The Killing Gene by Tim Ratcliffe (trojan) - Short, Supernatural Thriller - A man has his beliefs put to the test when he is confronted with an offer he simply can't refuse. - pdf, format 8)

Enjoyable.

Would also work well with the limitations of the software. It's one of the very few I've read that seems to fit into category.

The dialogue is quite excessive and expositional, but that's not a major concern. Some parts felt like they'd been done before a little bit and the whole concept is not hugely original, but it still tinkled along nicely enough.

Not much more to say really.

I could definitley see this as a moviestorm movie.

This is an engaging read. Well thought out. Many will, no doubt, enjoy it.  And with good reason. There is much to like.

Good show, outside of the grammar and spelling that seems to be running amok all over this particular OWC...

A little too chatty in some places, waxing philosophical about the nature of evil gets a little dry after a while.








***SPOILER ALERT***

Liked the twist with the cell phone in the alley; very cool. I don't why he just took Edgar's word for it when he was informed of the situation at his house...Seems that he would want some kind of evidence, however, given the nature of Edgar, I suppose it works in context of the story...

David is a bit cowardly; suddenly given the power to do the dispicable act, he chooses to take out a harmless hobo. Why not make it count? Take out the corner drug dealer or the known pedophile in the neighborhood.

Liked the ending. I often wondered why these other voices  people hear always tell them to kill people. They never say helpful things like volunteer to help the poor or anything like that.

Good insight, and a good job overall.

So, right off, this title appeals to me a great deal.  I am a big fan of the sciences, as some may know.  And there has, in fact, been some debate as to whether one might be genetically predisposed to antisocial behavior.

But unfortunately, this was less about science and more about convoluted killing schemes.

However, inside those parameters, this story works just fine.  It has a brisk pace, some twists in the right places, and a good conclusion.

After being thoroughly confused by the last piece I read -- making for a difficult review -- it was nice to find such a straightforward piece could easily make for a contender in Cornetto's little project.

I only wish there was a bit more science to it, as promised by the title.  A-

I had actually considered you as a possible author, bert, but I guess you have quelled that thought.

This is my favourite to date. Yes, it is does suggest and lean on a few previous films - the opening spoke to 'I Am Legend', to me - but it tells a pretty large story in short space, and does so well.

No real comments regards improvements, 'cos it works as it is, but maybe he could have a reason to not test the phone prior to carrying out the killing; reason being that rather than being drawn into a clever deflection with the number being cut off, I wondered why he hadn't already called it.

It veered out of the machinima tone visited in Michael's reel, but it does speak to the audience and is fully deserving of some form of production.

I have a strong suspicion of who this is, and it would be a departure and improvement for that person; so I hope it is.

Andrew

I liked this one pretty much.  As BW said, there are some issues, but not nearly as many as most of these scripts.

Problems I had were that it had a definite Saw feel to it, which is getting very old at this point.  It was also way too chatty, with 2 characters sitting talking for long periods of time, with nothing going on around them.  Biggest issue is like BW mentioned, so many possibilities to not proceed with the killing...go to his house and check it out...remove the knife and even the body if he has to.

A little confused as to why this "Edgar" dude is doing this...who is he, is he God?  Satan?  I doubt that Sullivan is just whacko, as it sure doesn't come off that way.

Easily one of the better scripts so far.  Good job!

Creepy, cerebreal.

Kinda reminded me of the premise from "The Box". I liked the line where David says "These people have a psychological imbalance that causes them to create certain scenarios that only exist inside their minds as a way to justify their dark impulses".   That could easily apply to the creative process of a screenwriter, too.   Art imitates life.   You should've given David the name "Gene" to match the title.  

Nice work.

P.S. - I've seen this Writer's work before. Don't know why he puts the two words "thankyou" together.  Is that a UK thing or just a reoccurring typo?  

I liked this one. My favorite so far as well.

I loved how Edgar goes from his science type talk on page 3 then ups the stakes for David in an instant by saying there's a body at his house. That was perfect timing.

My only little gripe would be, if I were David, I would have dialed the number before shooting anyone. Testing the phone in other words.

Great job! :)

This was good.

