougher and unrelenting as ever. He wants to raise money to keep a hospital open in a crappy neighborhood, but is met with obstacles from criminals - and even cops - because of his past reputation. The writing, the story, combined with Walken's amazing acting talent, make us desperately want him to achieve his goals, and survive the streets. That's a story I connected with, and recommend. As it stands, "Out With the Old" just comes across as a poorly written story with no emotional punch and paper-thin characters.
I loved King of New York... and I didn't even remember about the hospital. I couldn't care less about that. That's Hollywood's influence and has no real bearing on what most people watching these films really want to see.
Guys go to watch a film like this and they couldn't care less about some silly little hospital. All they want to see is drug use, action, sex and violence. Funnily enough that is all I remember from King of New York. I wanted him to take over and stay the King. I felt for him when he died and I don't remember the hospital thing at all. In fact when those types of scenes come on in a film, I groan. They are obvious tools and detract from the real story, IMO. That's kind of the reason I prefer to write British films... we don’t have to play by the rules of Hollywood and we can make films people really want to see.
I'm writing a film about bad guys doing bad things... there are no heroes. And people watching this type of film will thank me for not including such obvious 'save the cat' tools. Want to root for a hero? Go watch Superman.
Want great visuals, drugs, gangs, shooters, birds, action, thrills, spills.... watch, Out with the Old.
King of New York has a lot of other things going for it besides all that: politics and crime, wealth and poverty, business and restoration, etc.
Don't get me wrong - I like violence, drugs, sex, and all that too, in movies. But it's gotta be done right. In the wrong hands it can be shallow, remote, and cheap, like Out With the Old. Only hacks throw all that stuff in their script to hide the fact that they don't have a single ounce of talent and couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
King of New York has a lot of other things going for it besides all that: politics and crime, wealth and poverty, business and restoration, etc.
Don't get me wrong - I like violence, drugs, sex, and all that too, in movies. But it's gotta be done right. In the wrong hands it can be shallow, remote, and cheap, like Out With the Old. Only hacks throw all that stuff in their script to hide the fact that they don't have a single ounce of talent and couldn't write their way out of a paper bag.
... couldn't write their way out of a wet paper bag.
Well, to say that this thread has gotten a little sidetracked is an understatement. I actually opened this up yesterday and decided to read this based on the fact that it was written in 8 days. Heck, I can't even write a shopping list in 8 days, let alone a feature script so kudos to you for that accomplishment. I guess that means I think differently to previous posters as to why they wouldn't open this script although I have to agree with others that there was no reason to mention it other than to blow your own trumpet.
So after seeing all the fuss on the thread today, wasn't quite sure if I should read but I thought bugger it, I've started so I might as well finish.
For starters I want to say that this is really well written considering the amount of time it was executed in. I had a few issues but most were small nitpicks which I've mentioned in the notes. I do think the slugs were a little clumsy and inconsistent at times and that the whole story lacked visual flair - what I mean by that is I never really felt you captured the London underworld which really could have been character in itself.
The dialogue did start off a little ropey, have to agree with others about that opening five pages or so. I do however think it got better after this and some of the slang was a nice touch which added colour to these characters but and it's a big but. There was lots of time where the dialogue didn't make sense, characters were contradicting themselves from a few scenes earlier which made it confusing. Also, the slang would turn off and on for some, most notably Delroy. And sometimes, characters would repeat themselves, a scene between Alexander and Oddball at the flat was a prime example of this.
A story can only be as good as its characters and that's the main flaw here for me. I never fully grasped these characters throughout and I think this made the plot confusing from the get-go.
Let's take that opening, why was Delroy killing Feliks and his men? I guess it was to take over his patch shall we say but it was never fully explained. Well, it seemed like Felik was more surprised than anyone when it all went down. When we move into the present, Delroy is hardly the big cheese, he's still taking down small fry like Tony and Johnny when he should be demanding a cut of their outlay like the big daddy of London.
It's possible that the opening is just to show Alexander lose his hand which again never comes into play other than helping the Russian's recognise him (why it took them 20 odd years is beyond me? They're Russian mob but couldn't locate a one handed kid in London - there can't be that many around)
But overall, the revenge part of this story comes in well too late and is rushed because of it. I didn't even know that Alexander knew Delroy but apparently he did and he just seems to accept that he's being told the truth by The Bear, a big bare-chested man who was about to torture him. This kind of trust is shown throughout which isn’t normally the case when dealing with shady characters like you had here.
There wasn't a clear protag in this story, it's got to be Alexander from the logline but let's look at him more closely: He doesn't get a description or age when first intro'd, no visual what so ever and then he's suddenly snorting coke and having threesome's with people he's just met that very night. He rarely speaks in the opening 50 pages, only speaks when spoken too so it's easy to see why you would argue about him being our protag or why I want to follow this guy.
What really confused the hell out of me mostly was who anybody actually was. Take Oddball and Danny's opening intro, Oddball hands out some tablets to some girls so I think that maybe he's a drug dealer while Danny moves onto another club to do a DJ set so you would think he likes music. Did Danny ever do anything to do with music? No! Oddball is apparently nervous when Danny leaves him alone, signifying that he's a little bit shy but it turns out he's actually quite a player bumping fists with the doorman and taking Alexander to a party. Are Danny and Oddball drug dealers? I have absolutely no idea.
What I do know about these guys is that they carry around tons of coke and joints and are quite helpful when it comes to Iraqi looking homeless people. I have to admit that you really ask the reader to suspend belief at this junction. Why does Danny help this man? Why trust him with a case full of money and coke when it would have been simpler if he just legged it rather than stopping and having a chat for a few minutes. Why does Oddball keep him around, he has the stash but is quite happy to have him tag along and share his women which I found quite amusing.
And then our brothers enter the mix, Tony and Johnny. A couple of supposed gangsters who after finding out one of (well, their only crew-member) has been killed... no idea who killed him or why? Think it was Delroy but because neither of Tony or Johnny thought this, I was little unsure.
But what was there relationship with Danny and Oddball - did they work for them? Friends? Again, this was unclear but they must trust Danny because they gave him a case with everything they own. When the case went missing, Johnny goes berserk and wants to kill everyone which is reasonable while Tony is the relaxed one even though he has much more to lose as he seems to be the only one with a family.
What is surprising is how when Johnny finds out who stole his case (his bird, Honey) he becomes more relaxed and seems to completely forget about it. In fact, they never once figured out who had the case and the fact that it pushed the story forward from the end of the first through most of the second act, it seems strange to totally forget about it by the end.
Like I say, I never fully understood the relationship between these characters and that harmed the dynamics of the story for me. To think that our three main guys didn't get a clear goal until page 48 and then that goal didn't actually matter should say something. I would push that forward and up the urgency, too much time is spent partying and having sex - yes, I can't believe I'm saying that but you had too much superfluous things happening in those opening 50 pages. What made it worse is that we didn't learn anything about these guys other than Oddball is a dirty bastard.
And the we move onto Honey who became John McClane and Rambo rolled into one at the end, it really did get a little stupid in that last 10 pages. I'm sorry but it did with RPG's and a massive gunfight which only Commando could outdo for explosions. And then the final shots with Honey and Johnny announcing they’re getting married to Tony (what happened to his wife) over a bottle of champagne and The Bear shaking hands with Alexander explaining they have much work to do.
Not to mention the anti-climatic ending of Delroy who just surrendered and was shot in the head, a little boring really, wanted a little more to test Alexander at the end.
So did these characters change? Well, not really apart from Alexander who now runs around with the Russian mob but because I didn't really know him, it's difficult to know if he changed personally over the story. Does this matter? That's up to you, it's your story but to me as a reader it did. Oddball and Danny are no different, Tony and Johnny have their club back but still have rivals in the Columbian brothers (it was so disappointing to not see them in the story more, now they sounded like good characters, some more of them in the next draft please.)
I think another problem could be some of the more comedic moments, whether they were meant to be comedic or not. Having the club called Delboy felt like a stunt from Only Fools and Horses (much like the clubs name) where Del gets in a dodgy sign. I think the main problem with this one is it makes your antag a joke, the reader laughs at him so he becomes less threatening. Then there was Oddball waggling his dick at some workmen, the before mentioned "dirty bastard" reference when Oddball ejaculates into some birds mouth upon being surprised by Tony and Johnny. It didn't fit in with the earlier more serious tone - something to think about.
Another of my main issues was the amount of characters and mostly the generic ones, I see that there's a possibility of getting this one produced and I wish you luck with that but I wouldn't be surprised if you had to bring down that character count. Just look at some: Male, man, guy, old guy, female bouncer, male bouncer, gangster, girl, woman, youth, clerk, attendant, Russian mobster, sign guys, workmen, po, doorman, wife and daughter. It's a long list and a lot of these characters talk which is completely unnecessary, IMO.
So although I think this is a fast read and I must again praise you on getting this written in 8 days, I still think it has tons of issues with the logics of the plot and characters. The biggest flaw has to be Alexander as the protag, it's supposed to be his story and how he gets revenge but this part of the story comes in at around page 80 odd in a 108 pager meaning the third act which isn't adequate. He also needs more personality, the reader needs to identify with him more and want him to succeed in his goal. I personally couldn't have cared less about him and more for Tony as like I said, he was the only one with something to lose.
The story needs to move quicker, the goals for our characters set out and not disrupted with superfluous scenes of people doing nothing. There needs to be more urgency once it's established that they have three days to locate the money and they can't keep changing their minds. One time, Alexander wants to kill Tony and Johnny with Danny disagreeing, yet hours later it's Danny who wants to kill them and suddenly Alexander doesn't.
Bring Delroy into the story more, make it clear that he's the one trying to bring down Tony and Johnny to everyone. Maybe Johnny and Tony knew but they never ever talk about Delroy and that means that Oddball, Danny and Alexander can have no idea he's the one behind it all. Also get rid of the "Delboy" club sign and make him more scary as an antag, there will be consequences if he doesn't get his money (I think the Turks could go and just keep Delroy and the Columbians) They could owe the money to Delroy instead so his robbing of them is even more deceiving when they find out.
Make it clear what the relationship is between Tony and Johnny and the boys... Do Danny and Oddball work for them? If so, then they shouldn't be shoving them back or even arguing, they should be scared of these guys with guns - at the moment they feel like lifetime friends and maybe that's the case but you need to make this clear.
Don't forget to tie up the lost case, it can't just be forgotten about and needs to be resolved somehow even if they just find it in Delroy's office at the end.
