The Tool of Morality by Anonymous James - Short - An strange couple takes refuge one night from a hurricane in a run down motel where decisions about morality create a constant flow of choices between good or evil and the survival of humanity. - pdf, format 8)

If NBK were about two philosophers....

I think I missed the supernatural part here. The low budget went out the window with the saw cutting, unless there's a way to do that cheaply?

There are some funny parts. I think some are meant to be symbolic. It's basically two heads talking to each other with some "interesting" gore going on in the background.

I'm not sure if this story meets all the criteria though. Okay effort, and not sure if this can be filmed without getting a NC17 rating.

I probably shouldn't even comment on this trash.

IMO, this is downright appalling and disgusting.

If you thnk this is entertainment or that anyone will be netertained by it, you've got issues...serious issues.

On the page, it's nothing but ridiculous rants and "discussions" on God nknows what, while X rated violence and beyond X rated acts of sex and depravity take place.

And you want to put this to film?  Unreal.

I'm actually surprised The Don posted this.

Finally, this garbage does not in any way meet the challenge guidelines.

I'll throw out a grade here - F - for FUCKED!

Tried way too hard to get a reaction and as a result I have no reaction.

Nice try.

Greg

Yeah, I stopped reading this on page 3. There didn't seem to be much going on other than two people talking while having sex.

Nothing in this one, sorry.

Dan

Well, Kingcooky seemed to think they were Mickey and Mallory-esque whereas I see them being a psychotic combination of two of Brad Pitt's roles; Jeffrey Goines (Twelve Monkeys) and Tyler Durden (Fight Club).

Anyway, I didn't see much of a story here and any who talks in rants/diatribes like that, usually has breaks or shifts thoughts mid-sentence. I thought they both spoke way too clear and, in that regard, it felt too forced.

Also, I would have liked to have known where the three tied up people came from. I mean, unless it was their apartment (although it doesn't seem like it), I don't know how they got them up there.

Anyway, flawed logic and important unanswered questions and a serious lack of an actual story (granted, this looks like it was written by a regular) drops the score down. I'd say emply some of those fixes and you'll have something, at least, more interesting, even though the likelihood of this being filmed is minimal.

D-.

P.S. Make your dialogue more interesting, while you're at it. Big words and a long rant will only get you so far (I'm looking at you "The Matrix Reloaded").

Well, this definitely goes in the "what the hell did I just read" category.  Sorry, but I didn't find much worth in this one.  Needlessly shocking and overly philosophical.

Yup you get a WTF from me.

Kind of reminded me of Candide, you know the belief that we are In the best of all possible worlds whilst real shit goes on.

The contrast between what is said and want is done doesn't need to be so heavy handed. And yes, this meant to be for film so it goes too far.

Whilst if we analysed every world there could be some running discourse and meaning, you know what, it's not great viewing. More of an academic paper with brutal killing thrown in for fun.

Not for me.

I thought this was quite good.  Someone got all arty with it and I think actually nailed it (It was kind of like an Oliver Stone/David Lynch take on the requirements).  

I didn't really like the ending, I'm not sure it had the historical aspect and I don't think it truly qualifies as microbudget (mostly because of the head wound)  but I think it has a sort of intelligence and oddness about it that makes it both unique and fascinating.  

Good work.    

Reminded me of American Psycho...the book anyway( have never seen the film).

The writing style was good but the subject matter, though meant as black comedy, sorta has polarised the readers.

You chose to split your slugs up for Head of the Bed and Foot of the Bed?!

I think you really have to be quite a brilliant writer for something like this to succeed.

Imho, this needed inspired debate and wit in the dialogue, but I didn't get any of that.

I just got bored with the dialogue, sorry to say.

A real talking head piece. Pun intended. :)

Another quite unique take on the challenge, I'll say that much.

Someone certainly has an issue with religion. I have no problem with that, but you failed big time to get any point across because this story was just plain boring. Am glad I read to the end just to find juggalo Joe gets his head blown off.

Good job entering the owc.

James

This one seems to be causing a bit of a shit storm so I might as well see what's it all about...

Straight away I see some format errors; strange slugs and redundant description.

Jeans or shorts?  Oh, the woman wears shorts.  How was I to know as she was in bed?

If Regina can carry on her conversation, he's doing it bad.  He might as well give up and wash his face lol.  

Okay now I'm confused, are we in the same Motel room?  Where did these people come from?

So there's plenty of controversial stuff in here.  Religion, race and murder to name a few.  The main problem is that the story is poor.  What the hell is it about...really.  Things aren't explained well enough and got quite bored trudging through the over complicated dialogue.

Sorry but this wasn't for me.

I think this will be one of the dullest of all entries. I should taken more notice of the "attention" message about this story containing language. It had that in abundance.

And that's even with random people getting cut up without remorse like any normal butcher cutting off a tender piece of rump steak for a customer on a Saturday afternoon.

I'll give you this - the characters were odd and definitely well-spoken but my God was the dialogue boring here. This read like two politicians going at it about a subject I don't care about on "Question Time"  I'm not your targeted audience obviously because this was far from entertaining IMO.

As for the other criteria, like decisions between good and evil, supernatural past etc. I didn't see it but to be honest I didn't understand half of what they were talking about so maybe it was there but hidden within the lacklustre dialogue. Low budget, don't think so... The gallons of fake blood needed would cost a bomb. ;D

The story... Well again a little lost on it but I'll have a stab. They were calling them "looters" and then there was the police sirens going past which I thought might have some relevance? Maybe these unlucky people were robbing some place and these two psycho Bonnie and Clyde types decided to give them some capital punishment?

On the other hand, maybe this guy just kills random women and decides to strip them and perform sexual acts because he's mad? That seems more logical I guess.

