79 A.D. - Pompeii by Michel J. Duthin - Drama, History - Nautius, captain of the Roman fleet comes back to Pompeii, his birth town after a brilliant career on sea. He brings with him Nikias a Greek man who saved his life during a pirate battle. In town Nautius meets Sila who was a little girl when he left her and who became a lovely young woman. Nikias and him fall in love with her. But Sila is promised to another man, Livius who was Nautius' best friend when they were kids. Livius has become one of the most powerful men in town. Jealousy makes its way between Livius and Nautius. But the Vesuvius is slyly rehearsing his famous show... 134 pages - pdf, format

Michel,

It appears that NAUTIUS, SILA, LIVIUS are you main characters in the story but I'm surprised that you introduced them in the first few scenes as in a book, not a screenplay. And all this came in a Flashback, and then you quickly move forward until NAUTIUS is now 30. How are we supposed to know who is who?

I really think you should get rid of the FLASHBACK in your opening scene headings and make those actual present time scenes and establish the relationships between your main characters when they were young, with actual dialogue, and introduction to their names and who they are, you know what I mean?  Kind of set the tone for what's coming after NAUTIUS returns from the war.

You also started the story with "grainy and scratched, Kodak color 8mm" footage. Do you really need to do that? This is a historical story and I don't think a grainy and scratched footage is really needed. You can easily establish to the reader who these kids are and their history together by giving them some dialogue. Also I was looking forward to see some description of the city of Pompeii itself in the beginning of the story, again to set the tone, but I was a bit disappointed not to see any.

I only read the first few pages of your story and wanted to reflect some thoughts on these pages only, but I promise I will finish it soon. All in all good job on finishing this script, historical screenplays are not easy to write and I remember you saying you took a very long time researching this one. So congratulation on finishing it.

Michel, I WILL review this, eventually... Sorry for the wait.

So I have this theory, that Pompeii isn't actually Pompeii, that's just a confusion.  Romans wrote everything in capitols, so Pompeiilooked like POMPEII.  They also rarely used spaces in their prose, and had these things called Roman Numerals, so my theory is that POMPEII is actually supposed to be Pompe 2.

It makes sense because Pompe is the guy who saved the romans from the pirates, so if their were two cities named pompe, I wouldn't be surprised.  So now the great mystery is: Where is Pompe I?

Quoted from Ayham I really think you should get rid of the FLASHBACK in your opening scene headings and make those actual present time scenes and establish the relationships between your main characters when they were young, with actual dialogue, and introduction to their names and who they are, you know what I mean?

About the flashback:
1/ You don't need dialogue when you can show on screen the relationship between the characters.
2/ The main meaning of the flashback is that an earthquake occured a few years before Pompeii's total annhilation and this is a scene that announces what is coming further in the story.

Quoted from Ayham Also I was looking forward to see some description of the city of Pompeii itself in the beginning of the story, again to set the tone, but I was a bit disappointed not to see any.

There is no description in the beginning because it's mainly the children POV. They don't see the town's magnificence the same way Nautius will see it later (then, you have a full description, don't worry). The town is just a playground for the kids.

Hope this explanation will please you

Michel

Quoted from Higgonaitor So I have this theory, that Pompeii isn't actually Pompeii, that's just a confusion.  Romans wrote everything in capitols, so Pompeiilooked like POMPEII.  They also rarely used spaces in their prose, and had these things called Roman Numerals, so my theory is that POMPEII is actually supposed to be Pompe 2. It makes sense because Pompe is the guy who saved the romans from the pirates, so if their were two cities named pompe, I wouldn't be surprised.  So now the great mystery is: Where is Pompe I?

LOL great theory higgonaitor, but it doesn't go very far. POMPEII is the English form of the Italian name POMPEI. (this is your Pompe I, I guess) English has the pecular way to change the names of the foreigh cities (for example, LYONS in France is only spelled LYON)

Anyway, it was a good laugh.

Michel

Quoted from michel About the flashback: 1/ You don't need dialogue when you can show on screen the relationship between the characters. Michel

Michel,

In a normal screenplay setting when you show a couple walking hand in hand then we know they're obviously in love, and we don't need dialogue to show us that. I agree.
But in your story NAUTIUS was 12 and SILA 6 and LIVIUS is 14. That was on page 1, then on page 2 or 3 and after the Long Fade Out NAUTIUS appears commanding a ship and he is now 30. A 12 year old boy looks alot different than a 30 year old man who may have grown a beard and developed muscles or something. So if I was watching your story in a movie theatre how will I be able to tell that this 12 year old is the same person as the 30 year old man? That's why I said maybe the kids should talk to each other a little, call their names out, fight or whatever. You gave / wrote their names and ages in the beginning, but how do you plan to do that on screen?

