Werewolves of London by John - Short - {no logline} A WOL script. 3 pages - pdf, format

John,

An interesting take on the challenge. All narrative with a few words of dialouge. I liked it! The approach is similar to my WOL story but your's is easier to follow. Your style borders on the prose side of writing. The punch line was good for this piece-- though I was hoping for more based on the build up.

Gary

An interesting take indeed...and a late take.

IMO, there are many problems going on here, even though it "reads" rather nicely.  But, it reads and looks like a short story, not a script.

Nothing is happening here.There's no story, whatsoever, an no dialogue, either.

Not sure what your experience is, but this appears to be either an experiment-type script, or a first effort-type script.

Interesting though.  Take care.

Quoted from Dreamscale An interesting take indeed...and a late take. IMO, there are many problems going on here, even though it "reads" rather nicely.  But, it reads and looks like a short story, not a script. Nothing is happening here.There's no story, whatsoever, an no dialogue, either. Not sure what your experience is, but this appears to be either an experiment-type script, or a first effort-type script. Interesting though.  Take care.

Thanks for reading, its much appreciated. Although, if you're not sure about the author's intent, maybe you should ask first before knocking it.

To address your points, I don't agree that dialogue is necessary here. In fact, I think it's more challenging to write something without dialogue. Usually, the mistake I find in most beginning writers is the overabundance of trite, unnecessary dialogue. So it was a deliberate choice in omitting dialogue here.

Also, I don't agree that it reads like a short story vs. a script. I'm not sure how you differentiate between the two, but IMO the primary question that should be asked is the writing visual? For me, the absence of dialogue doesn't automatically change a script into a short story. As for nothing happening, you may have a point, but again that was my choice to emphasize mystery over conflict. This was more about raising questions about the creature and what he's doing out and about, which is answered in the end.

With this challenge most people went in the direction of the fanciful, taking the basic elements from the song and adding things (i.e. vampires, werewolf hunters, police inspectors, etc) that were not originally there. I chose to go the opposite route towards a minimalist approach, without adding extraneous elements. I thought this would be more challenging. And as for there not being a story, ask yourself is there a beginning, middle, and end, along with a main character? Here, we're introduced to the werewolf, follow him around as he goes about his business, and tie things up and end on a button. You may not agree, but I think it has the basic elements of a story. Also, I tried to keep the theme in keeping with the song itself, a humorous mix of the fearsome and mundane. The werewolf is definitely a creature to be feared, but he also gets Chinese food and drinks Pina Coladas. So in my depiction, people have a natural aversion to him/it, but he's able to engage in mundane activities. Also, I wanted there to be a surrealness that's almost dreamlike, like where he encounters the Queen and Lon Chaney, before they disappear into the fog.

And you're right it was late. I wrote it after seeing the stories already posted on the SS main page. I read some of them, then listened to the song, and wanted to take a stab at it. It was definitely a fun break. Had I known beforehand, I would have gotten it in sooner and submitted it for judging. But I didn't, and I wrote it just for fun. now back to the grind...

Hey John, sorry, but in this type of situation, a reader does not ask the writer what his intentions are.  He merely points out what his reactions and feelings are.

Dialogue is not necessary in a script, although it's few and far between when no dialogue is used.  If that's what the challenge happened to be, that's totally cool, as it wasn't, though, it was a choice you chose to take, and that's cool in itself.

The differences between a script and a short story are obviously many.  My point is that you chose to use 3 pages to “show” a werewolf walking along the streets of Soho, drinking a pina colada, getting take out beef chow mein at Le Ho Fook’s, and bringing it home to his wife…which you then sum up with an aside, telling us the joke is that he is late with dinner once again.

IMO, that’s not much going on for 3 pages, with zero dialogue, no real characters, and no real story.  If we transposed a regular man into the werewolf’s character, would you still feel you had a story here?  I would not, personally.

I didn’t mean anything about it being late. I was just surprised when another and another WOL script popped up.  At first I thought this was the 2nd placing script from John Carlson, as all you had was “John”.

I didn’t mean to be harsh or the like. I was just giving my comments like I always do.  OK?  OK, cool.

Back to the grind…

Quoted from Dreamscale IMO, that�s not much going on for 3 pages, with zero dialogue, no real characters, and no real story.  If we transposed a regular man into the werewolf�s character, would you still feel you had a story here?  I would not, personally.