The writing in itself isn't bad and this is definitely from a member of boards, I didn't care much for the slugs and there was the usual missing words which made for awkward sentences. For a weeks work though, pretty good.

But the story and idea just isn't for me at all, I'm afraid to say... I was literally bored senseless.

Congrats on completing the OWC. :)

Steve

Quoted from alffy If Regina can carry on her conversation, he's doing it bad.  He might as well give up and wash his face lol.

Very funny comment :)

As I read this, it is exactly 12 hours and 15 minutes since I caught Re-Animator on cable. I'm also a fan of David Lynch -Wild At Heart is my favorite -and David Cronernberg. For some strange reason I watched all three Hostels and all the Saws. It's also been a long night.

Gore doesn't bug me too much. Even I get a little rough sometimes. But I know where to draw the line. I also know that I don't throw in an abracadabra moment and have a roomful of bound and gagged hostages come out from nowhere. (or should I say 'abracadaver'?)

So, after reading this, I asked myself three questions.

1 - If this were filmed as a short, your actors are working for almonds. Not only to they have to recite banal dialog, but they have to show T&A, and act this out. It'll cost you a pretty penny.

2 - I don't know if you are a big fan of early Nicolas Roeg or the late Ken Russell, but I wonder if you were into Kenneth Anger.

3- I wasn't aware snuff required scripts,

Y'know, there's not much holding this together except for shock value. I would have liked this more if Rthe characters simply shut up, the more they talked the worse it got for me.

On a tech note, there is a serious issue with gender-pronoun agreement (Regina says something, next action line starts with 'He' and so on)

My eyes glazed over at page 4.  The dialog got to be monotonous.  Just sounded like ranting after a while.

Good news is I didn't find it a bad as some think...but then again, I didn't read very far.

Sorry. This just isn't my taste. The dialogue just reads like a long rant.

Good job finishing the OWC.

I checked this out due to the controversy.

Was surprised to find very little in there. Couple of kills, a pair of tits. Nothing that's not in the tamest of horrors. Don't know what the problem is tbh.

I thought it was quite good. I enjoyed the two characters. Only problem was that there wasn't really much of a story to have them interact with.

I think there's a lot more potential here than most others have picked up on. Just my opinion.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Was surprised to find very little in there. Couple of kills, a pair of tits. Nothing that's not in the tamest of horrors. Don't know what the problem is tbh.

Rick, you read the scrpit and you don't know what the problem is?  You're saying you see this in the tamest of horror movies?  Hmmm, let's see...

We've got a character sawing women's heads off, then munching their pussies, all the while inanely conversing with the other sicko.

Please tell me which tame horror movies this takes place in, so I can be sure to never see them.

The reality is that this is easily X rated material that can really only appeal to sick twisted fucks.  What am I (or you) missing here?

I might be wrong but I missed the supernatural part of the story and the dialogue lost me because I was focused too much on what Joe was doing. It was different I'll give you that but like Stevie pointed out it reminded me off American Psycho to a degree with the talking while killing aspect. Overall not bad. Congrats on finishing the OWC.

Quoted from Dreamscale Rick, you read the scrpit and you don't know what the problem is?  You're saying you see this in the tamest of horror movies?  Hmmm, let's see... We've got a character sawing women's heads off, then munching their pussies, all the while inanely conversing with the other sicko. Please tell me which tame horror movies this takes place in, so I can be sure to never see them. The reality is that this is easily X rated material that can really only appeal to sick twisted fucks.  What am I (or you) missing here?

Sex is in pretty much every horror I've ever seen.

In the script all someone is doing is sticking his head between a girl's legs. On film you don't exactly have to show graphic close ups of it.

As for sawing people's heads off...again...what's the problem?

Your favourite film Hostel has far more horrific scenes in it.

The overall tone of it was quite light and comedic as well...reminded me most of House of 1000 Corpses. Just didn't see the problem.

This was sort of a modern attempt at Grand Guignol.  Went for the juxtaposition of raunchy gore with bleak, fatalistic world views.  But it came off more like two characters regurgitating facts and philosophies they heard on the news and then tried to pass off as their own.

I will say, this is one of the few times where the victims in a horror script were probably praying for death to arrive quicker so they wouldn't have to listen to Joe and Regina's tripe anymore.  "Could you hurry up sawing through my vertebrae, Joe?  Regina's starting to talk about moral human happiness again."

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Sex is in pretty much every horror I've ever seen. In the script all someone is doing is sticking his head between a girl's legs. On film you don't exactly have to show graphic close ups of it. As for sawing people's heads off...again...what's the problem? Your favourite film Hostel has far more horrific scenes in it. The overall tone of it was quite light and comedic as well...reminded me most of House of 1000 Corpses. Just didn't see the problem.

Yeah Jeff, what's the story?

Haven't you ever growled a chick then decapitated her? I thought you were Da Man?

Pompous Gore Porn? Hmm...

Like Rick, I don't really see it as that offensive, to be honest. I've seen worse, There's a genre of Japanese films that caters for this kind of sex/gore crossover type thing. Like most of those, this piece isn't very effective, to be honest. I tuned out of the dialogue cos' I didn't understand or care what they were harping on about.  

Not sure what to think about this one.  Visually arresting.
Essentially this is a long philosophical monologue, which I generally find hard to follow, made somewhat manageable by a lot of gore.

I think i missed the point.

Quoted from Dreamscale this is easily X rated material that can really only appeal to sick twisted fucks.

Not all of us.  I like to think of myself as sick and a little twisted here and there, but this one didn't really appeal to me too much.

While I think this could get away with a hard R rating, (if a director takes this one, he probably wouldn't show any closeups exactly), I think the downfall of this one is the banality of the story.  (Found it funny that someone else referred to it as banal, too.  Thought that word only popped into my head as I was reading.)

