Mr. Daniels by Alexander Toplake (Laika) - Short, Gothic Horror - An old hitman gets a visit from from his past. 7 pages, 2 characters, PG-13 Rating - pdf, format 8)

I (my opinion) never really like it when scrips use the word WE to describe stuff. We float through the halls, we open on en empty hall, etc.

I would break up that first paragraph. This is a script, not a novel. Make it easier on the eyes, think of every shot as it's own sentence.

I would drop every reference to the camera. It immediately takes the reader out of the story and lets them know they are reading a script. Use 'camera' for a shooting script.

Drop ing ending words, write in the present. Standing becomes stands, etc.

Who is Andreas? You have him speaking, but I have no idea who this character is. You've only introduced Albert and Daniels.

Lose the continues at the bottom and top of each page.

Using Mr. Daniels as his voice and Emmanuel as his name in the actions will confuse the reader. Stick to one or the other.

I don't know if it follows Gothic Horror really, just my opinion on the subject.

All in all, I know who was the ghost and the only surprising part was the he was in love with him. To me this piece has more backstory than actual story. It's simply two men talking about their past and then we discover one is dead. Kinda boring in my opinion.

Not my favourite.

Good job on finishing.

Opening with a 15 line passage is never the way to go. Lots of "we" stuff everywhere,  Unfilmables, many other issues.

1 passage is as far as I can get here.

Congrats on completing an entry for the October OWC!!

MR. DANIELS

If you’re new to SS, welcome!

When readers look at a script they look for concise clear writing not cluttered. Your style of blocking your descriptive action is the opposite of what reads easily. Readers won’t read it and at least it’ll distract from the read. I usually am not successful at changing someone’s style, but that’s the best advice I can give you right now.

Please, no blocks over two to four lines,

Gary

With some polishing, this one could be very interesting.

A few nitpicks/comments, though:

* I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the descriptions are much, much too lengthy - especially when it's the first thing you see in the script!  Delete any camera directions, any over descriptions.  And for what's left, chop it up into paragraphs no more than three lines long.  That'll make it a much easier read.

* I actually enjoyed the "James Bondish-ness" of the dialogue.  Some might call it a little cliche, but it had a certain style to it which I did enjoy.

* I also really liked the premise behind the spy having a man-crush on his partner.  It's a fresh twist on an older idea, that could ultimately really pan out.

But - the exposition of the dialogue just doesn't tell the story straightforward enough.  It's a little confusing, a touch rigid.  Polish it up, rework it.  Keep the "Bond" feeling going with it, and this could be a fun piece!  It's worth re-polishing, fixing the few typos, and playing with, I think.  :)

I’m pretty fuzzy on how this is a gothic horror story.
But we do have another misunderstood ghost present.
Everything happens through dialogue, not action.
The novelistic prose suffocates any hint of a story.
I couldn’t tell much of what was happening, too much talk.
Ghosts and spies do not a good combo make.
Unsure if this is a transplant or misinterpretation of the rules.
Thanks for playing OWC.

Regards,
E.D.

I'm going to guess this is an early draft and give you the benefit of the doubt that all of the obvious corrections will be made.
The characters are charming and original in many ways, I hope to read a revised version of this script some time.
Great atmosphere.

Sorry, I just couldn't get into this one.
I got lost about halfway in,  found the story was lead almost entirely by ropy dialogue and felt there was nothing Gothic horror here at all.
I'm puzzled why you wrote such a large block of action for the first and last pages. You could have cut these down into four line chunks and the page count wouldn't have gone anywhere near the limit.
I'm sure there is a decent idea in here, just keep working at it.

don't open with a song. not only is it incorrect to do so, but will alienate your script as well (many posters won't read past page 1).

no more than 4 lines of descriptors.

very talky script. makes it difficult to get through. definitely scale it down and insert more action.

overall i think this needs to be a bit more focused and concise. i don't really care about any of the characters and that's a problem. i enjoyed the twist, but this one needs to be revised.

would love to read the rewrite. congrats on completing an entry.

I thought the opening was too lengthy almost like a book. And too much "how to shoot the camera" jargon.

There were tons of grammatical and spelling and cap errors which usually I can ignore but not when there are so many.

I saw the ghost and he was somewhat misunderstood, so that part fits. However, I couldn't find the 'gothic' theme in the story.

I do believe the story has potential with a rewrite though.