Obviously the conflict that takes place later on between NAUTIUS and LIVIUS over SILA will be alot more dramatic if we saw those kids as best friends when they were young. But the only clue to their strong friendship was stated in your synopsis only. And again I should say this is based on the first few pages that I read, maybe you elude to that at some point in the story, I don't know. But all I'm saying thus far is that maybe you should utilize that first page or first scene more effectively and show more of the relationship between the kids who will become lovers later on, and not only use it to showthe Earthquake.


Anyways, like I said earlier I really need to read the whole story first before I make any further comments, and I will do that soon I hope.

Quoted from Ayham Anyways, like I said earlier I really need to read the whole story first before I make any further comments, and I will do that soon I hope.

I hope all your answers will be find through the story.

In fact in this prologue, all the story is told:

the love between Sila and Nautius
the conflict between Nautius and Livius
the town's destruction
even the dock hideout used by Nautius later

Think about it when you read the whole script

Michel

I will do that

I'm just in the middle of writing my own screenplay and will be very hard for me to read a feature length at this time. But I promise I will get to your story as soon as I finish, maybe we'll do an exchange you and I.

I know this probably isn't the place for this and you all can feel free to delete this post if you want, but I think it's kind of interesting.

Roman Polanski has just signed on to direct a movie based upon a novel called "Pompeii". It is said to be a dramatic thriller set against the eruption of the volcano. The budget is estimated at $130 000 000. Shooting will begin this summer in Italy. Head on over to http://www.comingsoon.net for more information. It's not really relevant to this script, but I just thought it was cool.


Cheers, Chismeister.

Hey michel,

I have started reading your Pompii script. Will send a review as i read more.

I enjoy watching history docos so I am curious to see how much homework you you have done for this script and how accurate to the historical details of this time.

Of the top of my head in the year 79 A.D, the roman empire was at its height of glory. the Egytian empire was starting to collaspe due to interference from the Romans and invasions from Persia. Christiantiy was starting to flare up amongst the population of Rome and about to spread across Eurpoe like wild fire.

or something like that.

look forward for the read.    

I am 47 pages into your script. So far so good.

The amount of research you have done for this script is staggering, you really know your stuff. But you don't have to show off. You seem  anal with your historical detail to the point where it is distracting for example you mention the Roman are in a trireme. no one is going to know what is a trieme so why not just call it a Roman war ship. That's what it is and the person reading should have the knowledge to fill in the blanks by imagine Rome in ancient times and visualize the ship. Giving the correct name is annoying and makes me waste time doing a search on wikipedia to find out what the hell you are writing about.

Same again with the gladius then you mention it is a sword. why not just call it is a sword? A gladius means nothing to me cause i am ignorant of what it is. And when you mention sword, because of the location of your story and the setting I am instantly going to imagine a roman sword anyway.

Ohter then that I am enjoying your script. You have set up two story lines and will have to keep reading to see how they will unfold.    

   Once the characters are established and the story is off and running, the plot cruises along at a safe speed.  

So Nikius and Nautius are in love with the same women, but they remain jovial and close friends even as they both crave the same woman and know that only one of them can have her. Plus on top of that you have Lavius who is a bastard politician who uses his power and position to get the woman and stomp over everything he regards as a threat.

The first half is a conventional love triangle with a villain thrown in. While reading I couldn’t get the movie Titanic out of my head. You script shares a lot of similarities with that movie. Friendships are made, people fall in love, a jealous villain inflicts conflict. Big disaster overshadows story and threatens everyone.

It is all good, but I felt you could have spiced it up a lot more with conflict and drama. Have the two friends start to hate and fight each other for example.

Why did you choose this type of conventional story? Did you consider other ideas? Did you go for something that was the most marketable?

It is obvious you went to great lengths doing research for your script. You have captured vividly and with authenticity the culture and society of Pompeii in 79 AD right down to the smallest detail. But the story itself seems contemporary and much to Soapie for the topic you have chosen.

It seems logical to me to focus the story on issues and events that where important during 79 AD.  For example the secret community of Christians who are being hunted down and destroyed by the romans. Give them  a burly hero who protects the Christians and helps smuggle them out of the city or something like that.