A little too chatty in certain areas, but it's a good concept executed from something that's very complex to something that's actually pretty simple.

Two parts in here were pretty chilling; the part where David calls the clean up team but gets the recording.  Real sense of dread there.  The other was the very ending where the camera from David's interview stops on him.  It's simple, but after what he just went through and experienced, it's a creepily effective ending.

Good job.

Greg

Yeah, have to agree...this is the best so far (though that isn't saying too much compared to some of the others).

Concise writing, good premise. The only thing that nagged at me was how easily David made his way back to the basement? Um, i dunno, I sorta went, huh? So he just strolled back there?

Anway, nice effort

Too the writer...

This was good very good IMO.  A few errors but nothing too distracting except the "Thankyou."  I liked the concept and this definitely fit the scope of the "Dark," theme.

I wasn't really surprised in the alley, that the cellphone was disconnect.  Not too much to say, except one of the better one's.

Good Job

Ghostwriter

Hmmm, I have to say this one was more miss for me than hit, though it had its good moments...

Basically I didn't buy the premise - in other words, I have a lot of questions here:

Why does Edgar go through this whole exercise in the first place? His initial reason is a ruse, and I sniffed him out as the devil / someone who couldn't be killed right away. It was obvious he did not work for a corporation. Actually, if he did, the story would be more plausible. As it stands now, he did a dastardly thing to David because he knew he secretly longed to kill? A stretch IMO...

Second, I don't buy that the public would have no sympathy for someone who was born to kill. This argument is not so much nature vs. nurture, but free will vs. pre-destination. If I am "part of God's plan", so to speak, and I must kill you to fulfill that plan, then what choice did I have? I'm blameless. And so would be the killer who was genetically programmed to kill. You can fight against environmental influences, but not who you are "hard-wired", or even pre-destined, to be.

Then again, since Edgar's speech here was part of the ruse, maybe it doesn't matter?

Lastly, David is set up for a murder, and must kill - to save himself. Not his wife, his children, etc. His choice is take a human life or go to jail. What would you do? I would go to jail. So David becomes thoroughly weak-willed and unlikeable (and I agree with Blakkwolfe - picking a homeless guy is the easy way out).

Then again, it proves Edgar's point - that David was a killer all along. But I ask again - why the exercise in the first place?

I guess it's good and thought-provoking writing if I'm asking so many questions. Overall, a good idea that may have suffered from some execution problems.

The killing gene. It's always there. Some just need a little push. Ha ha ha. Good stuff!

I think this one could be one of Cornetto's picks, and if it isn't well, I think it would be easy to film for someone else.

I liked this, but I agree that the bum guy should have been spared. Too easy. I'd like to see even more conflict there. I know there already is afterward with the call, but I'd like to see it upped even more, maybe he ends up having to shoot a cop. ???

Great job for a OWC, but then again, I'm positive that I know who wrote this, and when you enter a script for these challenges yours are always one of my favorites.

Cindy

This ones been pretty well reviewed and I can see why. Very good flow to it. Good setup and payoff. Really got nothing else to add that somebody already hasn't. This should be in the running to get made. Good work...  James

I'm really sorry to have to be the guy to rain on your parade, since there are a lot of people who really liked this, but it didn't really work for me, I'm afraid. Having seen the praise everyone else gave it I was expecting something exceptional, and this...wasn't. At least, not IMO.

Surely David would need some sort of proof that Edgar was telling the truth? I just think he accepted the whole situation too easily. I know you could argue that since he was really talking to a figment of his own imagination he didn't need that much convincing to do something he already wanted to do, but for me it still doesn't work. Edgar doesn't exist...so is this 'Will' guy even dead? Did David do that, too? You leave that loose end flappin' in the breeze at the end.

The writing and so on is fine, but it seemed to me that for the most part the dialogue was almost purely expositional and pretty nuts-'n-bolts; it did its job, but nothing more.

Everyone else seemed to like it, so clearly I'm in the minority here. But I never really got into this, despite wanting to like it. Whether people are born 'evil' or not is a question that intrigues me, but I never felt like you were addressing what seemed to be the intended core of your script. It just never felt dark, or engaging, or real, for me.

That all seems really harsh, but I'm just disappointed after the hype and praise others gave it. Sorry!