And give the last 10 pages a re-write, it's too over the top for me and needs to be trimmed back. Does it really need to be a big gunfight? Does Honey have to become the Bionic Woman? Like I said, comes off a little OTT at the moment.
P.1 Guess who’s going to win the beauty contest at this party? We have “tall and good looking” and “strikingly beautiful”
“They (are holding)” They hold.
“another man takes a photograph.” I’m guessing he’s taking a photo of the beautiful couple and their newborn? Maybe it needs to be clearer here.
“laughs (jovially)” jovially feels redundant here, why else would you laugh?
“Around the bar” Does this mean the bar counter or generally? Some would consider the “bar” as in the counter – maybe this should be “pub” if you mean generally which keeps in tone with the British vibe.
“EXT. STREET, OUTSIDE THE KNIGHT'S ARMS – NIGHT” Do you need “street” in the slug? Or even “outside the” could this just be “The Knight’s Arms” Also, think a dash should be used instead of a comma to split up the slug but maybe this is preference on my part.
Wasn’t keen on the “van pulls up” on its lonesome – think it could all be in one action line.
“Seven Young BLACK MEN” If they have scarfs covering their faces, how do we know they’re young? Maybe it’s their attire that is the give-away or attitude – give the reader something to help this image. It could be how they walk or talk. Also, why is “young” capped?
You could transition the next scene better but again could be preference. It’s just that you say “The young black men walk…” which comes off repetitive straight after the initial intro like this.
“removes his scarf.” Huh? Why bother wearing it in the first place? Wasn’t it supposed to hide his identity?
P.2 “Sitting at a table are six of Feliks' MEN, all covered by shotguns.”
This reads awkward – I understand what you’re going for but it could be a lot clearer.
“BOOM, BOOM, BOOM!” I don’t know, did you need to do this six times – read a bit over the top.
“try hiding behind tables.” Yep, that should stop the blast of a shotgun!
“In the confusion somebody snatches the baby” Who snatches the baby? Where did they snatch him from? Was the mother holding the baby? Was he casually talking to the bartender?
“CRACK!” I found this confusing, originally thought that Delroy had hit Felik. I’ve never seen “crack” used as a shooting sound effect before… not saying it’s never done, just a first for me and that’s where the confusion came from.
“(Still alive. Tries) to summon the strength to stand” This felt like a funny place to have a period and disturbed the flow of the read. “Still alive, he tries to…”
“Stay down (blood claat)” A new one on me – always like a little slang in the dialogue so I went and checked out the trusty urban dictionary, guessing this means “fuck”? I could be wrong because there are a few definitions of this.
“The baby looks up at him and smiles.” Do newborns smile or have gas? Well, in my experience newborns don’t just look up at you and smile, they cry! Oh, do they cry!
P.3 “This (aint) even about you, man.” Should this have an apostrophe? Maybe it’s slang? Feeling sorry for poor old Felik – if this isn’t about him then that must just mean wrong place, wrong time. Shit!
“sharpened machete.” As long as it isn’t blunt. I think “sharpened” can go.
Slicing off the baby’s hand is well, let’s say over the top and would probably kill the baby in reality – maybe that’s the plan?
“Delroy aims the gun” Is he still holding the machete as well?
“hitting Feliks (in the chest).” Little redundant, know this from the previous action.
“Alexander” Cap him on first intro and why no description?
P.4 “PO” This stands for Probation Officer! I saw the dialogue and thought a Chinese man was in the scene for a moment.
“Alexander walks up to (the) HOSTEL DOOR and rings the Buzzer”
“the” implies that we’ve been intro’d to the hostel which we haven’t so for me it should be “a” hostel door. On the other hand, you could change the slug to “EXT. HOTSEL” and then have Alexander ringing the buzzer – it would tighten it up because you’ve saved half your work in the slug. We already know we’re outside a hostel.
You missed a (o.s) on the female voice on the speaker; you start without it and then change.
“looks like a hooligan” Now that’s a description – I really hope this is the protag.
P.5 “ODDBALL” Like the name – a bit like Oddjob.
“He places one onto each of the (girls) tongues and then leans in to kiss one of them.” What girls? Should they be capped? Personally, I think so but again, this could be preference.
P.6 Okay, what just happened with Oddball and Danny? Is Oddball a dealer? He gave tablets to two chicks and then took off, no payment in either money or sexually. What’s the crack? Why did Danny walk into a bar too just take off straight away? Why is Oddball laughing nervously like he doesn’t like to be alone, yet he bumps fist with the doorman like he goes there every week? All questions that will hopefully be answered?
“A group of three MALES” I’m a little confused, are these the drunken revellers from the previous sentence? I don’t understand why you’ve described them twice?
“disgust etched (into) his face.” Should this be “on his face”
“Looks like a fucking Iraqi.” Thanks drunken male because we have no idea what he looks like.
“MALE 2” Not a fan of generic names like this. You could give them more personality by mixing them up: fat, skinny and ginger – something like that.
P.7 “Tell him to stop staring at me” why can’t he tell him? It’s one of those “I’m not talking to him” moments around a dinner table.
“Just look away and this (nightmare) will be over.” Nightmare. Seriously! I think they’re going over the top – this kid won’t even talk to Alexander, yet alone turn into Freddy Kruger
“Alexander is missing a hand.” I see, our baby returns.
“Man 2 and Man 3” Now they’re man instead of male – best to be consistent.
“(OS)” Throw in a period in between the O and S.
You have to wonder why Danny would get involved in this situation – especially when he’s outnumbered and doesn’t know the victim. This could be his character and I guess I’ll find that out.
P.8 “Danny looks in on Alexander” Looks in? Probably should be “looks down at Alexander”
“drunk (Men) phone an ambulance.” Should be man. Only one is phoning the ambulance.
“EXT. STREET – NIGHT” You’ve got to have a look at your slugs – street is so generic when you could have it as your destination “EXT. PEACOCK’S…”
“PEACOCKS” Should peacocks have an apostrophe? Personally I’m not sure but you’ve changed from having one to not having one – which is it?
“Danny leads Alexander through the club and into the toilets.”
No changing of slugs, have a mini slug here for toilets IMO.
P.9 “A GUY” A little weak – is it really just some random guy? How about attendant or something. You might as well call him “dude”
And he gets to talk… must have meaning. Showing that Danny is a player in this nightclub and knows the staff. Can’t see any other reason for him to speak. It’s just a GUY after all.
Now Danny’s snorting coke, are they dealers or just druggies with a lot of money to be handing it out for nothing to strangers.
P.10 “Danny throws a couple more lines down.” He’s obviously not just throwing them down right?
“INT. OFFICE - PEACOCK'S NIGHTCLUB – NIGHT” Good to see you’ve changed to dashes but isn’t this the wrong way round? Wouldn’t it be “PEACOCK’S NIGHTCLUB – OFFICE…”?
P.11 The slugs are a little inconsistent – worth keeping an eye out for.
“of cocaine and money into a (case.)” What kind of case? Briefcase, suitcase – best to be clear here so we know what Danny’s lugging around.
P.13 Why didn’t Danny just run for the fire escape himself? You need to set this scene up better, Danny has to have a proper reason for handing over the case – all the talking he did Alexander was wasted time when you consider he could of just legged it to the fire escape himself. What if a cop recognises Danny or something like that.
“hits a six foot fence.” Ouch! Maybe he should have stopped when he saw it.
“Oddball is standing outside Genesis Bar chatting to the (girls he gave a pill) to earlier and a DOORMAN.”
Did he give them one or two pills? Is this another new doorman, how many have we had so far? Watch out for the nasty “is” which isn’t helping this line, not to mention that you’ve mentioned the slug again which is (no pun) redundant.
I can’t help wondering why the doorman gets capped but the girls don’t? Neither talk or anything – it’s always best to be consistent.
P.14 "Danny sent me." I didn't know that Danny and Alexander got each other's names - guess it's possible during their intimate scene in the toilet when they snorting coke together like old buddies. Also very trusting of Danny - he's just found out this guy has left prison and in way would run off with the case.
"shit has hit the fan." Love it that Oddball suddenly knows exactly what is going down from this expression.
P.15 "Another man walks in, AGGRO (40's)" Could be shortened - AGGRO (40s), walks in.
P.16 "FILTH HQ" Nice but a lot of readers might be confused by this. Perfectly fine in dialogue but I really think you should say Police HQ in the slug for clarity sakes.
"Danny winks and (mimes): "It's safe." Was a little confused with this line - what does he actually do to get this message across?
"Johnny (visibly) relaxes" Watch out for redundant words in the action. "Johnny relaxes"
"get your head on(..)" Why the two periods? maybe it was originally a ellipsis.
P.17 "Oddball leads Alexander to a stop outside an apartment block." Again, little things like this could be tightened. "Oddball and Alexander stop outside an apartment block."
"INT. APARTMENT BLOCK - NIGHT" This slug could be continuous... no big deal, just saying.
Why such a bug space between your mini slugs? Let's be fair, you could've just started this scene with them walking into the safe house - the parts before are unnecessary unless I missed something.
The safe room must be important - it's the first room you've described, maybe this is to show that Oddball and his crew have money. They must be pretty big players to have a safe room.
It's a little confusing, why is Alexander staring at Oddball hard? Doesn't he want to get out of this now. He's done what he had to do.
Why repeat his name here, he's already told Oddball. He comes off mysterious at the moment, no background or anything which I'm guessing is your intention so play up to this. When he's asked "Who the fuck he is?" Why not something like "I'm nobody" I really can't figure Alexander out at the moment.
Even the dialogue at this junction seems weird. "I met your friend tonight" Why not call him Danny, he knows his name and isn't this repeating what we and the characters already know. This scene could be better handled - surely both characters are wary of each other but I don't this is coming out, it's just weird.
The case had no locks? With how much was in there, you'd think that Johnny and Tony could afford a better suitcase with some security.
P.18 "(we see) that it is full" I'm someone that actually doesn't mind this in a script if it needs it but I reckon you could achieve this without the "we see" Just a thought.
"Alexander's eyes bulge." He should probably go and see someone about that.
"Oddball raises his eyes to the (sky)." Or ceiling in this case. You have to wonder why Oddball brought Alexander along?
P.19 "Alexander (looks a little) uncomfortable" Watch out for this - could be "Uncomfortable, Alexander takes a seat..."