That would have had much more historical relevance to your subject matter.  

Quoted from tonkatough You seem  anal with your historical detail to the point where it is distracting for example you mention the Roman are in a trireme. no one is going to know what is a trieme so why not just call it a Roman war ship. That's what it is and the person reading should have the knowledge to fill in the blanks by imagine Rome in ancient times and visualize the ship. Giving the correct name is annoying and makes me waste time doing a search on wikipedia to find out what the hell you are writing about.

I disagree. I didn't know what a "Roman Trireme" was either; however, looking at the context clues in the sentence, I was quickly able to figure it out. The sentence states:

A ROMAN TRIREME skims the sea off over the dark blue
waters, her white square sail swollen by the wind.

What else has a "sail" and "skims the sea" but a ship of some sort? Although I can understand how a script with too many technical terms may become less than fun to read, so far I haven't felt that with this script.

Hey Michel,

Seeing as this is a big one, I figure I'd break my review into parts, to make it easier to swallow...

pg. 2 – You’re giving information here that can’t be shown on screen. How do we know these are “prisoners of war, chosen for their brawn and endurance?” Their nationalities can’t be shown either. I’m not sure they’re even of any consequence. This is a heavy read. If there’s stuff that’s written that can’t be shown, get rid of it. It’s unnecessary bulk.

pg. 3 – “...none of them talk or even sing.” This is also unnecessary bulk. If you don’t say otherwise, it can be assumed that none of them talk or sing. No need to make note of it. If something can be assumed without being written, it should stay that way.

pg. 5 – “Unchain the rowers.”

pg. 6 – “Row well and you will be awarded.” I believe you mean rewarded unless Nautius is going to give them medals for good rowing. Somehow I doubt he would do such a thing.

pg. 13 – No need to put “swords” in parentheses. The word “unsheathe” implies a blade of some sort. Or you could simply say “swords” instead of “gladius.” You seem to be using a lot of large words to describe things. Some words people unfamiliar with history might not know the meaning of. Most of them can be deduced simply by paying attention to the script but if you have any doubt that people won’t know what you’re talking about, I suggest you go with the simpler.

pg. 14 – “Bearded pirate.”

pg. 15 – Lose the parenthetical under NAUTIUS.

pg. 19 – Lose the END OF THE FLASHBACK. The slugline below it already indicates such.

pg. 22 – If Nautius believes Nikias will kill him now that they are even, why does he surrender? It makes more sense for him to take a defensive stance. Of course, Nikias’ response would be the same. I just think Nautius’ passivity rings false. He’s a fighter after all.

pg. 24 – “And with a straight talking, by Jupiter.” I have no idea what Plinius is trying to say. Did Greeks have an accent the Romans didn’t understand? I’d rephrase this.

pg. 33 – “We’ve both dug out the same jewel.”

I think the details of Nautius’ father’s death should be discussed at the tomb rather than immediately after the revelation that he is indeed dead. Nautius is obviously heartbroken. It’d make more sense for the rest of the scene to take place at the tomb when Nautius has been able to calm himself somewhat. You could cut to the tomb as soon as Nautius says “Dead?”

pg. 39 – “They were friends.”

pg. 46 – I believe “chicken” is a modern-day expression

pg. 56 – It rings false that Nautius would back down from accepting Sila’s proposal. I understand Nikias and he go far back but he and Sila go back even further. Just have the woman’s shriek come before Nautius has a chance to respond.

Also, the following phrase can be reworked to read “A MIDDLE-AGED shrieks and gasps as she points in one direction.” Descriptions always read stronger with the absence of “ing” verbs. Look out for other instances of this.

pg. 58 – Romans were all Christians. It doesn’t make sense Livius would refer to them in such a disgusted manner.

More later...

I'm about halfway through the script and I'm still not sure what's going on. You've spent an awfully long time developing your characters, which is good, but at the expense of the story. There's no conflict as of now. I suspect this Livius is meant to be the villain yet I still don't have much of an idea who he is. Then, of course, there's the volcano. Of course, it's going to erupt towards the end but I just don't feel there's the sense of impending doom there should be.

My advice right now would be either to cut down on stuff you don't think you need early on or establish conflict earlier on in the story. I won't hassle you too much about length though. Considering this is a historical epic, I imagine you can take some liberties as far as running time is concerned. Nevertheless, people need to know what's going on early in the story.

I'll keep reading...