You're not alone, Jonny. Although I do feel it's one of the "better" scripts, it really didn't work for me either.

I would say it's easily 1 of the best 10 or so, but so much of it was down right dull, and the premise itself was pretty weak.

Hey, we agree on something, huh?  Cool.

Don't mean to bash this script in any way, cause my feelings are that it is pretty good, but not nearly as good as most are calling it.

Oh yeah. That's what I'm talking about. I was initially worried about this one when they started in on genetics, but it redeemed itself very, very well. It still feels a bit talky to me, but I liked the story as a whole and the ending was beautifully executed. I also liked how the question about the body upstairs remains unanswered. Is it there? Is it not? Did David actually kill him? Nicely done.

EDIT: As a follow-up to some other comments, psychological horror is a thing for me, so that very likely influenced my like of this one. I think the open-endedness of the end worked better than trying to tie up the loose ends. Sometimes leaving them untied does work. Since this questions reality, the question remains out there.

I liked this one pretty good!  Nice work.  

AS has been said, a little too chatty.  But I liked the cell phone in the alley.  And the homeless guy works, becuase hes someone who didn't deserve it.

My Number two most favorite so far!

I thought this one was put together fairly tight. Good structure, nice setup (and nice transition in the beginning). Talky for sure but it needed a certain amount of exposition. You can always argue whether David makes the correct choice or not but that's the choice he made. Some good twists in there but the reveal of Edgar in the end cheapened the story somewhat in my opinion. Whether he's God or the Devil is really irrelevant to me - it was more David's choice that interested me in this piece.

Quoted from sniper but the reveal of Edgar in the end cheapened the story somewhat in my opinion. Whether he's God or the Devil is really irrelevant to me.

I am surprised how many people are missing the point to this one -- and it must be driving the author crazy.

SPOILERS AHOY

Quoted from from the script ...These people have a psychological imbalance that causes them to create certain scenarios that only exist inside their minds as a way to justify their dark impulses.

Edgar never existed -- only in David's head.  David is one of the very types of people that he studies.

Bert, although that indeed may be the author's intention, it really doesn't make any sense, if you think about it.

Why in the world, all of a sudden, would this intelligent, well studied man, just flip like this?  Right after finishing his studies and writing a book?  Just doesn't make a Hell of alot of sense IMO.

I think that's why people "aren't getting it".

Now, I completely agree that people can be of a certain mindset to killing...and even contain such a thing as a "kiler gene", but I do not think that it just manifests itself all of a sudden.

People are either killers, or they're not killers, as in being predisposed to be able to kill.  There's just no reason whatsoever that this guy would decide 1 day he wanted to go kill a homeless guy and fuck the rest of his very successful life away.

That's my take at least.

Just to chime in here on this one.  I read something entirely different here.  I may be wrong but I just checked and it is a possible interpretation.

Edgar was trying to make David change his mind about the gene.  So he created a scenario where any man - even David - would kill.  And David does as expected proving himself wrong.  But unknown to David until the end, the gun is filled with blanks. He never actually killed the homeless guy,  it was all a set up.

Hmmm, that sure didn't come across in the script.

What is Edgar, then?  Maybe Edgar Winter's ghost?  I can't remember if it said anything about him being an albino or not...

Edgar is who he says he is

"I represent a large corporate law firm.
The specifics aren’t important, but your
research could prove very damaging to
some of their most important cases"

"A jury is not going to have much sympathy
for a person who is supposedly born evil,
Mister Sullivan. Part of their defence
strategies hinge on convincing the jury
that environmental factors contributed to
the defendant’s crimes. Unfortunately
your book seems to contradict that."

"We need you to testify in court. To
retract your conclusions in your book and
to convince the jury that genetics are
not the sole cause in the case of these
crimes."

This theory doesn't work or make any sense...

"BANG! A bullet hits him right between the eyes.

He drops to the ground like a sack of bricks.

He inches his way slowly up to the body, looks to make sure the guy is dead.

David looks at the dead body, then looks around to make sure nobody can see him. All clear."

He obviously killed the guy.  "We see" a bullet hitting him in the head, he falls down dead, David checks to make sure he's dead, etc.