"(Alexander looks) at him strangely." Three sentences start like this in a row on the top of this page, mix up your verbs because it looks repetitive.
"hiding it behind the settee." Great hiding place! He's put a lot thought into that. I guess the only question is, where is the settee in the room? If it's in the middle then it's hardly hiding. How about putting it under the settee or a cabinet - seems more logical.
Now he has coke, he must be a dealer right? But then he's sniffing all the shit. I'm really confused about who these guys are and what they are doing with Tony and Johnny.
"You look like one of us now." What does Oddball mean? Alexander's wearing a designer suit while he's wearing casual designer clothes. How do they look the same? Maybe me means that he looks like a proper geezer now, one of the boys.
Oddball and Danny seem quite nice fella's happily sharing out the coke to a complete stranger.
P.20 "I've sorted it." Will this be some famous last words that come back to haunt him. After being so panic-stricken, Oddball's taking a chance.
P.21 "One hundred and Eighty-seven minutes." Who talks like this? Probably should of added the seconds as well. Surely someone would just say "Three hours"
Why did Chalmers let him out? I thought there was going to be a reason but nothing happened.
P.23 SOLDIER-1(20's), athletic, (gold), designer clothes. Just to be clear, you mean gold jewellery right? It's not like he's made of gold or painted gold like that poor unfortunate bird in Goldfinger.
P. 24 "Tony and Danny are also in the room." They let Danny out as well? I can understand Tony and Johnny being let go but Danny assaulted a police officer, surely they wouldn't just let him out without charge.
"Johnny pushes Danny, Danny pushes back. Tony steps in to break them up." I'm just still confused about their relationships? Who are these people to one another? I thought Johnny was the boss and supposed to be quite a tough one at that but Danny's pushing him back with Tony stepping in like the reasonable one. Does Danny work for Johnny and Tony? Should he be scared of them?
“Oddball and Alexander are spit-roasting a WOMAN.” Shit! How long have these two known each other? Five minutes and they’re already going all Ménage à trois. I’m just really lost about who these characters are?
Also have to say that you don’t have to give us a complete description of this scene, makes it feel a little x-rated like it’s turned into a porn film.
“He pauses to sniff a line of coke off her back.”
How long has this been here? It seems like these boys are snorting a hell of a lot coke at the moment. What’s the characters goals at the moment. Seems to be “Let’s get high”
“Johnny's outside.” This is Danny’s reaction to Oddball and Alexander shagging some bird together. He’s pretty cool, isn’t he annoyed about them taking off and leaving the case to get high and shag each other? (we all know the bird is an excuse – they really wanted one another! )
P.25 “Johnny is pacing” Johnny paces. “Tony is leaning” Tony leans.
Try to get rid of the nasty “is” in your action. Just do a ctrl-f on the script and clean them up.
“Tony (arrives), drags Johnny back.” Arrives from where? He was already there. “Tony drags Johnny back.”
“local gangbangers doing what gangbangers do.” What do gangbangers do? This is a bit vague. I’m sure they do lots of things.
P.26 “Never mind feeling fucking sorry for yourself.” Does he feel sorry for himself? I thought he was more pissed off at being head-butted. I’m still unclear on this relationship? The way Oddball speaks back to Johnny makes me believe they’re more mates than work together.
“It's at the (flat.)” Thought it was a safe house? Don’t be so coy Mr. Oddball, there is only a few gangbangers around doing what they do, whatever that is?
“He's bang out of order...” No! He really isn’t. You’ve probably lost all his money and coke to have a threesome. I feel as in these characters should be fearful but it’s not coming across, instead Oddball is more bothered about Johnny’s reaction than for his life.
P.31 More coke! Fuck, I’m surprised that Oddball can remember anything. He’s probably starting to have hallucinations. Why isn’t he suffering any paranoia, think the situation could cause that with how much coke he’s had.
Where is all this coke coming from? Maybe he stole some from the case?
“INT. HALLWAY, HONEY'S HOUSE – (DAY)” Should be night.
P.32 “Danny, Alexander and Oddball move quickly out of his way (as) he steams”
Poor old Johnny keeps getting shunned to the side. That’s a shame because he’s the most interesting character at the moment.
“Tony pulls a gun from inside his jacket and puts it to her head.” I thought he said he wasn’t going to hurt her? He’s got a funny way of showing this.
“Plushly decorated” Just like the safe house – must have the same interior designer.
P.28 The writing’s a little clumsy with Delroy and his men outside the peacock. Why are they putting up a sign at night? It feels a little strange – the police were there searching this place not long before and I can’t help but wonder if they would be keeping an eye on the place – it was a murder investigation, right? Who are the men putting up the sign? Are these Delroy’s boys or some actual professional sign people?
“appears to say DELBOY'S.”
“That looks like a 'B'.”
What’s going on here? Well, this hardly fits in but hey, loving the Only Fools and Horses reference for two reasons – Delboy is obvious but I did like the other line. Just like Rodney’s identity bracelet that said Rooney but it was all copper plate writing.
P.29 “The sign guys” Who? Do you really need numerous people to get a signature?
Does someone like Delroy who’s just broken into a club stand around and sign paperwork. Okay, it’s getting a little farfetched now.
Cap sign guy IMO, he talks so is worth being capped but this scene feels out of place, goes against the tone you have going.
“leaving the sign guys unsure of what to do next.” Hopefully this will become a new plot thread with these guys trying to get a signature throughout the story – can see that being very funny.
“(Just) Tony, Oddball, Alexander and Danny are in the room.” No need for this – start with Tony and do you really need to tell me they’re in the room – that’s pretty obvious I would have thought. Something like:
“Oddball searches behind the settee. Tony, Alexander and Danny watch on expectantly.”
“(i) swear” I swear.
“he wasn't holding (a) case.” Wouldn’t he say “he wasn’t holding the case.” Everyone calls it case, I’m still unsure what case it was? I’m guessing a suitcase so I have to wonder how big it was.
P.34 “Tony walks through the gate.” Ouch! Why didn’t he open it?
P.35 Really? Tony’s just going to let them all go home… he’s basically taking Oddball and Alexander’s word on this. Now for me this is hardly plausible, he doesn’t even know Alexander. Would you let your main suspects walk away for the night, heck, they could be in the Caribbean by the morning.
P.36 “King Pin for the UK operation.” What operation? Have I missed something? I actually have to admit that I don’t know what’s going on other than the missing case they’re trying to find. No idea why Delroy changed the club name or what he has to do with our other characters.
Loving the descriptions, (gay and sadistic) and hope to see a lot more of these characters. I wonder if these guys would have bodyguards. They sound like the type of fella’s that would want to take care of themselves.
“INT. DELBOY'S – DAY” Last time I’ll say it but the slugs are really inconsistent.
P.37 “little awkwardly with Vincente.” This would be funny but is it again a little silly. I don’t think you would do this but maybe I’m not looking at the bigger picture. This could be showing off that Delroy is homophobic and it could come into play later.
“brought in specially for their visit.” How would we know this, unless the chairs are being physically brought into the room during this scene? At the end of the day, it’s superfluous info and isn’t needed.
“A cool two million and seven key of coke.” There was two million in the case! This makes Tony’s decision to let the boys go home even more unlikely. Why does Delroy have it? How come Tony and Johnny haven’t come back to the club at anytime? Lots of questions at the moment.
“Jesus snaps his fingers and Vincente appears with a case” This could be reworded – at the moment it sounds like Jesus is a magician… maybe he is?
P.38 Okay, so some things are becoming clear. Delroy wants to take down Johnny’s gang (does he have one?) and become the main gang in London. I wonder if Tony and Johnny know about Delroy and how he wants to take them down… they’ve never mentioned it. It’s also become clear that Johnny is indeed in charge or at the very least it was his money and coke. This would lead me to believe that he has some power over people but this hasn’t been showing.
“awake all night and completely wired.” Feels like a redundant statement as we know this. We were with them all night and they got home in the morning. I think you mean “he hasn’t slept a wink” since they got home this morning.
“(His) one leg bouncing up and down as his mind whirs.” This makes this line read awkward.
P.39 “Alright?” Alright or all right? I’m not bothered but you’re changing as you go along and I think it’s best to be consistent especially in dialogue.
“He's going to kill me.” Finally! Some actual stakes. One of our characters is worried although I wish his friend shared this concern, strolling around in silk pyjamas like it’s a lazy Sunday morning.
But now Danny is crushing these stakes, telling Oddball not to worry and that HE won’t let Johnny get too crazy! Maybe I was wrong – Danny must be in charge after all. Something I have wondered is why Oddball and Danny aren’t placing the blame onto Alexander the complete stranger who nobody knows – they could pass the buck and save their skins but they’re hardly worried about them are they to be fair.
P.40 “Johnny is surrounded by four or five BLACK MEN.” Where is Johnny’s crew?
“This is mine by law.” This quite a funny line for these types of shady characters… next he’ll be saying that his case of coke is his by law as well.
P.42 “You lying cunt. He'd never go to Barbados. He hated it there.” Who? The man at the warehouse? Why is Delroy lying? Scared of Johnny’s reaction to the truth.
Where’s Tony btw?
Oh, he’s serving dinner to his family – don’t really sense his urgency to get the two million back.
“He hangs up the phone and quickly finishes serving dinner. His wife looks at him with concern.” He finished serving dinner?! After he told his wife, did they sit down and eat it as well or take off the hospital.
P.44 Hasn’t the penny dropped on Tony and Johnny yet… shouldn’t they suspect Delroy of stealing their cash and coke.
P.45 “Oddball puts out coke lines on the table. The music is turned up, girls start dancing -- party time.”
This is getting crazy, are they serious?! More coke and women – who are these women? Why the hell aren’t they out looking for the case? Where the fuck is he pulling all this coke from?
P.46 “Of course I hear. You have nothing.” Who told him. Only our guys and Honey know about it right? I wonder if he also knows who took it? They should ask him.
“Ah the monkey speaks.” Woof! This is a bit disrespectful, and again makes me think that Tony is the head guy. You really have to clear up who these guys are and what they do. Are they drug dealers? They sell the drugs through their club, right?
“Hey, come on. We're speaking civilly here.” Okay, I’m just really stumped as to why they accept being spoken to this way. They’re hardly the Kray brothers setting fear in people, more like the shy brothers.