Thank you for your entry...look forward to reading more in the future from you.

There’s so much black on the first page, I thought ink spilled on it. Yeah, you need to break that up a little.

Exhales deeply? Is that even possible? Hmm.

Ex: Argentina?

Who’s Andreas? Did I miss something?

Some grammar issues. Your instead of you’re, i instead of I, loosing instead of losing, etc.

I like the dialogue. Until we get to the twist. Then Albert’s dialogue becomes filled with throwaway lines. Other than that, I liked the dialogue.

I’ve noticed a homosexuality theme in a few of the scripts this OWC. I’m all for more gay characters. I just hope they’re not all killers.

Overall, an interesting take on the challenge with some good dialogue. Needs to have the description broken up and streamlined. Otherwise, good job.


Breanne

This one ends as it began... No FADE IN or OUT and a very wordy descriptions of things that could've/ should've been condensed down to no more than 4 lines, preferably 2 to 3.  

I find the (Continues) at the tops and bottoms of each page, as always with this software, to be offensive.   Turn it off if possible.

Not a huge fan of the We see stuff or the We are stuff.  Omit it when you find a better way to bring us into the action.  It might be a personal preference, but by and large most will agree it only distracts cos' we're already in the scene the moment we start reading -- Well, at least we should be.


I don't really like to dwell on what you could've done story wise because it's simply not my story to tell.  It's yours.  If I told you a list of things where I felt you went wrong you'd either not listen to me or worse yet, actually listen and then change it all around.  Maybe for the best -- Possibly for the worst.  Who knows but you?

It kept me scrolling down the page, even with the multiple hang ups I came across.  I agree with a few of the others that the dialogue was well enough and the twist was alright.  Very little in way of meeting the challenge at hand, other than the ghost.  I guess that's part of the uphill climb, right?

Good luck on it.

I'm not sure how i feel with all the Bond references, The Mr. Daniels had me instantly picturing Daniel Craig, not sure if that was intentional or not.

Ignoring the lengthy paragraphs and directions, this started pretty interesting, I thought the diolog was good and it kept me reading.

Not gothic, but I think it fulfils the misunderstood ghost requirement well.  I do think this was a little too simplistic a story with the ghost simply revealing his true intentions through expository dialogue.

Another thing that I didn't get was the 'mole' concept.  How did he not know that he himself was the mole? That kinda confused things for me, felt like a spurious twist.

Not bad, but it lost me in the second half.

Cheers

When I first opened this one up and saw the big block of text, I closed it again. Why? Because it screamed newbie who doesn't know how to write a script and that usually means the story sucks too. After a minute I opened it back up again. Thought I should at least read a few words of it. Being a Bond fan (the older films) I noticed the Walter PPK and decided to continue. As far as reading goes it got easier since the other pages were just dialogue. Halfway through my mind started drifting, but then you dropped the gay thing in there and my interest peaked. I liked that part of it. That's definitely not what people would expect. Then you sort of went too far when they started talking about wanting to be actors. I just can't see hit men secretly wanting to be actors. Didn't ring true for me at all.

So, in short, I liked the premise of a hit man/assassin being visited by a ghost of one of his victims and I liked the gay thing. Now you need to learn the easier part of screenwriting which is formatting.  :)

This didn't work for me at all.  First thing's first - proofread.  Mr. Daniels is referred to as three different names seemingly interchangeably.  A bunch of typos as well, specifically "I" being "i".  And then the giant blocks of text - lose them.  

As for the story I just found it routine and it left me asking the basic questions; why is the ghost coming back, how is the ghost coming back, etc.  I also would have liked to see a greater conflict than just a guy and a ghost talking back and forth.  

Sorry.  Don't be discouraged if you're new to this.  It's hard to write a script in one week.

Greg

Several people commented on the large block of text at the beginning of the story.  No one wants to read those.  Description (and dialog for that matter) shouldn't go further than three lines at a time.  If you have a lot to see, break it in paragraphs.  It organizes your thoughts and gives the reader a chance to breathe.