That's like saying, if a man walks down the street carrying a pistol, and you changed the pistol into a briefcase, would that be interesting? Probably not, but you're changing the very element that makes it intriguing in the first place. So yes, in your example, a man walking around drinking pina coladas and eating chinese food may not be very interesting. But it's not just some dude, it's a WEREWOLF -- that's the difference. You take a werewolf walking around doing the same thing and you have a story.

I think our main point of difference is that there isn't enough activity for you. The werewolf is clearly interacting with his environment, so stuff is happening, it just doesn't rate high enough on your own personal action-meter, which is fair. Perhaps if I threw in a grisly murder and a foot chase, and maybe a unicorn or leprechaun or something, it might be more interesting, but I chose a more low-key type of story. Maybe I'll go with that next time.

But I think the ending might fall a little flat (as Gary pointed out) and could be a little bigger. The introduction of his wife is a bit trite, even if it does help tie things together. But I saw it as a punchline -- you nail it and get out. ba-dum-dum.  

John, no reason to argue here, but I think you continue to miss my point.

OK, so let's transpose the werewolf with a lion...or an elephant...or a circus bear.

Do you have more or less of a story?  You have exactly the same story.  It makes no difference what animal/creature/or whatever kind of character you have.

That's all I'm trying to say.  Scripts do not have to be high on action, and I personally do not remotely require that.  But, there is very little action or anything of interest going on here.

Hope that makes sense. I'm done here.  Enjoy the long weekend!

Quoted from Dreamscale John, no reason to argue here, but I think you continue to miss my point. OK, so let's transpose the werewolf with a lion...or an elephant...or a circus bear. Do you have more or less of a story?  You have exactly the same story.  It makes no difference what animal/creature/or whatever kind of character you have. That's all I'm trying to say.  Scripts do not have to be high on action, and I personally do not remotely require that.  But, there is very little action or anything of interest going on here. Hope that makes sense. I'm done here.  Enjoy the long weekend!

I'm afraid you're wrong. The WHO that is performing the activity makes ALL the difference. The activity itself may not change, but our expectations do when we change the subject doing it. For example, a little girl going door-to-door selling cookies wouldn't raise any eyebrows, but Rupert Murdoch doing the same thing would.

Or take the line:

"An old man plays chess in the park."

Nothing special. Old men play chess in the park all the time. Change that to "8 year old boy" and then you have the makings of a story. Is he somebody's grandson learning to play chess for the first time, or is this kid a chess prodigy, the youngest grandmaster ever? Change it again to "Death" plays chess in the park, and then you have an entirely different story, as now perhaps the stakes itself change, as someone may be playing for his or her life. So transposing characters makes all the difference in the world, and you have an entirely different story based on who that is.

And also I'm sorry, but you also keep repeating the same things: There's no dialogue, there's no action, there's no story. I responded to these points in my first post. Dialogue isn't necessary here. The lack of "action" is in keeping with the song itself, and the emphasis is placed on the mystery instead. And last, we do indeed meet the requirements of a story. At this point, it appears you're just digging in your heels. I understand the points you've raised, but I think you fail to understand mine.

John, love the avatar, BTW!, I hear you.  I really do.  I don't wont to dig my heels in and be an ass or anything like that at all.

Here's my point, though, and I won't repeat any of the other things I did earlier....sorry.

Your examples make sense for sure.  BUT...by giving those examples, you are using other "stories" to illustrate the point that I disagree with...your "story".

So, take this script's story/plot.  A "character" walks around, eats, drinks, walks home with take out food for his wife...but he's late again.  That's the story/plot here, right?

So, you can then transpose different characters into the lead role.  Let's use a middle aged man first.  Next, we can throw in a 65 year old lady from Tasmania.  And finally, we can use a kangaroo.

Based on the script, as written, does it change the story/plot by using a different character?

IMO, it doesn't at all.  It could, if that character did some stuff based on who or what they are, but if you don't show any of that, the story is still the same story.

You see what I'm saying?  I don't mean to argue, and we can agree to disagree, but I'm just not sure you understand exactly what I'm saying here, and I do definitely understand where you're coming from.

Happy Labor Day.  Party it up!  It's raining here...