P.47 “Alexander is grinding with two girls.” Go on, son! I have to say that Alexander is really weak as a protag. It states in the logline “A mobster’s son, orphaned as a baby, helps some gangsters get their turf back” but 50 pages in, all he’s done is have a threesome, snort coke, lose the case, sleep and stand around saying nothing. He needs a lot more; I still have no idea who this person is. I knew more about his father and he was in only three pages at the beginning.
“Oddball panics and ejaculates into the girl's mouth, causing her to gag.” Lol! I doubt they’d show this but fuck its funny.
“Dirty fucking bastard.” Did she spit or swallow?
“Why... what is this?” Has Oddball forgotten? The guy was bricking it before but now he’s unsure what’s going on.
“The girls grab their (stuff) and leave.” This means clothes I hope… unless they walk out naked with mouths full of…
P.49 Does Alexander speak? Why is he still there?
“And straight into the hands of some thieving cunt!” How can these two not figure it out… it hardly takes Poirot. Why not check out the guy who just took over your club. Or maybe they should suspect Oddball who has shitloads of coke.
“Why not? Don't you own anything?” Huh? WTF? Is Danny just playing dumb or what?
P.50 “We're fucking gangsters you mug.” Could have fooled me.
Wouldn’t Johnny want to be more proactive, try to get the money himself as well? It’s just that he seems to be relying on the very guys who lost the case in the first place. Not really a great plan especially as his own life depends on it.
P.52 “My experience at (sixteen)” Thought he was fifteen?
So we finally learn something about Alexander and our characters have a goal… I would suggest getting to this point a lot earlier. It’s playing out a little like Lock Stock now.
P.53 Okay… Why did they just go through all that about who drives for Alexander to turn around a moment later and say “I'm going to have to drive.” It doesn’t make sense and makes the previous scene superfluous.
And now they’re joking about wanking to a one-hand man… these guys are great.
P.54 “Alexander gets into the (driving) seat” driver’s seat.
“Oddball shakes his hips, waggling his dick at the WORKMEN.” Now we’ve really entered comedy territory, surely there’s another way. All he has to do is distract them.
P.55 There is an awful amount of generic characters in this story, that’s something you should try to cut down on. It’s surely more cost effective to have fewer characters meaning fewer actors/extras and less money spent. For example, in this scene, is it necessary to have three workmen?
“picks up the Jack Hammer and circular saw then runs (quickly) away.” He isn’t running away quickly carrying a jack hammer and stone cutter. In fact, he might even struggle to carry both.
“DANNY makes it to the car and jumps inside.” While carrying a jack hammer and saw? Unlikely.
P.56 “Alexander is holding a plastic gun” But it does look like a real gun, right? I’m just imaging a cheap plastic gun with the red piece on the end of the barrel.
“The Attendant (nervously) comes around” He doesn’t seem nervous, quite calm to think about it and why wouldn’t he with Oddball politely nodding thanks and Alexander warning him to cover his ears.
“digging up the floor to reveal the safe.” I thought this was a petrol station? Seems a bit OTT for a local petrol station. How do they get to the safe if it’s under the floor? I’m sure it take a little while to do this, aren’t the boys worried about customers coming in?
“cutting into the safe.” But he has a stone cutter… might be better if he stole a metal cutter me thinks.
“Danny drives” At least they’re doing it in shifts – everyone has had a turn now.
P.57 “Shotterz steps in and punches her in the face” Again! Poor girl keeps getting punched.
“carrying three cups of tea in one hand.” You’ve got to laugh. These three have gone from snorting coke to drinking tea – how very British.
“Well where the fuck are we supposed to get real guns from?”
C’mon on Danny! Think about it… who pointed a gun at you the day before. How can he forget something like that?
“His (wife) has tears in her eyes.” I really think Tony’s wife deserves a name – this is probably the relationship that has most feeling or should I say Tony is the character with the most to lose. It’s just that you don’t seem to want to work with that which is evident by just calling her wife.
P.59 “If it wasn't for him I'd still be a drug addict on the streets.” As opposed to a drug dealer who’s about to be killed.
“Tony gets into the car and drives away.” Do we see this? We’re still in the bedroom.
P.61 “Honey is (outside)” A bit redundant, we know this from the slug. Who owns the safe house? I see that Johnny lying low there – why doesn’t Delroy kill them? Seems silly to leave them hanging around when they could exact revenge for taking over the club.
P.63 “(yeah) that's right.” Cap yeah. Honey’s turned into quite a punching bag. Does Johnny know she stole the case and gave it to Delroy? He hasn’t said. More like he suspects her but doesn’t know.
P.64 “Oddball (leads)” Do a ctrl-f on leads – you use it an awful amount and it’s becoming repetitive.
Solider-1 must be a top dog, he hangs out under a slide handing out the shit. This feels like it should be passed over to one of his lackeys.
P.65 “Funnily enough, they're not. They have to wait till there's more spaces in the jail before going out nicking anybody else.” Yeah, this sounds about right with the British police.
“Soldier-1 is sitting on a wooden bench.” Soldier-1 sits on… but isn’t his repeated info. You stated before that he was sitting under the slide. Its little things like that which could be tightened and save this paragraph being six lines long and look blocky.
“A GIRL is sitting either side of him.” This reads awkward.
This whole line is explaining how they do the deals which isn’t necessary to the story… concentrate on our guys and what they want.
P.66 “Soldier-1 stops walking and (he) takes a good look” Take “he” out for a smoother read.
“closer to (S-1.)” More to do with preference but I don’t care for shortening the name like this in the action – reads kinda lazy.
P.67 “OK, shall I come back tomorrow or something?” Show a little urgency will you Oddball, you’ve got three days.
P.68 Everyone’s getting head in this story but the last time we saw these two, Johnny was about to bash up Honey with a hammer and now she’s bashing his hammer. What changed?
“I'm sorry I gave your case away.” WTF! She’s admitted it then, so why isn’t Johnny going all ape shit like he has done for the past 60 pages. He finally finds out it’s her and goes all mellow, isn’t he bothered that she gave it to Delroy? He knows right?
P.69 “INT. MONEY SHOP – DAY” What’s a money shop? I’ve never heard of them before... it’s like an open announcement to robbers. Okay, this is a real place – who would have thought.
P.70 “Remember we haven't done a thing wrong.” What’s he talking about? They just robbed a money shop. It’s also strange because Danny was cool. Maybe he should drive recklessly at first, then Alexander tells him to breathe so then he drives calmly. Right now, he drives calmly, gets told to breathe and then drives calmly again.
P.71 “I'll tell the lads it's all my own stupid fault.” What’s Johnny talking about? What’s his fault? I have no idea what he’s proposing. I do know that he’s the calmest man on the planet now when before he was a complete psycho. I guess getting good head can calm any man down.
“Danny and Alexander share a joint” First day coke, second tea and now a joint.
P.72 What are the three stooges going on about now! This conversation is all over the place – Danny thinks they’re not getting anywhere, Oddball is worried about being caught because the police are a hell of lot worse than Johnny killing them and Alexander thinks they shouldn’t pay or kill the brothers but sixty grand is enough to take off on. On the same note, I’m just confused about what they’re talking about.
P.73 And now Oddball suddenly remembers about an underground casino where he cousin works – how did he forget that?
P.74 “A friend of mine still works there.” Thought it was his cousin?
“while seated in her (favourite armchair)” Is this important? I don’t understand why it matters if she’s sitting in her favourite armchair… how would you even show this on screen.
P.75 “They speak English around me.” I think Alexander’s trying to ask if they’re foreign, surely she would recognise an accent and she can’t be this stupid.
P.77 “Johnny and Tony walk in armed with (hatchets.)” What happened to their guns?
“Falling on top of him, rapidly hitting him over and over again with the hatchet.” Who falls on who? It looks like Johnny falls on the mechanic but why would Johnny fall? Shouldn’t it be the other way? It just needs to be clearer here.
“Haluk is rubbing against her arse waiting for the viagra to kick in.”How come Haluk didn’t hear all the commotion outside his office?
P.78 “He stands up as he involuntarily shits himself” I don’t want to know how they’re going to show this on screen.
Tony’s now turned into the crazy one.
“A GUNSHOT. Pistol smoke. Tony is holding the gun. He fires again.” Again, why the hackets? Looks like this is just for affect and really, this would just add to the cost for all the blood and effects.
P.79 “the back and (he) slumps over Johnny”
“a (hundred yards) away from the workshop.” That’s pretty precise.
So now Johnny and Tony have decided to go to war… with who? It looks like they’ve solved their problem with Haluk. They still haven’t mentioned anything about Delroy but I’m guessing it’s him they mean.
P.80 “Smack.” You’ve being put these sound effects in all caps… why not now? Doesn’t matter, just curious.
“realising he may have hit just a tad too hard.” Just a bit – he broke her jaw.
“we're here to steal from your bosses.” Their bosses? These guys are at a casino, not at work. And because our three are stealing from the tables, wouldn’t they really actually be stealing from these old guys?
“hold all” could be holdall – one word.
P.81 “You can now get on with your evening.” With what? They stole all the money.
P.82 “Tony, Honey and Johnny are dancing around to Trap while snorting cocaine and drinking champagne” Celebrating already! I thought they were going to war.
Why wouldn’t they take the money? Just lie and take it. Johnny’s a changed man, like a favourite uncle who wants to prank his nephews.
P.83 And now the boys have changed their tune. Alexander wanted to kill Tony and Johnny before, while Danny didn’t think they’re killers and now it’s suddenly the other way round.
“waggles a large bag of coke in front of Danny's face.” Oh, don’t worry about that Johnny… just have some from Oddball’s massive stash.
P.84 “Nightmare is over.” What is it with everyone thinking it’s a nightmare? Hasn’t been that bad has it.
P.85 “You came to rob us.” What is going on? They wasn’t robbing them, just collecting what these dimwits lost.
P.86 “Danny looks at Oddball.” I think this might be quite difficult when you are upside down and dangling from your ankles… guess it depends on where Oddball is? I assumed they were all side by side.
P.88 “You don't remember me?” He was a baby! But on the same note, there’s not many bare-chested men walking around called the bear – he would be hard to forget.
P.89 “(in Russian)” A lot of wrylies in this section, some could be cut to shorten the page length. I think we get that they’re speaking in Russian after a while.
“I have found him.” Wait a minute… the Russians have been looking for Alexander for 24 years and never found him. How hard is it to find a one handed person in London… there can’t be that many around, especially in children’s homes. I think this plot point will need to be cleaned up.
Why are they letting the other’s down as well? They still robbed the casino.