Nothing really much happens and we don't know enough about the story to figure out why all these people are here anyway, and how they got there.

I also didn't see anything about something supernatural happening in the past, either.

My guess is the author just wanted to see everybody talk about how they fit in the dinosaur and the mime, which I'm happy that no one seemed to have mentioned about.  (Hopefully, my suggesting it doesn't get everybody talking about it.  :-)

- Mark

Problems with the writing here from the very start:

'Lit by a cheap lamp and dim bulb, a topless woman sits beneath sheets, propped up on pillows.'

If she beneath the sheets, A is it relevant that she is topless B. how would we know, unless those sheet are see through or clinging to her very tightly


'REGINA, 30s, wears a dinosaur mask on her face as she sits motionless to watch hurricane strength rain and wind beat the window outside.'

You intro her first as a woman, then switch to Regina. Why not start with Regina, or when she removes the mask, intro her properly to us?

'A large caliber pistol rests on the worn sheets beside her.' A medium shot won't SHOW that this is a large caliber pistol and in real terms, it's not necessary to the plot of the story.

Why the separate scene heading? We don't change location, we are still in the motel room.

Okay, so dinosaur masks and mime/clown references a plenty here. Another pisser I'm guessing, or rather hoping.

Though I've calmed down a bit about this script - i.e. I think it needs a bit of work - and whether it's a pisstake or not, I think it hit upon a duality that has potential.

The author here took the requirements literally.  Rather than making a decision between good and evil - the author examines what the characters believe is good and evil - so instead they are making a decision about, or defining what is good and what is evil.  They are the tool of morality.

At least that's how I see it.  Yes, it's arty - even if it is a pisstake.  

Artsy for sure. One of the weirdest scripts I've ever read. Not saying that in a bad way...

I did like the ending....not one of my favorites but good job on completing the owc.

Wow, this was weird..

The dialogue was very montonous... Skip to the loo, was getting very tiring... as was all the gore...

It's just not my thing, but you can't please everybody.

You completed an OWC so good job on that

Mark

The Tool of Morality by - An strange couple takes refuge one night from a hurricane in a run down motel where decisions about morality create a constant flow of choices between good or evil and the survival of humanity.
Brief - A psychopath defines a decision point while a sociopath saws off the heads of women.

Locations & Sets  -  Interior, motel room @ night
Actors  -  REGINA, 30s, JUGGALO JOE, 20s, bound female one, two, and three, bound male
Costumes  - Joe’s jeans + boots to be ruined, bound man’s shirt, bound women’s outfits
Props  -  dim bulb, dinosaur mask, large caliber pistol, black & white face paint, merkin, liquid stage blood, replacement sheets + pillow cases + bed spread, bindings + gags x4, small bow saw, sawn neck prosthetic x2, saw blade through neck prosthetic, decapitated head x2, neck stump on shoulders, hole in man’s back, bleeding head wound prosthetic
Audio FX  - hurricane winds, police + fire truck sirens, pistol shot
Visual FX  -  green screen removal of woman’s head, pistol flash + smoke x3
Other  -  rain & wind on exterior of window, makeup artist, thick mil plastic to protect the carpet, replacement carpet, blue + red strobe lights, oozing/bleeding apparatus
Genre & Marketability - Horror thriller
Comments  - Lot of practical prosthetics required. Replacement carpet installation and removal will be expensive, as well. Shoot lurid scenes from side and just off camera to save rating hassles. Regina’s rambling goes on a bit and she isn’t forced to make a decision. She just chooses to make one. Story relies too much on graphic elements. Good use of a single location. Script format: fine. Final word: missable story is not interesting enough to justify production expense.

$2,000 - $3,000  Lo/Hi Estimated Budget Range
/ 8.2 Screenplay Pages
= $244 - $366  Estimated Cost Per Screen Minute

Adherence to Given Criteria:
Odd but interesting character(s) - Juggalo Joe - yes, Regina - no
take refuge from a hurricane - not really
in a beat-up motel - yep
and are forced to make a choice - not really
between good or evil - yep
in order to survive the night. - not really
Each character must -
have some history involving a supernatural event in their lives - Joe does
that factors into their choice. - Regina’s choice, but not Joe’s
Genre is open. - Horror thriller
This is a micro-budget short, - yep
so no destruction of the motel, - yep
no children or animals - yep
and minimal special effects. - yep
BONUS! Story also included:
mime(s) - Does Juggalo Joe’s make up count? I think it should
dinosaur(s) - yep, Regina’s mask

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WBdeA3ZfngPz7NfJg_5DSBUFsZXkicfyNQHRc8Bg2SQ/edit

This...is...strange.

I wanted to see where this went and I'm usually into horror, etc, but when Joe started the second decapitation - ew, more than I can handle picturing, sorry. The gore was not for me in this one.

While I didn't like what was going on, the dialogue was interesting. I could understand the message there and I liked Regina.

Good effort.

More like the Tool of Depravity... Am I right guys? =D

I'm kidding.

I really don't mind the sex and the gore, but it needs to be backed up by substance. I'm not sure you hit the mark for me there, but I can appreciate your clean writing style. You didn't really confuse me at all. That's always a huge plus considering how slow I am.

Thanks for submitting!

I really have to say this has to be one the dullest scripts I have ever read. Man, was this boring. Whoever the writer was, you really fucked up man. This was just incredibly stupid and made no sense. I read the dialogue multiple times but I just kept zoning out mid sentence.

Some people seem to have liked it though? Which I can't really understand. I think this began as a pisser and then morphed into some rant.

If you were to rewrite, I'd suggest making the dialogue interesting and make it flow faster.

My grade: F+.

