Hey mate - a few thoughts, just my opinion of course

1) Voluminous normally applies to a specific thing, like a voluminous dress... not sure it works as well here.
2) Personally not a fan of the fedora on Gianni, but just mho
3) Liked the Gavin's response re not doing anal,  but wondered if Steve could retort with 'I'm not as picky' or similar.

I did see where this was going, but it got there in the right way for me.

As always it's clean and crisp writing and very visual in the telling

Good job

Anthony

Good story, Dustin,

One suggestion.

You should expand a little on the heroine shot.

You have the spoon bubbling, and then he's at mid shot though.

Maybe have him draw it, thump the syringe, or something that bridges the act from bubbling to shoot up.

Other then that, I enjoyed it.

Shawn

I liked this.

One of the major things that stood out to me significantly was the dialogue, it felt very natural and it had a nice flow to it. With these kinds of characters in these kinds of situations, the dialogue tends to be very awkward, clumsy and obvious. So very good job with the dialogue.

I'm not a very big fan of these kinds of stories, in fact I don't really like them.

But there is a difference between not liking something and something being good.

This was very good.
Nice job!

I'll get to everyone's reviews, thanks for taking the time. I'd just like to point out that a monkey is cockney slang for £500.

Hey custom

Had a quick read and whilst I got the outcome early, lucky guess probably, this works and is decent.

An exterior visual showing an expensive house - eg London terrace - may help and would add extra meaning to the folk able to hire others.

For once I don't have many suggestions, but I would like the 'irony' that they would put the spoon down during the meeting to take the job, in order to get more spoon, only to leave the house and lose it. Perhaps they wouldn't do that in reality, but visually that could have an impact.

Dustin...had a thought. I know you 'love' my suggestions. :'(

His aim is to get them out the house, I assume, so that it can be taken back. Once they are out the locks can be changed etc  :K)

So, I would almost just have him drive them to a bridge, hand them the drugs and kick them out the car, perhaps at the end of a gun.

The last scene would them not bothered, shooting up under the bridge or wherever, as the locks are changed. The killing part can work, I just saw a simpler finish.

Best of luck.

Dustin,

Comments are probably the fifth worst thing in the world.

Good job. Clean read.  It seems like a lot of work to evict squatters, but I'll go with it.

A suggestion might be to Gianni a bit more distinctive voice. Since you go to the trouble to give him a distinctive outfit, have the diction match.

And the surprise might be more complete if Gianni is in the bed covered up?

STEVE (25), tall, skinny, scruffy as fuck, gently waves a
teaspoon, containing bubbling heroin, over a candle.

The "things I hate" was a very effective device.

Not quite sure on the ending. Specifically, in terms of where Gianni ultimately kills them (i.e., in the basement).

I thought the cleverness of luring them to the target house clad as robbers was so that he could then kill them without consequences - i.e., after the killing - he merely calls the cops - hey - these dudes tried to rob me - I defended myself - etc.

Good job on this - crisp and clean.

It's me - I know - but:

" My client and his wife almost separated a few times due to the heartache."...

What did these guys do to this old couple?

Hey Dustin,

The reveal worked well. Didn't see it coming. Not really sure why Gianni just didn't wait till the drugs turned them into jello and then just sbot them without the planned dialog. I mean,  he did have the drop on them i initially. I guess he just enjoyed setting them up.

I was getting ready to have your two jerk offs fail miserably at their assignment. Something maybe you can expand on later.

Also,  with three characters and two of their names beginning with the letter G,  I would change one for clarity. I need to go back on some of my stuff and do the same.

Gl

Tony

The crunch of glass signals the arrival of Gianni. I'l change it to 'The crunch of glass underfoot.' As I can see how that might get confusing. Thanks.

Yes, it's tough finding new angles for stories... but this one being about squatters, it seemed to fit that they would be drug abusers. I suppose I could switch them out for alcoholics... but I think people's sympathy may be with them more.

Thanks for the read and taking the time to share your thoughts, much appreciated.

I think your options here are pretty limited, especially if you want to limit sympathy for their demise. I would not move to alcohol. If you're going to stay with addicts - you are better off with the illegal variety. I suppose one option is to make them more nefarious (e.g.,gang members or something) - but I think you want them to be in enough of a stupor to fall into this mess in the first place.  I would leave as is.