P.91 Why has Honey gone back to Delroy? Is she turning her back on Johnny again?
“Make sure (she) dead” she’s.
“The fire exit doors close shut, firmly behind them, causing some concern among the Bouncers.” Why are the bouncers concerned? Can’t they just walk back around the to entrance.
“Honey crumples, unconscious to the floor.” Honey’s been beaten to shit throughout. Her face must be absolutely bruised.
P.92 “Honey rises to her feet and runs along the alleyway.” She was unconscious before, had her head smashed into concrete but now she’s turned into Usain Bolt. Honey is one strong bitch.
“A left, a right, a left, right, left, right.” Yeah, I got the point… don’t think you need all of this.
P.93 “Honey squeezes with all her strength until Bouncer(2) dies.” Who the hell is Honey? She must have kept some spinach in her pocket like Popeye. She got beaten to death by a big bouncer but was still able to choker her to death.
“IT'S A DEAD END, the wall too high to climb.” Try the other way, love.
“a male GANGSTER (20's) well built, walks out.” Another generic character, must be the millionth in this story. Why is he just randomly walking out of the fire escape? Why’s he a gangster, is he one of Delroy’s guys?
“The Fire Door closes, locking him out. He curses then peers further down the alleyway.”
What’s the deal with this fire door and alleyway? Why is everyone so concerned when the door closes? Just walk out of the alleyway.
P.94 “It's (somhat) to do with Alexander.” Is this slang?
P.95 “Alexander looks up at the name.”
“I want to kill Delroy.”
This sounds like an important part – the person who killed his father. My one issue is that Alexander, as far as I know, doesn’t know Delroy. He can’t look up with recognition. Or state that he wants to kill him. Nobody has ever mentioned his name around him; he has no idea of his background. Why would he want to kill him? Now maybe I missed it, more than possible so please point it out to me where all this hatred for Delroy comes from. So basically you’re trying to sell all his revenge on this one scene, it’s not enough, he should have found out about his background a lot earlier. He needs to interact with Delroy at some point or at least know who he is.
What’s all this nonsense about not taking revenge. So the Russians will happily tie you up and torture you over money but killing one of their own – hey, we can’t do anything – it doesn’t work that way.
What are they talking about with all this gang mumble jumble… who sets up these rules? What happens if they break them? Do they go to court? Maybe this is how it works but it doesn’t sound plausible to me. Although I do like this honour among gangsters.
P.99 “(DANNY LIGHTS UP A JOINT) at the other end of the park.” Why’s this capped? I guess emphasising it but I’m unsure to why? That’s all Danny, Oddball and Alexander have been doing for 95 pages.
“with you being on top.” Would Johnny rather be on top! It doesn’t really matter as no one has ever been in charge throughout. At least this means Alexander has to talk more.
P.100 “S-1 goes into the COMMUNITY CENTRE” What community centre? Thought it was a slide? Now I’m confused as you can’t go “into” a slide so I’m thinking you mean an actual centre.
“It's only a little knife so he doesn't really feel it at first.” How small? I can’t wondering why a gangster is carrying around small fishing knife.
P.101 Go on Honey, she’s gonna kill Delroy’s whole crew at this rate… she’s like John McClane.
“Honey tries to wedge open the fire door. It remains steadfast.” Again with the fire door, walk around the front.
“INT. OFFICE, (DELROY'S) NIGHTCLUB – NIGHT” Did he finally get the sign sorted? It’s been called Delboy’s before now.
“Delroy is sitting at his desk when a (male BOUNCER) walks in.” There is way too many of these types of characters, ones that come in with one word and disappear. In this instance, you could use an already intro’d character like his right hand man Skeetz or whatever he was called.
“We're having to let all the females in without searching them.” This is strange? Why are they searching people? Aren’t these guys’ gangsters and probably sell drugs to these kids.
P.103 “That's my fucking club, you cunts.” Or “Say hello to my little friend, you cunts!”
“Johnny fires and a (rocket smashes through the doors) of the club” What happened? Did the doors explode? This sounds like the rocket just opened the door – maybe it was a dud.
“S-1 nods at the wisdom.” What wisdom? I don’t get it? And hasn’t Johnny already gone against it, he just “fired” a rocket from a RPG.
“obliterating anyone in (in) the way” Get rid of one of the “in”
“Ten or so others are hiding behind chairs and tables, mostly holding pistols.” So they got an army of 60-70 to fight ten or so people – a tad overkill. They should have left it to Honey.
P.104 “searches the male Bouncer” What happened to the male gangster? I think you’re now even getting confused with the amount of pointless characters.
P.105 “She fires the handgun at the fire exit door and breathes a sigh of relief as it swings open.” Err… How? One of those movie tricks.
“One after another Delroy's boys are taken down.” Woohoo! Honey has turned into Rambo! She’s survived a beating, got past the dreaded fire door and is kicking arse!
“The six:” Definitely not magnificent.
“All six of them have their moment shooting some cunt in the head.” Yes! This whacky ending continues – loving the fact that “cunt” has made it into the action. This should have been called “The revenge of the Cockneys”
P.106 “Don't worry, I'm here now.” Yeah, he looked really concerned upon seeing her bruised face. He shouldn’t worry though, she’s the Terminator and Rambo rolled into one – everyone behind her.
“Delroy is hiding behind his desk and he raises his hands in the air signifying surrender.” What a disappointment… after all this, he just surrenders. Was hoping for some big battle between him and Honey.
“and shakes Alexander's hand.” Is the Bear taking the piss – possibilities for comedy here.
P.107 “Johnny is sitting behind the desk, Honey is on his lap, smoking a joint.” A well-earned joint. Where are they keeping this massive supply of joints?
“There is a bottle of champagne on ice.” Another bottle! They’ve been celebrating for the half the story. Did they find the case; it should still have a million pounds in it – guess nobody cares anymore, that was 30 pages ago.
What about the Columbians? Jesus and his sons, the really insane one and the gay one. Wasn’t they behind all of this? A little disappointing that we didn’t get a conclusion to that part of the story.
Bleeding heck... lol. That's a lot to get through. I've read your first post and I have to say you are right. I thought that myself about the protag. He's too passive. The DJ thing was an early thing I thought I may play with later, but never did.
Although the Colombians were behind it, Delroy is the main guy. I'll have to go through all of your points as there are some excellent suggestions there. You clearly know what you're talking about and thanks a lot for taking all this time out. I think you've done my second draft for me, lol. Nice one, I'll get to it all in a minute.
“EXT. STREET, OUTSIDE THE KNIGHT'S ARMS – NIGHT” Do you need “street” in the slug? Or even “outside the” could this just be “The Knight’s Arms” Also, think a dash should be used instead of a comma to split up the slug but maybe this is preference on my part.
This is how I was recently told to do it by a Hollywood gatekeeper. The Knight's Arms would be an INT, so the setting is actually outside the pub and not on its roof or anything. I feel it's clear enough which is the important thing. I could change Street to CAR PARK, I suppose... but it doesn't really make any difference. It's the street outside the pub.
“removes his scarf.” Huh? Why bother wearing it in the first place? Wasn’t it supposed to hide his identity?
The UK is the CCTV capital of the world. Inside the pub is relatively safe. You're right though, I could show that better... maybe add a CCTV camera but then it may seem like the CCTV was crucial to the plot somehow.
“The baby looks up at him and smiles.” Do newborns smile or have gas?
Fair point, they have gas... but I'm sure they smile at me For film purposes though... the smile works better, but I have still deleted that scene now.
All of the earlier bar scene and PO scenes have been cut.
“looks like a hooligan” Now that’s a description – I really hope this is the protag.
“He places one onto each of the (girls) tongues and then leans in to kiss one of them.” What girls? Should they be capped? Personally, I think so but again, this could be preference.
When you're out and about and have bag fulls of drugs you often give them out like sweets to people you know... regulars on the scene. You get groupies, girls that are always around off their tits on whatever.
Nobody wants to be alone. It doesn't matter how big you are you could be taken down and robbed in an instant. Even by street thugs. Wrong moment in time, w2hat you going to do? Talk about how big you are? Nope... in real life, it doesn't matter how big you think you are, if you end up on your own, you're just a man on your own.
“A group of three MALES” I’m a little confused, are these the drunken revellers from the previous sentence? I don’t understand why you’ve described them twice?
They are separate. Not sure why that is confusing to you. I'm reading it now and it seems crystal to me.
“Looks like a fucking Iraqi.” Thanks drunken male because we have no idea what he looks like.
Before posting it here I cut an earlier scene with Alexander getting out of jail. That was where all his character description was and I forgot to put it back in.
“Just look away and this (nightmare) will be over.” Nightmare. Seriously! I think they’re going over the top – this kid won’t even talk to Alexander, yet alone turn into Freddy Kruger
It says int he action that he is angry. So it is obviously a far different tone to the one you are alluding to here.
You have to wonder why Danny would get involved in this situation – especially when he’s outnumbered and doesn’t know the victim. This could be his character and I guess I’ll find that out.
Doesn't like Bullies. I think though I'll have him smashing a bottle before giving it the come on. Seen it happen once.
P.9 “A GUY” A little weak – is it really just some random guy? How about attendant or something. You might as well call him “dude”
And he gets to talk… must have meaning. Showing that Danny is a player in this nightclub and knows the staff. Can’t see any other reason for him to speak. It’s just a GUY after all.
P.10 “Danny throws a couple more lines down.” He’s obviously not just throwing them down right?
Yeah, he is. 'Throws' is slang here for doing something quickly. So yeah he does. I don't mind throwing slang in the action with this script. It enhances the mood.
“INT. OFFICE - PEACOCK'S NIGHTCLUB – NIGHT” Good to see you’ve changed to dashes but isn’t this the wrong way round? Wouldn’t it be “PEACOCK’S NIGHTCLUB – OFFICE…”?
I used to do it that way and was told by a Hollywood reader that it was wrong.
P.13 Why didn’t Danny just run for the fire escape himself? You need to set this scene up better, Danny has to have a proper reason for handing over the case – all the talking he did Alexander was wasted time when you consider he could of just legged it to the fire escape himself. What if a cop recognises Danny or something like that.
“Oddball is standing outside Genesis Bar chatting to the (girls he gave a pill) to earlier and a DOORMAN.”
Did he give them one or two pills? Is this another new doorman, how many have we had so far? Watch out for the nasty “is” which isn’t helping this line, not to mention that you’ve mentioned the slug again which is (no pun) redundant.