Quoted from Dreamscale Your examples make sense for sure.  BUT...by giving those examples, you are using other "stories" to illustrate the point that I disagree with...your "story". So, take this script's story/plot.  A "character" walks around, eats, drinks, walks home with take out food for his wife...but he's late again.  That's the story/plot here, right? So, you can then transpose different characters into the lead role.  Let's use a middle aged man first.  Next, we can throw in a 65 year old lady from Tasmania.  And finally, we can use a kangaroo. Based on the script, as written, does it change the story/plot by using a different character? IMO, it doesn't at all.  It could, if that character did some stuff based on who or what they are, but if you don't show any of that, the story is still the same story.

What we're dealing with here is the principle of INCONGRUITY, and context becomes important. You take one character performing one set of actions, and it doesn't lend itself to any interest. You take a different character performing the same actions, and it instantly becomes more intriguing and you have a different story. If this is the case in the examples I gave, then the same principle applies to my own story as well. Incongruity. If you agree it applies in those other cases, then you contradict yourself when you say it doesn't apply in mine (or continue to misunderstand the point). But this apparently is your position.

Since we're now deconstructing my story, the incongruous element is that you have a werewolf running around doing these mundane activities. You claim that if it were a regular guy going out to buy chinese food and drinking pina coladas, it would be rather dull and not much of a story. and I would agree, as this would constitute 'congruity.' Ordinary people engaged in ordinary activities is not very exciting. But change that to a werewolf doing something ordinary and it presents a different story. Incongruity. Now the reader is left to wonder why a werewolf is eating chinese food instead of people. Incongruity creates the interest. But you continue to state that because these actions are not interesting or exciting in any way, a change in character doesn't change the story at all. And you're wrong. Transposing an incongruous element changes the story itself and the reader's expectations, which heightens the level of interest. Who is this werewolf and what is he set out to do? You wouldn't be asking the same questions of Joe Sixpack.

And you could even make the case that a werewolf running around engaged in regular 'werewolf' activities (i.e. snarling, mauling people, and terrorizing the populace) is less interesting than one going around doing these mundane things. Hence, the author of the song chose to have his werewolf buying chinese food and drinking pina coladas. Ask yourself, was Warren Zevon thinking that he was writing something dull and uninteresting when he wrote his song, or did he choose these particular lyrics because the thought it would be incongruous and funny? And in turn, I just took those lyrics and constructed a simple story around it, with a payoff at the end. In 3-5 pages you're not going to have an epic tale, and in this case you don't really need to overextend yourself throwing in a bunch of extraneous detail when simplicity works just fine. You could say I applied Occam's Razor to this challenge -- hence my explanation that I went a minimalist route.

Also, it's structured as a joke, only you don't realize it until the very end. It's called misdirection. You're led to expect one thing, but then get something different, which is the basis of most humor. A woman and her daughter are out shopping, when the mom tries on a fur coat. Outraged, the daughter tells her mother that some poor dumb beast suffered tremendously just so she could wear that, to which the mother replies, "Don't talk about your father that way." The humor lies in the incongruity and misdirection. You were led to believe the focus was on the poor animal from which the coat was made, but instead you got the husband. The same applies here. The reader expects something supernatural or nefarious, as the main character happens to be a werewolf, but instead you get the most ordinary and mundane conclusion. He wasn't out to maim or murder, he was just out getting dinner, and got sidetracked at a pub, and ended up coming home late with dinner cold. Moreover, even this beast who inspires fear in countless others, ultimately has to answer to someone else when he gets home. The punchline is in the ordinariness of this situation applied to a supernatural being.

Lastly, I think this may provide some insight into your reading of this script, the incongruity aspect that is. I'm guessing that you were expecting congruity. A script that's structured the same as most scripts (i.e. with a normal amount of dialogue), and with a plotline that would be in line with your expectations (i.e. a werewolf running around engaging in mayhem, with somebody else out to get him, either the police or a werewolf hunter), and because you didn't get this, you were thrown for a loop. Hence, your original comment that this must either be a beginner's effort, or some kind of "experimental" exercise. Of which it is neither. The things you didn't comment on are instead the things one should when assessing a screenplay IMO. Is the writing succinct? Is it visual? Was the story easy to follow? Was the tone or mood established effectively? Did it flow well? Was it enjoyable to read? These are the sorts of things that I ask when reading a screenplay, not whether or not there was enough dialogue.

John, this is getting out of hand, man.

The issue here is not congruity or incongruity.  You continue to not address the simple points I bring up.