Hey Dustin - took a look at this last week and thought about it a while--

First off, your (points at a clean...) is enough of an action to be an action line.

You've then got another wrylie referring to Steve and Gavin within Gianni's dialogue which just looks messy.

Unmindful? I bet he wasn't after being disgusted, then looking for a clean spot; he was probably pretty peed off about it.

Top of p5, I'm not convinced by the dialogue and I think it would work better just to have conflict.

I agree that an establishing shot's needed, and maybe a brief shot of them in the process of breaking in, saying 'squatter rights' etc. or something, as there's no indication that they are squatters early on and if that's not made clear than Gianni's speech on p2 loses some of its dramatic impact - it looks like they're just druggies and he's having a bit of a mad rant at them.

I was wondering -- Gianni undertakes quite a bit of exposition early on, revealing what he does (albeit falsely), his motivation etc., and maybe this would be better suited to the final act - so we don't really know much about him early on except that he has an offer for the boys. I just felt that the 'final act' bit needed some QT elements on it, so we get the reveal, his motivation, all when they are stuck in his lair?

Lastly, I do get what you are saying about squatters, but it still comes across a bit extreme, so an early cut come come it so they are not actually shown being shot - just the gun levelled at one of their heads? But maybe you want some gore in there.

My pleasure Dustin.

Congrats on getting some interest on it.

Dustin I'm finding this to be one of your lesser efforts.

I had problems visualizing the beginning to the point I became frustrated to push on.

So many clarity issues.

And nothing really original here.

I'm not British so I had to look up squat in an effort to better understand what I'm suppose to be imagining.

Slang in a slugline?

That's not reader-friendly.

Even so, from the definitions I'm reading (a residence where a person lives unlawfully: without paying and without obtaining permission) this is still extremely vague.

Although I understand your intentions here were detail, I don't even know what room they're in.

Is it furnished?

Are they sitting on the ground, sitting in chairs, stools, boxes, or standing? All terribly unclear I'm afraid.

The characters just pop into existence in this squat...

and where exactly they are situated in it, I haven't the faintest idea.

Then Gianni appears and you describe him with such detail as if you are the costume designer for the film. Why not just call him dapper? Do the listed articles of clothing play an important role in the story?

So as I read your dialogue questions begin to pop into my mind.

Why is this dapper man offering these lowlifes work?

Are you sure the genre of this is not mystery?

"Gavin sits back" - Gavin was sitting? Relaxes into the chair? The sofa? No clue.

"Unmindful of the dry cleaning bill, Gianni takes a seat."

Where? I'm surprised your wrote this Dustin. Usually you don't make mistakes like this.

The dialogue is pretty rubbish. Why should I care if some guy who likes designer clothing creeps up on two druggies in a "squat" and says he has work. This is unintentionally funny.

I know you've done better than this.

-J.S.

That's a link to the definition in the dictionary. As you can see it is a formal definition. The fact that you don't know it speaks of your ignorance that I am not obliged to address or, indeed, attempt to pre-empt.

The room with a window in it... but they can't see out because it is boarded up.

No they don't just pop into existence. That's not in the script at all. What you mean is that the story starts with them in the squat.

That's a normal question, well done. I imagine most would think that exact same thing. What's your point?

Ah, I see. Well, James... I know you're not aware of this, because you write like a seven-year-old, but in quite a lot of stories one often has to wait until the end to tie everything in.

There, now within context it's quite clear where he sits. I would suggest that you did it deliberately but you're not that bright.

It isn't slang, true. But it is chiefly British and I was unaware of its meaning, as I said. If your goal for this is to appeal chiefly to a British audience/producer, fine. No contest. But I don't think many other English speakers--this includes American producers btw :)--would know what this means. Not providing clarification for non-British English speakers is why I find it isn't reader-friendly.

The United States Homestead Acts legally recognized the concept of the homestead principle and distinguished it from squatting, since it gave homesteaders permission to occupy unclaimed lands. Additionally, US states that have a shortage of housing tend to tolerate squatters in property awaiting redevelopment until the developer is ready to begin work. However, at that point, the laws tend to be enforced.[citation needed] The Homestead Act of 1862 was signed by Abraham Lincoln on May 20 and sought to reallocate unsettled land in the West. The law applied to U.S. citizens and prospective citizens that had never borne arms against the U.S. government. It required a five-year commitment, during which time the land owner had to build a twelve-by-fourteen foot dwelling, develop the 160-acre (0.65 km2) plot of land allocated, and generally better the condition of the unsettled property. After five years of positively contributing to the homestead, the applicant could file for the deed to the property, which entailed sending paperwork to the General Land Office in Washington, D.C., and from there, "valid claims were granted patent free and clear".[7] Moreover, there were loopholes to this law, including provisions made for those serving in the U.S. military. After the Civil War, Union veterans could deduct time served in the army from the five-year homesteader requirement.