Quoted from mcornetto Though I've calmed down a bit about this script - i.e. I think it needs a bit of work - and whether it's a pisstake or not, I think it hit upon a duality that has potential. The author here took the requirements literally.  Rather than making a decision between good and evil - the author examines what the characters believe is good and evil - so instead they are making a decision about, or defining what is good and what is evil.  They are the tool of morality. At least that's how I see it.  Yes, it's arty - even if it is a pisstake.

Good post, Michael.

This is how I feel about it, particularly the bolded part.

This thread is superb marketing for the script! Couldn't resist giving it a read.

Didn't hate, didn't love it. Which is probably the worst kind of reaction for the writer. Clearly he/she wants to provoke, but like Libby, I'm not convinced the writer has the chops to pull off such audacious material. The concept of morality in - what these characters see as - an immoral world is sort of challenged, but with a sledgehammer. Not sure the issue is really with religion either, because the characters' conception of religious leaders (and they hint towards extreme leaders) is that every opinion matters - not the case, because these guys think their opinion matters. These "religious leaders" believe their version is right, therefore all others are wrong. So unless the writer is trying to shoehorn in another point, they're clearly showing the inherent hypocrisy of the two ironically "plain stupid" characters that are attempting to shape a world based on their own moral failures.

There was something of a monologue quality that, to me at least, made the characters a VO - as though they may be there in physical form, but not in spirit. As though they consider themselves floating above the extreme violence - as though this nuts and bolts action is beneath them. They clearly see themselves as moral superiors. The woman was very much in control of the relationship and proceedings, whereas the chap was a grunt carrying out her wishes. An interesting dynamic, but again, I agree with Libby about having the chops to pull off such a layered material.

The ambition of the script is what impresses me, but it's unfortunately largely unfulfilled ambition.

Sorry, this will be short, on the iPad and I hate typing on it.

This one didn't do it for me, I hate to say. Although you were trying to have some philosophical discussion here, the dialogue bored me. It seemed repetitive and at only nine pages it felt longwinded to me. From production stand point, it don't see that many actors that would want to be naked and mutilated for this film on the cheap. Especially since none of the actors roles would require any acting they would want to show on their show reels as sample of their acting abilities. Just MHO of course. Also, it would probably cost good money to have realistic sawing heads off and headless corpses...I'd hate to clean up the mess too.

While not quite my taste, I feel that we have a very good writer here, who was just going to take this challenge in a crazy direction to get it all out of his/her system.  That would be better than walking the streets armed with a tool and whacking (wacking off) heads.

I like the concept of dialogue running one way, and the action swinging the other way. The jabber got to me because the two characters talked too much.  If it were tighter, I have read deeper.

Maybe there were hints into the identity of the victims. Joe referred to them as "looters."  I was more intrigued who the victims were, what they did to deserve this fate and how they happened upon Joe and Regina.  If only some more of that would have been worked into the story — and if it's there, maybe I missed it between the cuts.  
And was there something supernatural in this story?

This isn't as bad as I expected. It's not that inspiring, but as I said earlier, I just have a feeling a really good writer took a week off, got naked with his laptop, and relieved himself.

I remain surprised at both the contrroversy over this submission as well as the number of views it has garnered.
I promise my own views haven't jacked the count up any more than about thirty, counting the open + skip to page double count.

Um... where to start.

First, I knew many submissions would be "Tom, Dick, and Harry came to the Dingy Motel and interacted. Ooo! Ahh!"
I wanted to submit something more oblique than that.
I wanted an thick, inky, black line that ran from left to right intersected by a bloody gash of red on a downward sloping diagonal.
Regina (the queen = Rex, T.Rex) was the banal black line
Juggalo Joe (the clown = the mime) was the bloody red gash on a downward slope.

Second, Regina's babbling is a modified transcript of some controversial author's stage presentation about good vs. evil morality before an audience.
Juggalo Joe represents the insanity that both keeps up with esoteric philosophies while engaing in psychopathic indulences.

A little Sweeny Todd + Tokyo Gore Police.


Third, regarding the slugs...
Think about it:
Shot 1 - A person sits up at the head of the bed.
Shot 2 - Two legs hang off the foot end of the bed.
Umm... they ain't the same person. There's two people/bodies in the bed.
Paper. Screen. Gotta keep up, folks.
And I can tell a naked woman under the sheets from a clothed one. Maybe I have more practice at such. I dunno.


Fourth, which brings me to my personal achievement: the primary complaint was about subject material and not the format or criteria.

Angels are technically a supernatural element. Done.


FWIW, I don't care for this kind of material as entertainment for myself.
I tried to write for a specialty horror market, not for myself, not for a four-quadrant market.


I don't understand why anyone cares about the backstories of the victims or justification for murdering them.
The story was about Juggalo Joe not recognizing that his accomplice in crime Regina was experiencing a fundamental shift in her personality at that moment.
J Joe was keeping up with the conversation despite attention elsewhere but didn't know what it meant in relation to him.
WTH does that have to do with the people he's hurting? To me THAT'S the real horror! Psychopaths murder without regard for their victims.


Later, taters!


http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/The-Juggla-lyrics-ICP-Insane-Clown-Posse/FB76D5B00269B4794825695B0009331D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwSzREAiCfg

Ray, I apologize for my original comments on your script.  They may have been out of line, but I was personally offended by the content, as well as the level of hard X rated material.

Over the top gore is one thing and we've all seen it, but the way this was written (if read exactly as written) would never possibly be filmed, and to think for even a second that it could be done on a micro budget, is a bit ludicrous.

But, you redeemed yourself with your analysis of all the scripts, so I hope you accept my apology.

The thing about the Slugs, is a different story.  You can't...oh shit, I shouldn't ever say that...you shouldn't think that the top and bottom of a bed are 2 different Slugs, just like you wouldn't use different Slugs to show 4 people sitting in 4 different chairs at a dinner table. Or 3 peeps sitting on a sofa, right, middle, and left.