P.14 "Danny sent me." I didn't know that Danny and Alexander got each other's names - guess it's possible during their intimate scene in the toilet when they snorting coke together like old buddies. Also very trusting of Danny - he's just found out this guy has left prison and in way would run off with the case.
Yeah that is a mistake that has been changed in the new draft.
P.16 "FILTH HQ" Nice but a lot of readers might be confused by this. Perfectly fine in dialogue but I really think you should say Police HQ in the slug for clarity sakes.
Nah, I'm cool with it. If a Producer doesn't get it then he has no rights making a film like this in the first place.
"Danny winks and (mimes): "It's safe." Was a little confused with this line - what does he actually do to get this message across?
Sticks up his thumb, places thumb and forefinger together. Any of that will do. Unless you imagine him playing charades? LOL, that would be quite funny. I have to watch I don't take the mick out of my own work all the time.
P.17 "Oddball leads Alexander to a stop outside an apartment block." Again, little things like this could be tightened. "Oddball and Alexander stop outside an apartment block."
Why such a bug space between your mini slugs? Let's be fair, you could've just started this scene with them walking into the safe house - the parts before are unnecessary unless I missed something.
I'm not sure what you mean about mini slugs. Mini slugs are just slugs miniaturised so they have to be set the same space apart as every other slug. All my slugs should be spaced the same, unless I have slipped.
The safe room must be important - it's the first room you've described, maybe this is to show that Oddball and his crew have money. They must be pretty big players to have a safe room.
You've lost me here. There is a safe house, but shouldn't be a safe room.
Why repeat his name here, he's already told Oddball. He comes off mysterious at the moment, no background or anything which I'm guessing is your intention so play up to this. When he's asked "Who the fuck he is?" Why not something like "I'm nobody" I really can't figure Alexander out at the moment.
Even the dialogue at this junction seems weird. "I met your friend tonight" Why not call him Danny, he knows his name and isn't this repeating what we and the characters already know. This scene could be better handled - surely both characters are wary of each other but I don't this is coming out, it's just weird.
"hiding it behind the settee." Great hiding place! He's put a lot thought into that. I guess the only question is, where is the settee in the room? If it's in the middle then it's hardly hiding. How about putting it under the settee or a cabinet - seems more logical.
This is actually a joke that comes up later in the script.
Now he has coke, he must be a dealer right? But then he's sniffing all the shit. I'm really confused about who these guys are and what they are doing with Tony and Johnny.
It'd be pretty hard to sniff all the shit. There's a lot of money in coke and when you're young and partying all the time, which is the way I remember it, we wouldn't sleep all weekend. Sleep Monday till Thursday and the weekend starts again. You can only get so high, once you start snorting coke you don't hallucinate no matter how much you take. That happens a few days later with the psychosis because of no sleep and your body being run down.
"You look like one of us now." What does Oddball mean? Alexander's wearing a designer suit while he's wearing casual designer clothes. How do they look the same? Maybe me means that he looks like a proper geezer now, one of the boys.
Yep, he looks like a proper geezer, but that would be a little cliched as nobody really says that any more. We also say things like, looks like a goer, a rower, a head, a bit of a boy etc, etc...
Oddball and Danny seem quite nice fella's happily sharing out the coke to a complete stranger.
never had that happen to you? When around people like that the drugs are often flowing. plus they cut it all anyway. It's only party coke, sniff it all night... well, you have to. Coke wears off twenty minutes to an hour.
P.21 "One hundred and Eighty-seven minutes." Who talks like this? Probably should of added the seconds as well. Surely someone would just say "Three hours"
I like it as is. The police have a custody sheet which shows the time you came in.
Why did Chalmers let him out? I thought there was going to be a reason but nothing happened.
Continuing on:
The police are forever arresting people and then letting them go after not enough evidence to hold them... but you're right, I need to make that clearer.
Page 23 - Yep it's Gold... I figure that I don't need to go all the way with that. Gold jewellery, gold watch, gold hair... just a gold theme in general. However the director sees it is cool with me.
Page 24 - No charges were laid against Danny for the assault. But I'll clean that up.
Yeah Danny works for Johnny and Tony, doesn't mean you have to be scared of the people you work for. They should have just as much fear over you. It's not like you see in the films. In real life it is all about mutual respect. If I were to have Johnny and Tony pushing people around that would be B/S and a cliche. In real life that just doesn't happen.
Hear you on the 'is' thing. I'll clean those up.
“local gangbangers doing what gangbangers do.” What do gangbangers do? This is a bit vague. I’m sure they do lots of things.
Exactly... it says a lot without saying much at all. Smoking weed, making out, fighting... whatever the director sees fit to include in the scene. Plenty of actors willing to work for free just for the acting credit, many of them would kill for speaking roles. That is also my argument against using so many extras... they're free and willing, so why not? The more the merrier.
Page 26 - Yeah he does feel sorry for himself. He feels guilty because he was the last one with the case, and he's just had to take a headbutt. I see things a little differently to you.
Page 28 - I like injecting a bit of comedy. Comedic moments can happen to anyone... although I certainly get your point on it taking something from the antagonist. I like the contrast but it sometimes doesn't pay off, maybe this time it doesn't work.
Delroy hasn't broken into the club in a burglar sense, he owns it legally. Or someone he knows well does. So yeah he would be around to sign paperwork and it's a normal part of life, even for gangsters. However it's unnecessary for him to actually have to sign anything, you're right.
Page - 31 - More coke, yes. You have to keep taking the coke if you want to stay awake. I don't know what the big deal is. I honestly don't. Coke isn't a hard hitting drug. It's mild. Amphetamines hit a lot harder, but even on that you're still not hallucinating no matter how much you take. That can only happen after days of no sleep and your brain starts playing tricks on you.
Same as where all the coke is coming from isn't a big deal. I don't know what your experiences are but mine are far different.
page 34 - walking through the gate is the same as walking through the door. You don't really have to say they open the door first, it kinda goes without saying. Certainly does here in the UK, anyway.
page 37 - In regards to Vincente and the kiss on the cheek, I again saw an opportunity for a little humour and put it in. I don't think this detracts... although it does involve Delroy again, so maybe not a good thing. I'll rethink it, but I still like it for now.
page 39 - Alright an all right are two different things here. Alright is all one word and all right is two. It depends on the tempo.
page 40 - Where is Johnny's crew? he's turned up at the club on his own unaware anyhting is wrong there.
page 44 - They already figured out on page 43.
page 45 - he's pulling the coke from his groin.
page 50 - Johnny isn't relying on them to get the case back. He's relying on them to get the 200 large to pay off the Turks. That's clear in the script, you must have missed that part. Did you skim at all?
Page 52 - yeah he was 16, I spotted that one myself. page 53 - I agree, the scene with the car is messy. I admit, I wrote him stealing the car and remembered he only had one hand... so I decided to make it funny instead. Doesn't work with the two scenes together, I did see that.
page 54 - The waggling his dick thing... yeah, I like a bit of comedy thrown in. I think these types of things are so open to comedy, so easy, that I just can't help myself. Besides, criminals do have a laugh while they operate... just like anyone else with a job to do. Laughing helps pass the time.
page 55 - again on the workmen... extras come free.
page 56 - Yes the plastic gun does look like a real gun. Yes everyone gets a turn driving. It's how friends operate. One guy complains... I drove last time, so the decent thing to do is take a turn yourself, isn't it?
page 67 - Point taken on the urgency.
page 70 - It's a psychological thing. After just doing something crazy adrenalin pumps around your body, give you the shakes. So you have to remind yourself that you haven't done anything wrong, it's just a normal day, you've just ran for the bus or something, time to calm down. It helps to have a voice like that around you, especially if you're new. Also if the police pass they will race right by with hardly a second glance in your direction.
Yeah in regards to driving calmly... when driving away from the scene of a robbery, it is not only the driving you need to control it is also your mindset, as your legs can shake on their own. it's just adrenalin, but it's important to keep calm and that will subside. Also not good to have shaky legs while driving.
page 72 - point taken, I'll clean that up. It is very shaky around there.
Yeah I will need to work on the Russian connection. I think the baby will have to be snatched... a lacky supposed to kill it, but obviously he cannot bring himself to and puts the baby outside a hospital. The actor playing Alexander will also play his father... so it will be obvious to the viewer and make the Bear's recognition more realistic.
“Make sure (she) dead” she’s.
No honestly, I wrote that deliberately. It's in dialogue and Delroy switches from patois to his native British accent just like a lot of other black people I know do.
When the fire door closes they are trapped in a bricked-up alleyway.
I get the point on Alexander needing to find out about his background earlier.
If the rules are broken then it's a war. the big boys don't go to war. It's like the West, we use extremists to fight our battles for us. We used the Afghans to fight a war against Russia for twenty years. Testing out our weapons, arming certain warlords and occupying territories. We didn't actually go to war against Russia ourselves though. That would be insane.
Gangsters like fishing too. Why not? I don't see why I should hit every cliche.
Bouncer search people to take their drugs and then sell them back to them. Everyone gets searched when going into a club... aside from, funnily enough, the actual gun men.
Yeah I'll work on the ending. I figured the RPG would be too much.
Thanks for the read, many of the things you've said have been a great help.
Thanks for coming back, glad that my feedback was helpful and gives you some ideas for the second draft. I’m not going to counter-argue every point with you as most my notes or suggestions were merely my opinion and I would of course never expect anyone to agree with anything I said… although I can’t help thinking they should.
In saying that:
Quoted from DustinBowcot
We say Bar and Pub here... both are recognised and accepted.
You’re quite right, they are. But it would certainly help clean up that scene for clarity and keep in with the British tone. Like for example, if I spoke to someone at the pub and they asked me where Terry was, I’d say “He’s at the bar” It’s up to you – it’s literally changing a word and it could make a big difference.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
This is how I was recently told to do it by a Hollywood gatekeeper. The Knight's Arms would be an INT, so the setting is actually outside the pub and not on its roof or anything. I feel it's clear enough which is the important thing. I could change Street to CAR PARK, I suppose... but it doesn't really make any difference. It's the street outside the pub.
A Hollywood gatekeeper? Certainly don’t want argue with one of them! All I can say from my experience is that I have never seen anybody do it this way. No drama’s, that’s your preference. I just don’t understand why you have to have it? If you’re “EXT” then your outside, I thought it was simple and I do love simplicity – it can make for a cleaner read. No biggie though, it doesn’t matter to the story.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
When you're out and about and have bag fulls of drugs you often give them out like sweets to people you know... regulars on the scene. You get groupies, girls that are always around off their tits on whatever.
