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.
The opening was confusing as hell for me. I really had a hard time getting my bearings.
And I am getting more confused as I go along.
The dialogue didn't ring true for me given their predicament.
Look, you took on a tough task here - the slow reveal of a plane crash. So kudos for that. However, I don't think you executed it clearly - I had to keep re-reading passages to get my bearings straight.
Agree with the sappy dialogue. Perhaps trying too hard to juxtaposition the romance with the apparent airplane crash. As for their predicament. in the end we see they are simply actors on a set waiting out a shooting delay, NOT victims of a crash
Nice misdirection, but the point of this story is just to get to that reveal ó the rest doesnít do it for me, Iím afraid. I found myself thinking, how can this couple be so lovey dovey given their situation? That, right there, took me out of the story as their was no explanation, other than anniversary and Valentines Day, why they would act this way after a plane crash. The rationale has to be more profound. The reveal was good, but by then it didnít matter to me and still have no explanation why they were acting like this ó other than the fact they were madly in love.
Also, unless youíre shooting this yourself, this read like a shooting script ó camera angles and such. Doesnít work for a spec script.
I liked that this was different. You chose to tell the story in a way (with the camera panning back) and stuck with it. The reveal of carnage and death was pretty well done. I didn't find it very funny. Others might.
Then, the ending. The twist didn't work for me, sorry to say.
Methinks this is tricky. I like the fact you didn't go for a vanilla writing style, and that you put voice into your stage direction. The reveal towards the END. While I applaud your efforts for doing something different... romance... plane crash... it went over about as well as a peanut butter and petroleum jelly sandwich for me.
Not trying to sound trite, but I didn't find any of it funny. But hey, I have no dog in this fight. Kudos for finishing.
THE HUNT FOR D.B. COOPER
GHOSTS OF APPALOOSA
RISE OF THE AMAZONS
THE SLEEPING TIGER
"When I dive... I go deep, only to surface the hub when necessary."
This is written like a shooting script. Sure people say you can use camera direction, regardless I think it distracts from the story. I also believe there is a creative way to write almost any camera direction as action to give the same effect.
Does anyone else shout CAPPED action to themselves? Itís also something I'm not particularly a fan off.
With a frustrated groan, the pretty tongue extends further and Cal rewards it with only the briefest lick.
The champagne salvage ends with lips together in a wet, lubricated kiss.
I'm not sure sexy is your thing. A lubricated kiss?
Okay so the camera directing was more part of the story, for me it still takes me out of the read.
I think this script has potential if it was cleaned up a bit.
Not too much comedy from what I could tell, but seemed to hit all the other markers.
I want to like this. But, in the end, I don't think I did.
The camera direction was incredibly distracting. It makes more sense with the twist, but, still I'd lose it.
The basic premise is fun. Twice. A couple in a plane crash, realizing they're probably going to to die, but still "celebrating" together. Nice. Then, the twist that they're actors on a set. Also nice. So, why didn't I end up liking the final product?
I think it's because it was all too confusing. Losing the camera direction would go a long way, but also consider losing the slow rollout of the "predicament." That is: set it up in the most direct way possible. Then hit us with the first twist. Set up the new reality very simply again and hit us with the second twist.
There's a lot to like here, if you clean it up.
60 Feet Under - Low budget, contained thriller/Feature The Hand of God - Low budget, semi-contained thriller/Feature
Many shorts available for production: comedy, thriller, drama
It was a bit of a frustration to read it. All the capped sentences took me away from the read. I don't see the importance of not showing them in an airplane at once, then showing them in seats and only on p3 revealing they are indeed in an airplane.
How can camera movement reveal dangling oxygen masks? When did the masks get down? That's when they are revealed - when they get down.
The premise is a bit hard to buy somehow. Might be just me.
As others have said - It's a laboured read, I get into it, then I'm pulled straight back out
"THEY SIT IN AIRPLANE OR MAYBE BUS SEATS" - Which one is it?
I'm liking the dialogue.
I like the idea of a continually moving camera moving backwards - But i'm trying to picture it - how far away from the characters are we now if I can see landscape? Will I be able to see what the characters are doing? or maybe I am misreading where the camera is supposed to be - I dunno - but now I am ignoring the camera directions and picturing it myself, it's easier.
Nooooo! They are actors on a set? I hate that, I was really liking the survivor of a plane crash angle, they have no hope but they have each other kind of thing - Now, those who crave realism would hate that, but I don't want realism (I get that in real life) I want a magical story right now... I feel so disappointed lol
I almost never point out grammar and spelling - but one thing I am seeing a lot (not just in screenplays, but everywhere) is people using 'loose' instead of 'lose'.
I like it but I really don't like the twist ending.
First off, lose the address and phone number. The internet is full of weirdos and if youíve attached an email address and someone likes the script, theyíll be in touch.
You know how to write, youíve done it before, thatís clear. Get rid of the camera directions, you can add these within your descriptions without the need for clear and dictated directions, just word it more clevererer. The beginning is confusing and I take my hat off to you for that, as by the end it made sense and read clearly, very well done.
Romcom?? Not for me, plays like a drama with a post romantic angle and very little on the comedy front. Overall, really good writing on show, nice story but get rid of the directions and off the mark for the challenge required.
P.S. Who knew there was a Walla Walla in the States too? Learn something every day.
Luckily, I didn't take notes as I read, because if I had, this would be a very long review, and IMO, this doesn't deserve a long review.
I'm not going to point anything out specifically, I'm just going to comment.
All the "reveals" you write here, will not show up like you think in a filmed version. Maybe very, very few , so what we have here is a case where you've fooled most of the readers, and even fooled them into believing this would transfer to film the way it's written. Sadly, it would not...not even remotely close.
There seems to be some other flaws here that no one is getting...or else, I'm the one who's not getting it. I'll be very interested to find out if I'm correct.
So, you have this written like it's all being shot in different ways, because...well, well because that's what's happening, right? But is that really the case? I don't think so. My take is that this is during a break in shooting, the actors are actually a couple in real life, and it is actually their anniversary and Valentine's Day, but they're 3 days late in shooting, so instead of spending their anniversary in a beautiful tropical locale, they're stuck here.
If I am correct, then all the exact camera shots and angles don't make sense. If I'm not correct, then I guess I'm lost.
This isn't for me just based on the chug it is to read, and then the fact that you're just trying to pull the wig over all our eyes, doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy.
To ski or not to ski...that's not even a question.