The top and bottom of a bed are not 2 different locations.  Hope that makes sense.

Quoted from RayW I remain surprised at both the contrroversy over this submission as well as the number of views it has garnered. I promise my own views haven't jacked the count up any more than about thirty, counting the open + skip to page double count.

Is that how you rate the success of a script? The VIEWS?

James

Quoted from Dreamscale Ray, I apologize for my original comments on your script.  They may have been out of line, but I was personally offended by the content, as well as the level of hard X rated material. Over the top gore is one thing and we've all seen it, but the way this was written (if read exactly as written) would never possibly be filmed, and to think for even a second that it could be done on a micro budget, is a bit ludicrous. But, you redeemed yourself with your analysis of all the scripts, so I hope you accept my apology. The thing about the Slugs, is a different story.  You can't...oh shit, I shouldn't ever say that...you shouldn't think that the top and bottom of a bed are 2 different Slugs, just like you wouldn't use different Slugs to show 4 people sitting in 4 different chairs at a dinner table. Or 3 peeps sitting on a sofa, right, middle, and left. The top and bottom of a bed are not 2 different locations.  Hope that makes sense.

Nah, there's no need for an apology.
I see the truth in your critique.

As I stated above - even I don't like the material as entertainment. But I didn't write it for me. I wrote it as a piece of horror for a specific market, bordering on a fetish market, truth be told.
You should watch a few minutes of TOKYO GORE POLICE.
Makes Cronenberg look like a silly schoolkid.
http://www.ovguide.com/tokyo-gore-police-9202a8c04000641f800000000926a0e0

Yeah, I was having a difficult time keeping the budget down.
Didn't have any good ideas without it being a talkie, and I didn't want that.
I do believe and acknowledge I went a bit far with the expense.
Just a single location + few camera placement moves + two principal actors wasn't enough.
The corpse props and protecting the motel carpet expenses did me in.
I was also VERY impressed with the way some of these other screenplays DID keep their budget down.

I'll concede directing from the script is bad form, so sue me. ;)

Quoted from jwent6688 Is that how you rate the success of a script? The VIEWS?

Views are A measure of the interest a screenplay or story inherently generates based upon the title and/or the logline.

As I stated in the other thread, the two measurements of a film's marketing are A) initial butts in seats (views), and B) word of mouth (comments).

THE DEVIL INSIDE got tons of butts in seats + terrible reviews.
The premise was widely appealing. The product dropped the ball.
The same for SPLICE.

My first data "picture" of the views and comments was both well after everyone had nearly a week to review whatever they were going to look at - and - before the authors and favorites released.
I knew the release of authors and favorites would further distort the data, but after a couple more weeks I'll take another "data picture" and see the measure of that distortion, Pale Yellow's OCD outlier aside. HA! ;D

The juxtaposition that's at the core of this story is certainly a noble effort, but it's heavy-handed and painfully obvious. On top of that, the concept didn't really work as a film. You hit the reader over the head with both dialogue and violence...which constitutes all nine pages. I get that you were short on ideas, but it seems kind of amateurish to use so much dialogue even when you're desperate. Granted, you broke that rule as part of the design, but the actual content of that dialogue was weak...so it still didn't work. The whole time, it felt like Regina and Joe were the same character. Nothing distinguished their personalities except for the character headers. I've read Wikipedia articles on morality that were more dynamic!

Another problem I had was with Joe's seeming apathy to his handiwork. If he was so sexually-invested in those killings, how was he able to carry on such a thoughtful, coherent conversation? Getting his jollies on would've left him a bit more distracted, wouldn't it? I know he's psychotic, but that's a stretch. Since the characters never once acknowledged what they were doing, it's like you transcribed a long-lost episode of "Fun with Real Audio."

It's strange that you went for such a niche audience with this contest. Coupled with the fact that it's wall-to-wall dialogue and you left out the supernatural requirement...it's like you didn't want to win. It also sounds like you didn't even care, either. I'm not sure what you'd do to fix it. I suppose there are ways you could cut down on the dialogue and allow the action to mingle with it more, but that's more cogitating than I care to field at the moment.

Honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't better, considering the pompous way you ripped into my Room 3. I get that it was a bad script with more than a few problems, but considering the flaws yours had...why was that any reason to be so harsh on a fellow author's work? If anything, I thought that would make you more gracious, considering your own shortcomings. I figure most of us here have a mutual respect for each other. What you said about my work blatantly crossed that line. I sent you a PM about it, but you've yet to respond to it, so I'm calling you out publicly.

If I've misunderstood something about your approach, I apologize, but I doubt I have--it's pretty rough. I know others are appreciative of the time and effort you put into their analyses and I would be too...had you finished it. Not only did you jump ship halfway, but you also used it as a backhanded insult along with your other barbs. And nothing was ever said that others hadn't said in more respectful, friendly manners. So no, I'm not appreciative. I think I would've been more understanding had you avoided my script altogether. You had a lot of work to do and you probably knew reviewing Room 3 wasn't going to benefit either of us. Yet you couldn't pass up the opportunity to flaunt your whatever.

There's no need to explain your actions, but I would hope you'd use some discretion in the future. Writers shouldn't have to take crap from other writers; the rest of the world serves up enough of that on its own. In the immortal words of Rodney Dangerfield, "Relax, will ya?" I'm mad at you, but it's nothing I can't get over. If you read this and you think I'm out of my mind, then that's your right. But I hope this is just a good shakeup and we can have an honest, respectful and professional relationship from now on.

Dan, hopefully you know that i personally have no problem with giving poor reviews or negative feedback, as I do it quite frequently.