Substitute a kangaroo, elephant, circus bear, or shark into your story.  DOES IT CHANGE THE STORY ONE SINGLE BIT?  No, it does not.  The story is the story you have written.  It contains exactly what you chose to write here, nothing less, nothing more.

You seem to be saying that because you chose a werewolf as your lead character, the incongruity of the situation makes for a great, fun, and engaging story.  It does not.  It would be the EXACT SAME STORY with any character, or any kind of character.  Again, just transpose any of the creatures I mentioned above.  How would it change the story?

Please, just answer this question.

Let me ask you a question first, did any of what I posted earlier make any sense to you?

Of course they make sense.  I've said that at least once, if not more.

A few posts up is when I asked you to transpose a different kind of character into your story, and tell me how it changes it.  You didn't address that still, and went into the congruity/incongruity diatribe.

I completely understand what you're saying and where you're going with both your script and the discussion.  I just wish a few other would jump in and give their take on both issues.

Quoted from Dreamscale Of course they make sense.  I've said that at least once, if not more. A few posts up is when I asked you to transpose a different kind of character into your story, and tell me how it changes it.  You didn't address that still, and went into the congruity/incongruity diatribe. I completely understand what you're saying and where you're going with both your script and the discussion.  I just wish a few other would jump in and give their take on both issues.

At this point I'm not sure if this is really a genuine exchange of ideas/differences, or if this is just a pissing contest for you and I'm just wasting my time. And it's a good reminder to me for why I don't spend a lot of time posting on message boards. But assuming that you're arguing in good faith, let me lay out what I think our differences are.

You define a story as just the static events that take place. Therefore, you continue to argue that if you transpose different characters into that role, the story remains exactly the same. My position is that the reading of a story is not the static, one-sided exercise that you believe it to be. The reader brings his/her own set of expectations and interpretations into the experience. So if you change the main character, you also change the reader's expectations as well, and I gave several examples. You agreed that this is the case in the chess in the park example, but you disagreed this is the case in the werewolf story. Why? If you're going to be consistent, then it shouldn't matter who you have playing chess, be it an old man, a child or Death. Regardless of who it happens to be doing the action, you just end up having chess being played in the park. This is your position, whether you understand it or not. But your logic is inconsistent. You agree this is the case in one example, but then disagree that is in another. Which leads me to believe you don't really understand it at all, but moving on...

To answer your question, if you could just randomly transpose the main character from werewolf to Joe Sixpack (which is in itself an bullshit argument on your part as it completely does away with the author's intention and context), it would indeed change the story, or at the very least change how the reader interprets the story. If I read that a werewolf is walking around the streets at night I have a different set of expectations than if it's a man, a woman, or in your case a circus bear, shark, etc... Does this make sense? But regardless, the introduction of an incongruous element does create a greater level of interest than if it were a completely congruous character in its proper setting. But let's continue with your flawed line of thought. If I read that a circus bear is walking around the streets of London, I'm wondering if this is intended to be farcical or serious. Did the bear recently escape from the circus and is wandering around, a potential danger to the poor unfortunate soul that crosses its path? Or is this a Disney tale in whose world circus bears can just roam about town willy-nilly. Transposing a bear into the story changes my reading of it, and I'm left to try and figure out what's going on here, which does not take place if it's Joe Sixpack. The same applies to a shark, elephant, or whatever random situation you try and think up, how does a shark walk around on land without legs, and won't it suffocate? You see now why your argument is ridiculous? You can't just transpose a different character into a story, it doesn't work, and it completely disregards the author's intent. We hear stories about this happening when clueless studio executives offer notes asking the writer to change random details causing the writer to bang his head against the wall.

But let me try another example, lets say you have a story where a child get separated from its parent, and is abducted. Now the parent is in a desperate search to find the child before its too late. This can either be an ominous true-life drama, or Finding Nemo. In a real life situation, you have a completely different read than if it's a cartoon fish, but in principle the story remains the same. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this to you, assuming that you're not just trolling.

I'm not gonna take part in the argument here, I'm just gonna give a review.

The story is just....okay. Nothing much happened. Just a werewolf walking down the street, sightseeing, and bought take-out home. There doesn't seem to be a proper setup and payoff, and so, it reads like a scene out of a bigger story.

Another problem is the stylistic writing. Try to use more direct and short, crisp words. What you currently have kinda slows down the read.

Good effort for incorporating the lyrics into the script.


Herman