Quoted Text INT. MANSION - NIGHT We open on an empty hall. The interior is heavy set with dark and timeless furniture. The mansion is clearly owned by a wealthy man with exquisite taste. We float through the hall towards two French doors. They swing open as we reach them, enter a dining room. The camera floats over the table, which is set for one with a glass of white wine and a half eaten fish dish. It continues into the next room and reveals a rugged, sun tanned man with white and gray hair, wearing a loose flax shirt, a wool cardigan, matching trousers and a pair of braided leather shoes standing in the light of a fireplace. With a Walther PPK in his hand, he stands on a balcony. This is ALBERT BAKER (53). As he takes a long, smooth drag of his cigarette, the camera comes to a hold right behind his head. He slowly turns as he exhales deeply.  His voice is rusty and experienced.

can be better told:

INT.  MANSION - DINING ROOM - NIGHT

The room is huge and immaculately furnished.  Two dozen people could sit around the mahogany dining table.  Royalty probably did, a century ago.

A single plate sits at the table's head.  A half-finished meal.

ALBERT BAKER (53) stands by the fireplace.  His clothes are casual, if not expensive.  He raises a cigarette to his mouth and inhales.  

In his other hand, he holds a pistol.[/quote]

Don't burden the script down with unnecessary details.  The make and model of the gun isn't important.  His clothes aren't important.  His dinner isn't important.  Tell us only what we need to know and move on.

Don't use the phrase we see.  We are not there.  And leave the camera angles to the director.  As the writer, you write the story.  That's all.

I suggest you read some scripts and learn about formatting and storytelling; don't use the OWC challenge scripts as they were written in haste.

Hope this helps.


Phil

Wow! Wow! And more Wow! First off, I was about to close when I saw the BIG BLOCK OF BLACK, but...

Sandra's not like that is she? Nooooo... She's a curious sort and it PAID OFF!

I wouldn't be surprised if some excellent screenwriter or director dude went and submitted this to play around and see if anyone noticed.

I absolutely loved the writing of this even though it doesn't conform to standards. This is a beautiful piece and yes, I feel gothic all over the place. It's implicit within it. The words transported across that table and the uneaten fish.

You are a magnificent writer. I can't believe I read what I just did because I've read a lot of pretty good, but ho hum scripts. I'm very happy to have happened upon this. A nice little present I was able to unwrap this afternoon and I'm still only on a rose petal flavored tea right now.  :K)

Sandra

This is more like a stageplay than a screenplay. It's all dialogue in a single location. Not a terrible thing, but this is a visual medium and there isn't much visually going on here. The dialogue is decent, not great but I'm guessing English isn't your native language. Lots of grammar errors but great word choices and concepts. The back-and-forth banter doesn't quite work. Cudos for the homosexual content, I liked that, but though they were speaking the words I didn't see it in the subtext. That would make it far more effective.

You have great potential as a writer. I do recommend developing this as a stageplay or, if you want to, rewrite and expand on it as a screenplay.

Lots of nasty little problems with this from the get go already pointed out above.
Upon viewing the first page I took a deep breath, put the kettle on, had a cup of tea, then came back to it through a kind of obligation.
My point is, that I didn't want to read it, it looked like too much to take in, never good.
Keep writing, you obviously have a very creative mind, you just need to dig a little deeper and streamline your process.

I dunno if this really fit the challenge, not really gothic or horror, but it did have a ghost. The chunks of action were way too much, the first passage should be cut into thirds. The story itself wasn't bad, the gay theme was different but it worked quite well. Good job on finishing the OWC.

Okay read it.

I did catch a few spelling errors in this, easy fix.

As far as the story goes its got elements of Gothic, the tragic "love that never was cause I was afraid you might kill me if you found out about it" theme was there lol. Seriously though thats quite similar to themes of lost found in a lot of classic stories.  

Not "bad" IMO, but could use some more Gothic atmosphere in my mind.

Good job on getting it done!

Locations & Sets  -   INT. well furnished mansion w/ balcony
Actors  -  ALBERT (50s), DANIELS (30s)
Costumes  -  Nice outfit for Albert, B&W suit for Daniels
Props  -  setting for table, food and wine w/ glass, pistol, cigarette, dry bar w/ drinks
Audio FX  -   Tchaikovsky’s ’Dance Of The Sugar Plum Fairy'
Visual FX  -  none
Other -  lighter
Comments  -  Turn off your program's page (CONTINUED) and dialog (CONT'D) features. Wow. I'm not quite sure it's gothic horror per se, and the only thing killing this, but it would make for a weird little guilt ridden ghost story. Nice economical use of minimal settings, actors and effects.