And then, with Edgar, we have the following...

"David FIRES the gun point blank at Edgar.

The bullet hits the wall directly behind him.

Edgar stands there, unharmed.

David looks at the gun, taps the bottom of it a couple times.

FIRES two more shots right at Edgar.

The bullets fly straight into the wall."

So, this theory doesn't fly at all.  Next????

I'm with Bert's theory on this one. Edgar is a figment of David's imagination. We don't know David's background, but given how this one reads, it appears that David is schizophrenic. He sees and believes that Edgar exists right down to creating a believable backstory for Edgar. Granted, it's a sort of classic, and somewhat overused, movie device, but it is used enough to be able to give it almost a complete explanation. This was used in Fight Club, to name one film in particular.

So, it's possible that David's research was based off his subconscious knowledge that he possessed the gene he was researching. We tend to gravitate to whatever is closest to us.

So to me, this one made perfect sense. Jeff, I think you just enjoy punching holes. Nothing said that David was a well-balanced man to begin with. He has that facade on the outside, but what is on the inside? No one can really tell. To name another movie, in Raising Cain, you have a family man who suddenly snaps when all his other personalities start taking over, making him do strange and out of character things. The snapping is not as uncommon or strange as you might suppose.

SPOILERS!

I was confused starting from the interaction between Edgar and Dan to the end. What I think is confusing is that it has alot of twists which kind of don't make sense for this type of short. This is meant for a feature to explain alot of the story.

For example, when Edgar calls someone on the cellphone suggesting the corporation he allegedly works for is true, but then the double cross suggests that was a lie. Not surprise but who did he call? And then the blank bullets?

I would like to know whats going on. lol.

Edgar is the Devil. "I'll be seeing you soon"

The main character has developed a taste for killing whilst researching his book. It says so in the script.

The twist to the whole piece is that it has nothing to do with genetics. The Devil is behind it all (the people with the supposed killing gene gene talk about imaginary voices all the time, which turns out to be true.)

I think if the intention was that it was the genes, then he shouldn't start in an unknown basement. That suggests he's been brought here against his will.

The idea itself that it could be ambiguous and the whole scenario is in his head would work, but he's given a gun and a phone that isn't his...so the strength of evidence is on the side that it's real.

EDIT: I re-read it and I think Bert has it right. At least... that's what the author intends. I think the problem is that Edgar physically moves stuff about on the objective camera. If he is imaginary, he should just point at things that are already there. To move things on the camera suggests he has a physical presence.

I guess it can be read that way, though I took everything at face value. I think it would be interesting to hear from the author as to what he/she intended.

I have to agree with Rick's post, as well as his edit.

George, I don't purposely like punching holes in things, but when they exist, I will definitely bring them up.

There are a number of scenarios here that are possibilities, but IMO, none of them (that we've hit on, at least) really make sense based on 1 thing or another.

Assuming Edgar is all in his head, like Rick brought up, the entire scene with Edgar and David doesn't make sense, unless, again, it's literally all in his head.  But if that's the case, then my question is why write it this way, which is obviously intentionally deceiving, confusing, and ambiguous?

If we're viewing the story from David's viewpoint, then he would believe everything that Edgar is doing is real. It would also not be unheard of for Edgar to hand David items that David already owns, especially if David had lost his mind. Now, perhaps it might be better if David is handed his own gun and given a number to call, but consider this. If "Edgar" gives David a phone, then David believes the phone is not his until he realizes it was all in his head. He could then look back at the phone and notice it's actually his own phone and Edgar gave him nothing. It's trippy and not for everyone, but I would enjoy the heck out of it.

Jeff, you're thinking too rationally for this one. Break free and think outside reality.

I don't think there's any doubt that the author meant Edgar to be a figment of David's imagination.  David even says it himself:

DAVID
Or some random apparition that they
believed was actually real.

Once again we have a script that is a writer's personal twist on a well-worn horror cliche.  The phantom apparition that turns out to be all in the main character's head.  It's been done over and over and over.  It's a staple of the suspense/horror genres because when done correctly it really works.  This piece succeeds on many levels, not so much on others.