Nobody wants to be alone. It doesn't matter how big you are you could be taken down and robbed in an instant. Even by street thugs. Wrong moment in time, w2hat you going to do? Talk about how big you are? Nope... in real life, it doesn't matter how big you think you are, if you end up on your own, you're just a man on your own.
I think you’re thinking too much into this, this maybe how it happens but it’s almost impossible to get this across. You need to think what the reader is seeing, and how they are going to portray what you’re characters are doing. But this also counters why he was nervous, if he was getting groupies together for some kind of protection then why be nervous? I do understand what you’re saying but this isn’t being shown on the page IMO… did you say if they were drug dealers or not?
Quoted from DustinBowcot
They are separate. Not sure why that is confusing to you. I'm reading it now and it seems crystal to me.
We all read things differently and of course it’s crystal to you – you wrote it. I guess the point I was trying to make is, why have “drunken” revellers walk by, then a group of three males “drunk” in the very next segment? If they’re not the same, are the revellers needed at all? Can you see why I would be confused by the two expressions which our two apparent groups shared? Hopefully you can because it will help you to understand how people other than “you” the writer can be confused.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
They're drunk. It would be understood here.
I personally think it wouldn’t and of course that is my opinion of many, many nights out on the piss where I never once did this or saw anybody else do this. But of course we have different experiences so you may have seen this happen - it was only a side comment and no biggie, just reminded me of an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa and Homer are not talking to one another around the dinner table and I found it amusing.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
It says int he action that he is angry. So it is obviously a far different tone to the one you are alluding to here.
I agree, it is a different tone and again I was only having a little fun with the situation (I do that if you didn’t notice, think it makes you the author a little relaxed and able to have a laugh) I think the problem with this word is it’s a cheesy line to use in the circumstances. I really hope you and your mates didn’t use this, plenty of other words to use in this situation.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I think that having an INT and an EXT PEACOCK'S would be confusing. I get that STREET may be generic, but that is kinda the point. Just film a street.
I now understand why you do this in your slugs, you think it makes it less confusing and I can appreciate that. I still don’t think it’s unnecessary, readers should be reading the slug but at least I see you reasoning to do it. Thanks for sharing.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
They are two different things?
Fair comment. Legally you’re right but I didn’t explain myself properly – I meant in context to the characters. There is a difference to help me understand who they are.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I used to do it that way and was told by a Hollywood reader that it was wrong.
But what worked best for you? Nothing is wrong… well apart from obvious things but there is no wrong way here. I would say that your way now is more unusual, not wrong. I would say 75% (obvious a rough estimate) of scripts you read, pro and amateur will have it the other way round. Actually, I now feel I need to go back and look at a few scripts – I’m second guessing myself.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I'm not sure what you mean about mini slugs. Mini slugs are just slugs miniaturised so they have to be set the same space apart as every other slug. All my slugs should be spaced the same, unless I have slipped.
You’re not slipping, they were pretty consistent. This is preference, you doubled spaces your mini’s and I think it’s unnecessary BUT… this is my opinion. Your way is fine but you would save some space by not doing it.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
You've lost me here. There is a safe house, but shouldn't be a safe room.
This is my slip – meant safe house. It was just the living room I meant in general, it was the first room to get a description so it felt important.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
I'm not exactly sure what good locks would do.
Nothing! But it again it would show some characteristics, these guys are safety conscious for example but knowing these guys, it’s unlikely.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
The police are forever arresting people and then letting them go after not enough evidence to hold them... but you're right, I need to make that clearer.
I didn’t mean that. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant why is Chalmers letting him out? He could have left it to the custody sergeant. To have the DI come down let you out personally but not say anything meaningful seems a waste and the fact that we never see Chalmers again, is it necessary?
I’ll look at some the other comments tomorrow; it’s a little late here.
Hopefully you don’t mind me coming back, I do think it can help and I appreciate you clarifying or thanking me for some of the points I raised.
Thanks for coming back, glad that my feedback was helpful and gives you some ideas for the second draft. I’m not going to counter-argue every point with you as most my notes or suggestions were merely my opinion and I would of course never expect anyone to agree with anything I said… although I can’t help thinking they should.
The thing with me is that I can disagree, even vehemently, and change my mind five seconds later. I appreciate your help, it's give me the kick up the arse I needed to make the changes necessary. In saying that I've dropped the whole beginning for something approaching originality now. I'm also concentrating more on the case (which is now one of those cases on wheels) and the Colombians. The casino robbery is now gone too, and is replaced with an original nightclub robbery... pulled off not in the usual way. Well it is the usual way, just not the way we'd expect to see it in a film. Anyway the nightclub robbery also leads to an ironic twist. I haven't written the ending yet. I'll do that over the next couple of days as it is a plot hole now I've killed the Russian connection. I think this is something our heroes are going to have to pull off on their own.
You’re quite right, they are. But it would certainly help clean up that scene for clarity and keep in with the British tone. Like for example, if I spoke to someone at the pub and they asked me where Terry was, I’d say “He’s at the bar” It’s up to you – it’s literally changing a word and it could make a big difference.
There are slight differences between pubs and bars here, but if I've mixed up calling a place a pub and then a bar I'll have to clean that up. I suppose bars here are any type of place that looks modern.
A Hollywood gatekeeper? Certainly don’t want argue with one of them! All I can say from my experience is that I have never seen anybody do it this way. No drama’s, that’s your preference. I just don’t understand why you have to have it? If you’re “EXT” then your outside, I thought it was simple and I do love simplicity – it can make for a cleaner read. No biggie though, it doesn’t matter to the story.
Yeah I know... but it's what he said. I haven't really taken much notice of the slugs, aside from to take in the information since then. I'll change it back on another draft.
I think you’re thinking too much into this, this maybe how it happens but it’s almost impossible to get this across. You need to think what the reader is seeing, and how they are going to portray what you’re characters are doing. But this also counters why he was nervous, if he was getting groupies together for some kind of protection then why be nervous? I do understand what you’re saying but this isn’t being shown on the page IMO… did you say if they were drug dealers or not?
We all read things differently and of course it’s crystal to you – you wrote it. I guess the point I was trying to make is, why have “drunken” revellers walk by, then a group of three males “drunk” in the very next segment? If they’re not the same, are the revellers needed at all? Can you see why I would be confused by the two expressions which our two apparent groups shared? Hopefully you can because it will help you to understand how people other than “you” the writer can be confused.
OK. I could make that clearer. I'm trying to convey what it's like on a Saturday night in the City. I know how to keep both and make it clear.
I personally think it wouldn’t and of course that is my opinion of many, many nights out on the piss where I never once did this or saw anybody else do this. But of course we have different experiences so you may have seen this happen - it was only a side comment and no biggie, just reminded me of an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa and Homer are not talking to one another around the dinner table and I found it amusing.
People say nonsensical things when they're drunk and this comes from hearing people say stupid things just to have a reason to fight someone. He talking to his mate, rather than to Alexander, is bringing his mate in as well to agree that Alexander is the one in the wrong. That's why his mate comes in and speaks for him. It's a prelude to these guys kicking the shit out of one bloke in a doorway. Happens all the time here, very rare you see a one on one.
I agree, it is a different tone and again I was only having a little fun with the situation (I do that if you didn’t notice, think it makes you the author a little relaxed and able to have a laugh) I think the problem with this word is it’s a cheesy line to use in the circumstances. I really hope you and your mates didn’t use this, plenty of other words to use in this situation.
I now understand why you do this in your slugs, you think it makes it less confusing and I can appreciate that. I still don’t think it’s unnecessary, readers should be reading the slug but at least I see you reasoning to do it. Thanks for sharing.
Yeah because I was told it was less confusing. It's no big deal for me to change it back... just mildly annoying.
Fair comment. Legally you’re right but I didn’t explain myself properly – I meant in context to the characters. There is a difference to help me understand who they are.
That is clearer now in the second draft. I imagine I'm going to need at least another draft or two after this to get it perfect too. So much for 8 days.
I didn’t mean that. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant why is Chalmers letting him out? He could have left it to the custody sergeant. To have the DI come down let you out personally but not say anything meaningful seems a waste and the fact that we never see Chalmers again, is it necessary?
Yeah it was again another plant for use later. In case I wanted to bounce off a police investigation. You're right, he isn't needed.
Yeah Danny works for Johnny and Tony, doesn't mean you have to be scared of the people you work for. They should have just as much fear over you. It's not like you see in the films. In real life it is all about mutual respect. If I were to have Johnny and Tony pushing people around that would be B/S and a cliche. In real life that just doesn't happen.
I agree that it’s about mutual respect in real life but this isn’t real life – it’s supposed to be a movie. Now I would never push my boss, I’m old enough to understand that this would result in my sacking and maybe even criminal charges but in a movie, you could get away with it. That’s the beauty with movies; it takes away from real life.
I like that word “respect” and that’s my problem with these characters, they never had respect for the people who were not only their bosses, but also quite hot tempted people (one particular) who had lost everything and carried guns. I think you should be scared of these people or at least show them respect.
On the same note, you did have Johnny head-butting Oddball and punching Honey so would this go against the “pushing people around that would be B/S and cliché”
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Plenty of actors willing to work for free just for the acting credit, many of them would kill for speaking roles. That is also my argument against using so many extras... they're free and willing, so why not? The more the merrier.
I’m not a producer or director… probably wouldn’t classify myself as a writer so what do I know. You’re probably right that lots of actors are willing to work for free but are they prepared to throw money in for costumes, locations, props, make-up artist’s, special effects people etc. I only made this comment with a small budget in mind and I thought producers were always trying to save a few bucks here and there. Why have more extras/characters than necessary especially if you can use already known characters from the story. I made examples of this before with Chalmers and the male bouncer which could have been Delroy’s right-hand man. Was the workmen necessary, couldn’t the guys just steal it from a closed worksite? I’m confident that if this does get made, the character count would come down purely for costs.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Page 26 - Yeah he does feel sorry for himself. He feels guilty because he was the last one with the case, and he's just had to take a headbutt. I see things a little differently to you.