But, I don't like when I see someone doing it, based on poor feedback they received from the same writer, which seems to be the case here, at least in part.

You didn't go into much detail on your script thread in answering any questions posed or mistakes you made.

You really should do that, as you'll probably get some feedback to your words that could help you going forward.

Quoted from Dreamscale Dan, hopefully you know that i personally have no problem with giving poor reviews or negative feedback, as I do it quite frequently.

Well, I thought yours was a little rough too, but I saw elsewhere that you acknowledged you were rough and apologized for it or somewhat regretted it. That was cool. I had no beef with that. You were trying hard to read everything quickly and it wore you out. I get that. Thanks for admitting that and acknowledging that there are better standards to giving unfavorable reviews.

Quoted Text But, I don't like when I see someone doing it, based on poor feedback they received from the same writer, which seems to be the case here, at least in part.

Well, you're entitled to that perspective, but after the lambasting I received from Ray, I didn't feel like it was appropriate to sugarcoat my thoughts or be less than brutally honest, since that kind of restraint wasn't shown to me. If respect is to be mutual around here, then I'm simply rising to the occasion. But I've said my piece and I'm ready to restore that mutual respect back to a good, decent level of understanding. Ray took a shot at me, I volleyed back, we're even. Now, I'm ready to put that behind us. But if I continue to get feedback of a similar nature, I'll return it. There's no excuse for it.

Quoted Text You didn't go into much detail on your script thread in answering any questions posed or mistakes you made...You really should do that, as you'll probably get some feedback to your words that could help you going forward.

I didn't think anybody really cared since they didn't seem interested in seeing it fixed up. Figured I would fix it on my own in private and possibly present it again later. But if you're interested, I'll reconsider that.

Quoted from DanBall The juxtaposition that's at the core of this story is certainly a noble effort, but it's heavy-handed and painfully obvious.

Yeah.
All people always like subtle.
My entry was crafted just for you.

On top of that, the concept didn't really work as a film.
Right.
It would worked better as a cheese doodle.

You hit the reader over the head with both dialogue and violence...which constitutes all nine pages.

What?!
I couldn't hear you over my crunching.
What?!

I get that you were short on ideas, but it seems kind of amateurish to use so much dialogue even when you're desperate.
'Scuse me. Lemme turn the volume down, first http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgnqkY6Fba4 so I can hear what you're saying more bettererer.

Granted, you broke that rule as part of the design, but the actual content of that dialogue was weak...so it still didn't work.
Rule?
There was a rule?
And I broke it?
D@mnation.
I was trying to destroy it.
Yeah. The dialog was weak. Holds no heavy handed interest.

The whole time, it felt like Regina and Joe were the same character.
I don't even know how to address the discrepancy between how both of us read the story.
Sorry.

Nothing distinguished their personalities except for the character headers.
Okay. See above.
Wait. Are you NOW arguing their difference was toooo subtle for you to notice?

I've read Wikipedia articles on morality that were more dynamic!
Did you get your wikipedia Masters or PhD framed?
I did.

Another problem I had was with Joe's seeming apathy to his handiwork.
Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's an identifying characteristic of a sociopath.

If he was so sexually-invested in those killings, how was he able to carry on such a thoughtful, coherent conversation?
See above reference to wiki PhD.
I've specialized in mental health issues.
The irony, eh?! HA!

Getting his jollies on would've left him a bit more distracted, wouldn't it?
Nope.
I can eat beaver while carrying on a civil conversation.



I know he's psychotic, but that's a stretch.
Then my heavy handedness was toooo subtle for your keen mind.
He's a sociopath, not a psychopath.

Since the characters never once acknowledged what they were doing, it's like you transcribed a long-lost episode of "Fun with Real Audio."
Don't know about the source you cited but I can fold clothes while talking, drive while talking, h3ll, I can even eat while talking.


It's no big deal to not take particular note of what you're doing while you're having a conversation.

It's strange that you went for such a niche audience with this contest.
Yes. Mighty strange.
What the world needs more of in shorts is providing more content to serve all four quadrants.


Coupled with the fact that it's wall-to-wall dialogue and you left out the supernatural requirement...it's like you didn't want to win.
Angels were either toooo heavy handed subtle or a part of your normal and natural world.
Sorry. My bad.

It also sounds like you didn't even care, either.
Play poker much?
It's all about the "WIN RIGHT NOW!"
You'd like it.

I'm not sure what you'd do to fix it.
Then I shall seek informed professional guidance elsewhere.

I suppose there are ways you could cut down on the dialogue and allow the action to mingle with it more, but that's more cogitating than I care to field at the moment.
Yes. More cogitating on the offensive heavy handed action is what I seek!
Maybe you are the right man for the job after all!

Honestly, I'm surprised this wasn't better, considering the pompous way you ripped into my Room 3.
Could you be more specific?
That was the one that had no hurricane in it while the cast of twenty ran about the motel shrubbery in the night, correct?

I get that it was a bad script with more than a few problems, but considering the flaws yours had...why was that any reason to be so harsh on a fellow author's work?
If my house was on fire I cannot possibly stick my head out my window and yell to you "HEY, DAN! YOUR HOUSE IS ALSO ON FIRE!" Right?

If anything, I thought that would make you more gracious, considering your own shortcomings.
I want dentists giving dental advice, lawyers giving law advice, brick layers giving masonry advice.
From whom shall I seek writing advice, then? Hmm... ?

I believe other writers are exactly from whom I want my advice, good or bad.

I figure most of us here have a mutual respect for each other.
I respect you.
I may not respect your writing any more than I respect your dental work, knowledge of the law, or masonry skilz.

What you said about my work blatantly crossed that line.
What line, where?

I sent you a PM about it, but you've yet to respond to it, so I'm calling you out publicly.
If you wanna do this publicly, so be it.
I advise against it though.