I thought all of Edgar's initial explanation for being there was unnecessary and somewhat illogical.  The whole "I work for a large corporation and we want you to testify that your book is all wrong" is simply not true.  Edgar didn't need to say any of this.  I think it would have worked better if he just told David that he believed David's theory was a crock of sh*t and he was going to prove it.  And then he tells him about the body in the house.  Kill or go to prison.  Decide.

I did like the rest of the story.  For a talky script, the dialogue really moved.  A little on the nose here and there, but it rang true to me for the most part.  I think what really made this work for me is that you made David a renowned expert in the field, and then we discover he's got more experience in that field than we thought.  You have to wonder if this has happened before in his life and he just can't remember because...well, he's psychotic.

Anyway, the script is not without its flaws, but well done for an OWC.

Cam, well put.  The dialogue stuff from Edgar about being with the large company, blah, blah, blah, is what makes this not make sense and work, for me, as it doesn't make any logical sense, if we're to believe Edgar isn't real.

Really good observation.  

Quoted from Cam17 I don't think there's any doubt that the author meant Edgar to be a figment of David's imagination.  David even says it himself:

I agree David says that and it may and probably is the authors intention that Edgar is a FOTI.  However, David saying that line - I think after he has already proved it was BS - is another valid interpretation of the script - whether it is an intended one or not.   Or maybe the truth is somewhere between the two.

I loved it. Great story, really thought through. An easy and fast read. Very straightforward.
Thanks.

WTF?  Very straight forward?  Huh?  In what way is it straight forward?

David is awfully dumb. Too gullible. He immediately believes Edgar has a dead body in his home. Doesn't test him to prove the body's there. This could be his subconscious ruminations about killing. But we, the audience, don't see enough of the flaw, the split, between his "good" self and the "evil" self. Instead, David resists Edgar's coercion as best he can, until he finally caves at the pressure.

A plus for the "dark" allusions, both cinematically and in characterization.

But, I feel an inconsistency in David's character as a result. If he truly tested Edgar, instead of being as gullible as he is -- seeing the dead, bloody body and ogling it -- and then later fell under the pressure, his face twisting in self-conflict, then I could buy the ending. As it is, the "dark" David emerging from the "good" David is a gimmick to fulfill this challenge and nothing more.

Very good work here. Kept me on the edge of my seat for the entire script.

The dialogue is the high point here. I don't mind if it's a little bit too talky. Most dramas are like that anyway.

No technical issues here. Quite polished.

Can't wait to find out who wrote this.

Excellent.

I have an alternate theory. David had a psychotic break or an epiphany during his research that led him to his conclusion at the end of the interview. The break is handled like a flashback when the video tape is stopped and restarted.

Reality = interview
Break/epiphany = "flashback" with Edgar, the dead man at his house, the homeless guy
Reality = interview resumes

Whatever. I am probably just repeating what was said by someone above.

Well constructed. Story well told.

Gary

I enjoyed this one quite a bit. Very ambiguous, I've only scanned the comments but it's good to see this has got everyone talking.

I agree with the others who think that Edgar is a fragment of David's imagination and he is exactly the type of person he is researching. It kept me on edge, the stakes were upped after a talky start when he finds out there is a body in his house, then upped again when he finds out the dead body is his ex-wife's new husband. If someone said that to me, I would be pretty freaked out so pressing for proof from Edgar would be pretty far down on my list of things to do. I would grab the gun and go right away too.

I thought the Homeless Guy's dialogue was pretty stiff in places, especially the line about him being a harmless old man.  

Anyway, first one I've read but a very solid entry. I was entertained anyway.

Brian

Thanks everyone for the reads and comments on the script. There has obviously been some debate over certain parts of the story, particularly as to the nature of Edgar. I'll try and clear things up as best as I can, but basically Bert and George nailed it with their comments.

I had the idea for the core concept but didn't start writing it until the last day due to another script I was working on. So about 90% of this was written between 2.30am and 6am after I finished a long shift at work, trying to meet the deadline. The only thing I really had was the basic premise, and all of the extra story and details came to me as I wrote it. Apologies about any typos or mistakes, I only had time to give this one proofread before submitting.