I'm also going to echo that I'm not a huge fan of reading 'we' in screenplays...and my Lord, that is a huge chunk of text to start out the script!

I'm also going to have to tell you that within said giant hunk of words, you could omit so much of that: That level of description should, in my opinion, be reserved for a shooting script for director and crew. With this sort of screenplay, I'd say probably just mentioning details of the surroundings directly pertinent to the plot would be the way to go.

Who in the world is Andreas? (P. 1)

Quite a few spelling errors - if you would like to expand this or revise this, I'd highly suggest looking it over with a fine tooth comb.

I'm assuming that when he threw his gun into the fire, he'd removed the ammunition.

All in all, not a bad effort. It was kind of light on substance, and didn't seem to go anywhere very far from where it started, so the excitement factor was low. I also don't see that it was especially gothic horror, but it was different in many ways from the other scripts I've read, so it was refreshing.

I'm just going to suggest that you really look over this a bit, polish the dialogue, pare down the description, and really do something to build up the conflict.

My God! Why hasn't anyone mentioned the large blocks at the start and ending of this script?

Are you all blind??? LOL...

The Bro-mance could have been a little nicer (for real). It really didnt come across as gay as I would have thought it to be, reality wise. (Think American Beauty) The big reveal was spot on.

Did the large blocks get mentioned?

For real on this one, I think maybe you could go much darker. If the man had fantasies, bring them out. Lets hear the sorted details.

In need of a major re-do but I think your head was in the right place on what you wanted to say.

Good job!

Shawn.....><

I was out and over by page one, but after giving it some thought, I came back...for one reason. On a handful of other comments, I did something to show something. Thus, I will do so here. First this:

Quoted Text INT. MANSION - NIGHT We open on an empty hall. The interior is heavy set with dark and timeless furniture. The mansion is clearly owned by a wealthy man with exquisite taste. We float through the hall towards two French doors. They swing open as we reach them, enter a dining room. The camera floats over the table, which is set for one with a glass of white wine and a half eaten fish dish. It continues into the next room and reveals a rugged, sun tanned man with white and gray hair, wearing a loose flax shirt, a wool cardigan, matching trousers and a pair of braided leather shoes standing in the light of a fireplace. With a Walther PPK in his hand, he stands on a balcony. This is ALBERT BAKER (53). As he takes a long, smooth drag of his cigarette, the camera comes to a hold right behind his head. He slowly turns as he exhales deeply. His voice is rusty and experienced.

You will hate me for this. But this is how it could have read:



INT. MANSION - HALL -  NIGHT

Dark and timeless furniture.
French doors lead to -

KITCHEN/DINING AREA
A table set for one with a glass of white wine and a half-
eaten fish.

FOYER
A rugged but well-dressed ALBERT BAKER (53) stands in the light of a fireplace.
Cigarette dangles from his mouth.
Takes out a Walther PPK.
Steps out to the

BALCONY
Albert turns, his voice rusty:



It won't be exact, but consider this. If you lose the camera direction, then we see (when you show us, you don't need to "tell" us what we see) isn't needed. The question is how to get the same visuals. The best bet is to just get to these rooms, establish this is a well to do place, someone is on thier way to meet Albert.

You'll notice that I advise you move Albert out of the room with the fireplace and "onto" the balcony. There's a reason for that. As you wrote it--look carefully. The fireplace is on the balcony I'm not thrilled with the fireplace being on the second (or third?) floor, but for the moment, we'll say it is in an adjoining room. Otherwise, drop the fireplace, and have Albert already on the balcony (as implied)

I don't mind the way he's dressed. But that's a lot of description. Better just to say he's ruggedly handsome and well-dressed. As for the suntan, keep in mind he's (for the moment, anyway) in front of a fireplace.

Hi:) Sorry, I didn't read the other comments, but I'm guessing they talked about the huge action passages and the need to proofread (and Andreas and the gun...), so I won't add anything about that.

I will say, though, that this is basically just two talking heads. They're not doing anything that engages the reader. And from what I've seen, when it comes to writing dialogue, less really is more. So rather than having them say all these things, have their actions speak for them. That way you've got the subtext doing all the heavy lifting and then they could pretty much be *saying* anything at all and the point would still get across.

Overall, though, you've put in a good effort, and you've obviously got the story down in your head, so you can get a pretty nice rewrite out of it:) Good job.