FWIW, typically I don't wrestle with pigs in the mud, though.
No one can tell who wins and the pig seems to enjoy it too much.

If I've misunderstood something about your approach, I apologize, but I doubt I have--it's pretty rough.
Nah. I'm pretty sure you got my heavy handed subtleties pretty much nailed.
(Shhh. Don't tell no one: I like it rough!!! It's a seeecret.)

I know others are appreciative of the time and effort you put into their analyses and I would be too...had you finished it.
You ever look at some of those "InkTip production companies wants" requests?
Think that all the reading producers and directors always provide any feedback whatsoever to all of those that send submissions?
Sometimes, like when you don't have hurricanes in your low budget refuge-from-a-hurricane screenplay with a cast of dozens talking in the bushes, the producer/director doesn't ever email you back.
Know why?

Not only did you jump ship halfway, but you also used it as a backhanded insult along with your other barbs.
You're being too subtle.
I don't understand what you're saying.
I need more heavy handedness from you.
You mean the "Pickle, chicken, 3, abacus, Zeus!!! Whatever." was a barb?

And nothing was ever said that others hadn't said in more respectful, friendly manners.
I have no idea what that means, but I'm sure you're correct.
Well, done, sir.

So no, I'm not appreciative.
Okay.

I think I would've been more understanding had you avoided my script altogether.
Well, sh!t, bro!
Had I known that was your submission to the anonymous contest I would have!
Cheers! We'd both be happy!

You had a lot of work to do and you probably knew reviewing Room 3 wasn't going to benefit either of us.
Yes. I probaly would have known what was in your screenplay before reading it had my crystal ball not been on the fritz that afternoon.
And my dog ate my ClifNotes.

Yet you couldn't pass up the opportunity to flaunt your whatever.
HEY, NOW!
Now YOU'VE crossed the line, buddy!
I happen to be quite proud of my... whatever.
It sparkles in the sunlight. Wanna see it again?!
http://image.blingee.com/images16/content/output/000/000/000/56b/429935238_697353.gif

There's no need to explain your actions, but I would hope you'd use some discretion in the future.
Oh, thank God.
In abundance, I promise. Liberally.

Writers shouldn't have to take crap from other writers; the rest of the world serves up enough of that on its own.
I can't think of anyone else I'd rather take cr@p from.

In the immortal words of Rodney Dangerfield, "Relax, will ya?"
Way ahead of ya, 'mater.
I'll wait for you to ketchup.

I'm mad at you, but it's nothing I can't get over.
I am truly blessed.

If you read this and you think I'm out of my mind, then that's your right.
'Preciate that, guv.
Mighty white of you.

But I hope this is just a good shakeup and we can have an honest, respectful and professional relationship from now on.
Consider me officially shook.
Agreed.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2005/01/11/1101_ag17_gallery__550x369.jpg

Quoted from DanBall I didn't think anybody really cared since they didn't seem interested in seeing it fixed up. Figured I would fix it on my own in private and possibly present it again later. But if you're interested, I'll reconsider that.

Dan, I think you're missing the point here.

We all know that an OWC doesn't give much time for anything, especially fine tuning one's script.  But, most of the time, the writer will post a response to the feedback and address certain issues, as in what he/she was thinking, what was a downright mistake and why it was made, or thanks for catching various mistakes that the writer didn't even realize were mistakes.

For instance, you had a line in your script about a baby, and both Ray and I brought that up, saying, basically, "WTF?".

In Felipe's OWC, I (and I think another 1 or 2 peeps) mentioned that his main character was buttass nude the entire script.  Felipe responded that he forgot and mentioned why he forgot, which was totally cool and understandable.

No one likes getting negative feedback, but there are times (most times, actually) when negative feedback actually helps a whole Hell of alot more than glowing praise, when praise shouldn't be thrown out.

Everyone makes mistakes.  That's totally understandable.  The problem is that mistakes are simply that - something that wasn't supposed to be written the way it was.  The way you learn is when you find out things you didn't know or realize were actually mistakes.

Feedback is meant to help, not hurt.  Sometimes it doesn't come off that way, and I for one know damn well I could say things in a more positive way or be "softer" in my words.

Don't hate the reviewer unless what he or she says is complete horseshit, or downright incorrect.  We're all trying to learn and help at the same time.

Hey Jeff, I'm going to quote your response on the Room 3 thread and reply to it over there.

Reading this thread is pretty funny. I assume Dan is not aware of our frequent brawls at SS. This is almost like an argument at MP.  ;D

FWIW, everyone has their own way of reviewing scripts. Some praise everything. Some praise nothing. When you post a script at SS for feedback. You will get all kinds. That's the beauty of it.  8)

Quoted from DanBall Hey Jeff, I'm going to quote your response on the Room 3 thread and reply to it over there.

OK...not to sure what this means exactly, but I'm game...

Quoted from Dreamscale OK...not to sure what this means exactly, but I'm game...

Boom.

Quoted from Grandma Bear Reading this thread is pretty funny. I assume Dan is not aware of our frequent brawls at SS. This is almost like an argument at MP.  ;D

Not really, but it is a forum on the internet. Not exactly a strange concept. :P

Quoted Text FWIW, everyone has their own way of reviewing scripts. Some praise everything. Some praise nothing. When you post a script at SS for feedback. You will get all kinds. That's the beauty of it.  8)

That might be the beauty of it, but is all of it healthy for the community?

Dan, as with any set of notes, just take what you need from them and disregard the rest. If you get offended at what people say in their notes you aren't going to make it very far. Grow a thick skin and let it all slide off you. Believe me, the notes you'll get down the road will tear your heart apart if you let them.