Obviously we do. I never once felt or saw this apparent guilt… the next morning he wanted to run away before partying with some chicks and taking cocaine. Never once did he try and make amends, well until he was told he had to. It’s just an odd thing for an obvious high person to be feeling. I thought he would be more selfish at this time and maybe feel more guilty in the morning once the drugs were wearing off.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Page - 31 - More coke, yes. You have to keep taking the coke if you want to stay awake. I don't know what the big deal is. I honestly don't. Coke isn't a hard hitting drug. It's mild. Amphetamines hit a lot harder, but even on that you're still not hallucinating no matter how much you take. That can only happen after days of no sleep and your brain starts playing tricks on you.
Same as where all the coke is coming from isn't a big deal. I don't know what your experiences are but mine are far different.
I’m not going to debate on the effects of cocaine – you would know a lot more than me. I really don’t feel it’s necessary for them to keep taking it, you would hope the adrenalin of the night would be enough to get them through. It’s no big deal, just a little unusual to have your three main characters taking drugs all the time, Alexander especially.
As for where the coke is coming from, it’s more to do with “if they’re dealers, why are they snorting all the shit?” This means they can’t sell it, lose profits and hence lose money and isn’t that the point of them being dealers – to make money. I certainly wouldn’t employ them. Hey, overall this isn’t my field so I wouldn’t know. Fair play to those dealers if this is how works, good stuff. Money for taking drugs.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 40 - Where is Johnny's crew? he's turned up at the club on his own unaware anyhting is wrong there.
Fair enough but where are they before and after this? I don’t mean the usual suspects, his actual crew – is it just Tony, Danny and Oddball? You would think he had more people working under him with 2 mill in cash and all the coke, not to mention bouncers and so on – just like Delroy had. If he doesn’t then he hardly seems worth Delroy’s time – there has to be bigger fish to fry.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 44 - They already figured out on page 43.
Did they say that? I must have missed it. I don’t remember any of our five guys ever mentioning Delroy to each other. Might want to make a point of getting this across – it becomes quite important later for Alexander’s revenge.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 45 - he's pulling the coke from his groin.
Lol. The boys better check what they’re sniffing! Maybe he’s keeping it up his arsehole.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 50 - Johnny isn't relying on them to get the case back. He's relying on them to get the 200 large to pay off the Turks. That's clear in the script, you must have missed that part. Did you skim at all?
That’s a bit harsh – do you really think I skimmed it? But just to clarify, these were my words:
“Wouldn’t Johnny want to be more proactive, try to get the money himself as well? It’s just that he seems to be relying on the very guys who lost the case in the first place. Not really a great plan especially as his own life depends on it.”
I understand what he wants them to do. My point was, he has three days and could be more proactive to try and sum up the money himself as well… why go in hiding with three days and leave to the very people who put him in this position. Go into hiding after two days have elapsed and if you haven’t been able to get the money.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 54 - The waggling his dick thing... yeah, I like a bit of comedy thrown in. I think these types of things are so open to comedy, so easy, that I just can't help myself. Besides, criminals do have a laugh while they operate... just like anyone else with a job to do. Laughing helps pass the time.
I also love a little comedy thrown in but this is OTT for what you have. And do criminals have a laugh when their life’s may depend on it? Maybe they do in a Adam Sandler or Farrelly brother’s movie – thought you were aiming for something different here.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
It's how friends operate. One guy complains... I drove last time, so the decent thing to do is take a turn yourself, isn't it?
Are they friends? They’ve known each for less than 24 hours. Also, are these friends going out on a road trip or pulling a job to rob from a safe with heavy drill equipment. I would like to think they put a plan in order “you’re the guy with one hand so you won’t be out get-away driver” Just to be safe and avoid being caught. Please tell these three aren’t teenagers who complain about driving last time – how far is this local petrol station? Well, as its local, you’d hope within 10 miles, right?
Quoted from DustinBowcot
page 70 - It's a psychological thing. After just doing something crazy adrenalin pumps around your body, give you the shakes. So you have to remind yourself that you haven't done anything wrong, it's just a normal day, you've just ran for the bus or something, time to calm down. It helps to have a voice like that around you, especially if you're new. Also if the police pass they will race right by with hardly a second glance in your direction.
I agree. My problem with it and it actually bides in well with your quote is he was driving calmly before the “calm down” talk. Then he drove calmly again – it’s all wrong. Have him drive recklessly, then the “breathe talk” and he then drives calmly. This fits in with what you’ve said and was my point in the first place.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Yeah in regards to driving calmly... when driving away from the scene of a robbery, it is not only the driving you need to control it is also your mindset, as your legs can shake on their own. it's just adrenalin, but it's important to keep calm and that will subside. Also not good to have shaky legs while driving.
As above, if your legs shake then I more inclined to think you would drive a little reckless at first. Breathe, let the adrenalin pass and then drive more calmly.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
When the fire door closes they are trapped in a bricked-up alleyway
Really? Fire door with a bricked-up alleyway meaning people would be trapped! So, this is legally owned by someone (can’t be gangsters can it) but it is legally owned and open to the public. This means it needs to have health and safety come around and have safety checks, never is a fire escape gonna lead to a trapped in area – you’re just inviting Hillsborough on again. How many people would be trapped in that alley on an average weekend night? 2 hundred, 3 maybe? Can you see why I thought this wouldn’t be a trapped in alleyway – are there trapped in alleyways? What’s the point of them? Up to you but I would consider changing the this door to something else, what? No idea but a fire door speaks problems to me.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Gangsters like fishing too. Why not? I don't see why I should hit every cliche.
Okay… why didn’t he carry his rod and maggots too? Whatever gangsters do in their spare time is up to them. I didn’t understand why he’s carrying around a fishing knife that is so small, it has such little effect. If you carry around a knife, surely it’s to do damage and not just prick someone. On the other hand, by your reply, this guy might have just been coming back from a fishing trip and that’s possible of course.
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Bouncer search people to take their drugs and then sell them back to them. Everyone gets searched when going into a club... aside from, funnily enough, the actual gun men.
This is probably right. I wouldn’t know, can’t remember ever being searched when walking into a club, football stadium yes. My logic to this would be, why the hell would these clubbers come back to this club? They sell their drugs back to them – fuck it! I’d go to another joint (no pun intended)
Quoted from DustinBowcot
Thanks for the read, many of the things you've said have been a great help.
I’m glad to hear and I hope it all works out with the producer. Feel free to pm me if you have want a read on the second draft.
Hi mate. A lot of this has changed now... I'm also turning this into an ensemble piece as that seems to be its natural path. I'll kill the flashback scene at the beginning entirely and just come straight into the action with Alexander on the streets. the fact he has one hand, just an aside. He is no longer the protag. I did consider using Tony. The actor the part is written for would certainly like that, lol... and as much as I'd like to, I feel that this piece seems to be a natural ensemble.
I've killed all of the Russian and actual Colombian connections, although I've kept the Colombian characters they are now just another gang.
To be honest mate, I feel this has another couple of drafts before it is actually ready to go out anywhere, so I've got some graft to do, especially as I want to do this as an ensemble.
I get your point on the fire escape. That was meant to be a smoking area... if it crops again in this draft i'll be sure to make that clearer.
Yeah... that's pretty much how it works. Especially lower down the scale. They buy the coke, cut it down into party bags and make 3-4 times what they paid for it. And it sells fast. You can sniff as much as you want. Especially the party stuff cut with glucose. If they didn't cut it and sold it fairly they would still double their money.
In the UK most clubs are not drug friendly. It's only the underground type clubs of which there are very few if any around these days. Or maybe it's just because I'm out of the loop. Great places to go, but prone to being closed down by the police or raided. They prefer you buy your drugs from the dealers inside. So if you get caught with drugs, even if you are a dealer, they will rob you and still let you in the club where you can buy more drugs from the in-house dealer who is buying his drugs from the security. So in a way they sell them their own drugs back. You can take drugs, they just have to be bought from the house.
Should I explain all of that in a script? I dunno, I may get an opportunity on another draft, this script is changing so much.
I also have Danny knowing Alexander from a previous prison sentence now. Still quite a bit of work to do on this script.
Hi mate. A lot of this has changed now... I'm also turning this into an ensemble piece as that seems to be its natural path. I'll kill the flashback scene at the beginning entirely and just come straight into the action with Alexander on the streets. the fact he has one hand, just an aside. He is no longer the protag. I did consider using Tony. The actor the part is written for would certainly like that, lol... and as much as I'd like to, I feel that this piece seems to be a natural ensemble.
I've killed all of the Russian and actual Colombian connections, although I've kept the Colombian characters they are now just another gang.
To be honest mate, I feel this has another couple of drafts before it is actually ready to go out anywhere, so I've got some graft to do, especially as I want to do this as an ensemble.
Hey Dustin,
A lot is changing! You could argue that this draft was an ensemble piece to be fair so I can see why you've decided to go that route. I guess with all the changes, it could basically be considered a new first draft once completed. Will it still be a revenge tale? I mean, if you're not solely focusing on Alexander that is.
Yes it will be a new first draft utilising much of the old one, but completely new in so far as plot. Turns out that first draft was little more than a huge treatment with character development. Not a bad thing exactly... but it will teach me to contain story ideas to cards and a board until I am really ready to write them from now on. I have a treatment ready to go that I wrote ages ago. I'm going to do it next, because it's just waiting for me to write it.
I literally chose to write Out with the Old on a spur of the moment after meeting some actors and seeing what they can do. Also what the indie producers I'm meeting seem to be into. So If I can get films made with these guys I'm prepared to write what they like. I can write my own stuff too... and gangster stuff comes easy to me anyway.
This will still be a revenge tale of sorts as the plot centres around the actual takeover now. Or it will on the next draft. I'm thinking of making Honey the protag. I've already made her the boss over Tony and Johnny. The old cliche where her husband dies leaving her in charge but also weak, resultant defections, hence the takeover. I really do like that idea and I think I will run with it on the next draft. I'm aware that it is fashionable these days to write strong female characters, so I'm going to give it a go. I'm going to treat her just like a man, she is a woman in a man's world, just like Thatcher (RIP)... I may even have her taking male hormones. But I will also attempt to show her feminine side... maybe have her jumping on a chair when she sees a mouse? J/K.
Thanks for your patient responses mate. Good luck with your own stuff... and let me know if I can return the read.
Pages: 
Author
Out with the Old
Logged
then a script like this would be impossible for you to write without lots and lots of research. The fact I penned it in a week is merely testament to my experience in the field and as such is actually an unfair example. Easy for me because it is an ex profession of mine.
Honestly, Dustin, half the time I don't know what you're talking about.
Locked Board