Who is Edgar? Most people seemed to pick up on the fact that he is a figment of David's imagination. Or more accurately, he is a part of his subconscious. I thought the ending where David explains that many killers create certain scenarios that only exist inside their heads would reveal the true nature of Edgar. I wanted to reveal this in such a way that the reader would be able to work it out for themselves rather than have me explicitly state it in the script. It seemed most people got this, but some didn't. May be something I need to make clearer perhaps. I also had Edgar say the line 'Sanity is highly overrated, my friend' as a little clue that David could be insane.

The way I chose to approach the challenge was in regards to the dark places inside the human psyche. Something I've always found interesting is Carl Jung's theory of The Shadow. Basically that we all have dark desires and impulses at times, it's part of what makes us human. The dark parts of ourselves he referred to as The Shadow. And that if we don't acknowledge our Shadow and embrace those darker thoughts, if we push them down and ignore them then they can manifest themselves in disturbing ways.

So my backstory for David is he is a guy who fundamentally fails to accept the idea that all people are capable of having dark thoughts and acting on them. He is a man of science who believes genetics decides if someone is good or bad, not free will. He may be right or he may be wrong, but in my mind he was someone who saw himself as being above the impulses of human nature. He denied the Shadow aspect of his psyche and Edgar is the manifestation of failing to do so. It's also often the case that if you emerse yourself in a particular world for long enough you will start to become consumed by the nature of that world. So David has spent years researching and writing his book on killers and criminals, it is only natural that elements of that have seeped into his psyche and he spends a lot of time thinking about it. That's why I have Edgar say the line
'After all those years of researching the worst kinds of people, you yearned to have a taste of it yourself. I simply illuminated the darkness you have in your own soul.' David says that is not true, then fires the gun at Edgar because deep down he knows it is true.

I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether or not David has killed before. Was the guy in the house really dead? If so, did David kill him? I played with the idea of showing this but in the end decided it would work better to leave this up to the reader to decide for themselves. It could be he killed him, or it could be it was just part of his delusion to make things seem more real.

As for killing the homeless guy, this was intentional. I thought about having him letting the homeless guy live on the basis that he was so poor and defenseless. Then going off and killing someone who deserved it instead, someone he found harming another person. But I decided against it because then he could justify the killing as almost doing it out of necessity to help someone else. A vigilante action to rationalise his killing. Which would defeat the purpose IMO, as I wanted him to act out of self-interest and have no justification for what he did at all. Having him kill someone who arguably deserved it would've made David's actions easier and that's not an option I wanted him to have.

With the ending and how the image comes to rest on David's look, I wanted him to have an intense and haunting look in his eyes. Hopefully so that people would wonder if at this point David has already killed before, or if they are taking a trip back in time to look at the thoughts of a psychopath in the making. I wanted it to be ambiguous as to whether or not David has already snapped or is simply on his way to doing so at the time of the interview.

Oh and as for the physical reality of different props being moved around or picked up by Edgar, George was right when he commented on this. That everything we are seeing exists as David's reality so it is natural that we would see that. He would see Edgar hand him a phone or pick up a gun whereas in reality they are already on the table or he picks them up himself. George mentioned Fightclub, in which I noticed some parallels as I wrote this but didn't set out with the intention to do so.

I am glad people seemed to enjoy this for the most part. As it was a bit of a rushed effort I was worried about how it was going to come across. It's also my first attempt at this sort of genre so overall I am reasonably happy with how it turned out. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to read and comment, any other questions please feel free to ask.

Cheers,
Tim.

Timothy, I just read this script and I thought it was damn amazing.

I liked the ideas in it, and it was very realistic.

The only thing I can suggest is that you don't have the bullets going through the man and into the wall, but he just walks out (we assume he is stilla human). Then it is revealed on the TV that lot's of "evil" is in peoples heads, and it then leaves the audience wondering whether or not Edgar is actually in David's head, or whether he was real.

The above could make it better... just a suggestion.

I also suggest you get to the subconscious bit at the end a lot quicker... like in 5 lines, not a page.

Well done with this, cool scrip, and you went out of your comfort zone which I applaud.

The difference with Fight Club is that it showed in flashes that he was doing it all himself.

We don't have that here.