Notes are subjective opinions. It's your job to interpret what's at the heart of the notes and address whatever really needs to be improved. They are rarely personal, rarely directed at the writer as a person, so don't take them personally. Just be appreciative of whatever notes you do get, particularly if they help in any way, and move on.

My take on this is i don't think Dan has a problem with criticism on his script but just the way people are revieiwing his script in a demeaning way. It's one thing to say you don't like something but it's different when people take it to a higher level and start making fun of your wriitng at your expense. I believe that's how all this started.

Quoted from DV44 My take on this is i don't think Dan has a problem with criticism on his script but just the way people are revieiwing his script in a demeaning way. It's one thing to say you don't like something but it's different when people take it to a higher level and start making fun of your wriitng at your expense. I believe that's how all this started.

Thanks, Face! I don't think you could've made it simpler. :) (I certainly didn't!)

Here's the PM I sent Ray four days ago:

Quoted Text Hi, I wrote Room 3 and I was pretty insulted by your analysis. I feel like you went to extraordinary lengths to humiliate and disrespect this author, despite showing respect and decency to nearly everyone else you critiqued. I felt like it crossed a line and wanted you to know that. My hope is that we could discuss this and put a better face on the situation. Thanks! Dan

Did you have a problem with this, Ray? I gave you several days to reply, but you didn't even acknowledge it, despite being active on other parts of the forum. At that point, was I supposed to just get over it or bend over and ask for more? I'm confused. I thought I gave you a prime opportunity to set this right in case I'd misinterpreted the critique or you were having a bad day when you wrote it, but you didn't seem interested in setting it right. As great and encouraging as this place can be, I didn't think it was right to let this incident go unmentioned and detract from the quality of the community.

I'm not some old experienced guy who's seen it all, but I've seen enough to know that there's rarely a good excuse for one person to insult another while critiquing their work. Most excuses are bad ones, given only to excuse poor, asinine behavior. The only reason the behavior's ever justified is because, occasionally, some of these clowns rise to ranks of prominence and they dish it out from on high too. Still doesn't make it right. Nice people rise up through the ranks too and never compromise their niceness. They probably reject people all day long. But those people probably feel a helluva lot better, despite the bad news. People here have a choice: do you build up your fellow writers despite their flaws or tear them down because they suck? Personally, I don't think the latter is healthy for any kind of creative community and I think it should be discouraged at all costs.

Move on, Dan.

Quoted from RayW Move on, Dan.

Quoted from RayW I think this is the author: http://tinyurl.com/987w6nx

So you just want me to forget about this, then? Or do you have anything else to add?

Nope. Yep. Whatever works for you.
Pretty much done before I even started.

LOL! Pretty funny pic, right?
That's my goto guy for... these circumstances. ;D

I finally read this one (yes, I've still got a few lagging reviews unfortunately.)

Competant writing - and I have no problem with the tons o gore.  Don't think it really hit the criteria, though.  Where's the supernatural events (mentioning an angel casually doesn't count), or the decision between good and evil?  (Discussion of it, sure...which was a fun read.  But a decision, it wasn't.)

Enjoyed the read, so kudos there.  But for the overall OWC criteria, not a home run...  :P

Quoted from RayW Nope. Yep. Whatever works for you. Pretty much done before I even started. LOL! Pretty funny pic, right? That's my goto guy for... these circumstances. ;D

Well, I wouldn't know since it's usually easier to apologize when someone's upset with me and I don't need tacky pictures to insult them because I try not to insult them. Guess we all can't be class acts like you, Ray. 8)

Quoted from wonkavite Competant writing - and I have no problem with the tons o gore.  Don't think it really hit the criteria, though.  Where's the supernatural events (mentioning an angel casually doesn't count), or the decision between good and evil?  (Discussion of it, sure...which was a fun read.  But a decision, it wasn't.) Enjoyed the read, so kudos there.  But for the overall OWC criteria, not a home run...  :P

Thanks.
Yeah, I kinda foul ball hit the criteria.

Self assessment:

Code Adherence to Given Criteria: Odd but interesting character(s) - Juggalo Joe - yes, Regina - no take refuge from a hurricane - not really in a beat-up motel - yep and are forced to make a choice - not really between good or evil - yep in order to survive the night. - not really Each character must - have some history involving a supernatural event in their lives - Joe does that factors into their choice. - Regina's choice, but not Joe's Genre is open. - Horror thriller This is a micro-budget short, - yep so no destruction of the motel, - yep no children or animals - yep and minimal special effects. - yep BONUS! Story also included: mime(s) - Does Juggalo Joe's make up count? I think it should dinosaur(s) - yep, Regina's mask

The supernatural element was both Juggalo Joe's confession to Regina that he had indeed seen angels which in turn led her to her decision that it was people like him, who have any extreme religious experience, corrupt the moral landscape.

Thus, to return social morality back to some center Juggalo Joe must be removed from the equation.
And J-Joe either didn't understand that or didn't see Regina's thought processes evolving at that moment.

Regina MADE a decision between good and evil, but she wan't FORCED, so that's a big fail on my behalf.

For the audience, as in the real world, even though event A is much more exciting/exhilarating/horrendous/emotionally provocative than event B, which is quite subtle, event B may have a significantly greater impact on your/our lives.

It's a magic show. All misdirection. Look at my obvious left hand, think you're being clever watching my right hand, never see the assistant switching the containers.


Yeah, I just went back to my spreadsheet to build an "Averages" line, Row 68:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsBznn8D13zOdDRjb2JuYjdNelRfUi13OHRwS1JhVEE#gid=0
My own entry did not fare much better than the averages for most all criteria.
My guesstimated costs were a smige lower than average, as was the page count and cost per minute.
Scores were just above or below the average. Nothing to get excited about.

Just a tourist.  :P