As it stands it's very ambiguous. That's fine of course, if you want it that way. The story still works and causes a debate which is good.

If you really want it to be clear that your version of events is what everyone takes from it, I think you'll have to amend it slightly as I suggested before.

Rick.

Quoted from Dreamscale WTF?  Very straight forward?  Huh?  In what way is it straight forward?

Just noticed:))

I don't get what you mean though? By straight forward I mean 'focused on one idea', some shorts go astray, but this writer, I think, chose a theme and wrote on it.

IMO, "straight forward" means simple, easy to figure out and understand, no ambiguity, etc.

Yeah, exactly. It's very straight forward. For me.

Do you mean you do not agree with it, or it's the word choice you don't like?

It's far from straight forward, as is obvious by all the differing view points, and perceptions of what exactly is going on and why.

What is straight forward about it?

Same way I say "what's not straightforward about it".

I haven't read the reviews on it... up until now.

Edgar wants to prove David wrong and plays him - it's this simple for me. Plays him well.

This one is my favorite, by the way.

OK, but we already know from the author's mouth that Edgar isn't even a real person.  He's a figment of David's imagination.  Most of this script takes place in David's imagination.

So what you thought was straight forward, isn't even what the story is about.

Understand?

I know that Edgar isn't a real person. Not "from the authors mouth" but from the story. And if it's only David's imagination - all the better. The imagination played him or "something, called Edgar" played him - I don't even wish to know. It's something that doesn't agree with "the bad gene" thing. Maybe a trace of doubt that never left David's mind played trick on him...I don't even question what it is.

By STRAIGHTFORWARD here - I mean it does not deviate from the story.

Straightforward is not always "not ambiguous" - I know I agreed with you, but accidentally really. Straightforward here (for me) is "single thought driven".

Understand?

No, I don't understand, but at this point, I don't think it matters much.

Is Shutter island a "straight forward" flick as well?

Know what - I started looking for Shutter Island short here on Feb OWC and then realized...

I don't know anything about Shutter Island but sense the sarcasm. What can I say - congrats, you've succeded at being sarcastic.

Dude, I'm just trying to make a simple point...and that point is that this script is so far from being straight forward, that I'm amazed this back and forth is still going on.

I don't mean to offend you or put you down, or even say that what you're saying isn't correct.  It is what it is, and straight forward, it isn't.

Dudette!

And, Tim, I apologize for highjacking your thread. I'll stop posting here.

My bad...I apologize.  Someone else informed me awhile ago.  I didn't know and I didn't mean anything bad.

Quoted from khamanna Dudette!

Jeff's inability to distinguish Dude's from Dudette's got him into a real pickle during his last visit to Thailand.

;-)

Quoted from mcornetto Jeff's inability to distinguish Dude's from Dudette's got him into a real pickle during his last visit to Thailand. ;-)

There's some embarrassing video of that online somewhere too.

HaHa...very, very funny guys...and gals.

I sure hope that video doesn't surface.  I thought all 6 of them were girls...I really did.  Sure, I was high as a kite on that Tai Stick we smoked, but they all really looked like chicks!  Well, until something unwanted "popped up".  I freaked and ran out of that shack butt-ass naked.  Luckily for me, there was another brothel a few feet away, that I took shelter in.

I'm not really sure how I ended up married to those twin 22 year olds.  We annulled it 2 weeks later, but, damn, they were fun while I (I mean, it) lasted.  Those bastards revoked my visa and I haven;'t been back since.

I was just scrolling through the movie channels this evening trying to decide what to watch. Something caught my eye because the Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgard was in it. The title was The Killing Gene. I started watching it. It's pretty much about the same idea as this short... :-/

Quoted from Grandma Bear I was just scrolling through the movie channels this evening trying to decide what to watch. Something caught my eye because the Swedish actor Stellan Skarsgard was in it. The title was The Killing Gene. I started watching it. It's pretty much about the same idea as this short... :-/

That's interesting, I've never heard of that movie let alone seen it. In what way is it pretty much the same?

It's basically the same idea.  What will it take for you to kill someone. How far do you have to be pushed? Not saying you copied, but maybe Michael needs to look into it to make sure there isn't going to be a problem. That's all.