In common law, through the legally recognized concept of adverse possession, a squatter can become a bona fide owner of property without compensation to the owner. Adverse possession is the process by which one acquires the title to a piece of land by occupying it for the number of years necessary, dictated differently in practice by each state's statute of limitation for an eviction action. A necessary component of this transfer of ownership requires that the landowner is aware (or should be aware) of the land occupation[citation needed] and does nothing to put an end to it. If the land use by the new occupant goes unchecked for the said number of years, the new occupant can claim legal rights to the title of the land. The occupant must show that the "possession is actual, open, notorious, exclusive, hostile, under cover of claim or right, and continuous and uninterrupted for the statutory period."[8] As Erin Wiegand notes, the most difficult part of claiming adverse possession on the part of squatters is the continuous part. Squatting is a very transient lifestyle and many are evicted on a frequent basis.[9] In an article regarding recent foreclosures in the United States, a current squatter in Miami stated of her housing, "It's a beautiful castle and it's temporary for me, if I can be here twenty-four hours, I'm thankful."[10] Thus, while adverse possession allows for the legality of a squatter's situation, it is not common that a person can claim continuous possession of the land long enough to claim title by adverse possession.

Maybe you should put that in the script then ;)

From the link you provided:
"A building occupied by people living in it without the legal right to do so"

Nothing about a room with a window in it that's boarded up in this definition. For all I know they could be in the bathroom. On the stairs. I don't know, maybe there is more to the definition amongst British speakers than the dictionary is letting on. But working from that definition, I'm unable to visualize their location. All I know is that they're inside the building.

Why is this dapper man offering these lowlifes work?

I wasn't asking out of curiosity. I was asking it out of astonishment of the absurdity of the situation you've presented.

This is called a mystery. Consult your compatriot Mr. Hitchcock :)

I did miss this, true. As I was typing up my response I was getting confused between your characters Gavin and Gianni which actually speaks to another point of criticism I should have mentioned. At first I thought it was Gavin who entered the room and not Gianni. Probably should give one of them a different name to avoid confusion. That way when the audience is discussing your short, and one guy says to a gal, "I liked that Gavin character" she responds, "Which one was that?" :)

Here's a link from Wiki, which seems to believe that squatting is a word known to most Americans:

If you had to guess which room two tramps would be sitting in amidst piles of rubbish, which one would you choose?

Ah, it was an incredulous statement.

No, it's a mystery element within a thriller structure.

I doubt that that would happen... and here's why... no names are mentioned at all during dialogue. The names are only there for the reader. The fact that you got confused isn't really a surprise. It's like when a small child wets themselves. It's normal. It's a little kid, what do you expect?

This doesn't prove it's known to most Americans. A poll would prove it's known to most Americans. Perhaps it is, though, you're right. I'm in the minority if that's the case. Either way, I learned something today :)

The Preemption Act of 1841, also known as the Distributive Preemption Act (27 Cong., Ch. 16; 5 Stat. 453), was a federal law approved on September 4, 1841 during the early presidency of John Tyler. It was designed to "appropriate the proceeds of the sales of public lands... and to grant 'pre-emption rights' to individuals" who were already living on federal lands (commonly referred to as "squatters").

Squatting in the United States can be traced all the way back to the Pilgrims who arrived here on the Mayflower. According to a Santa Clara Law report by Kenneth A. Manaster, it has primarily been seen as a rural issue, with the majority of cases involving  people claiming land that’s not theirs on the western frontier. Squatters often took possession of land to which they had no title. Through a process of preemption, they were given the opportunity to purchase that land at a low price before it was put up for auction and sold.

Today squatting is seen primarily as a civil issue rather than a criminal one in many countries. In Europe, anyone with unopposed occupation of a piece of land for more than 12 years can gain a title to it. In order to get rid of squatters, owners must take them to court in lengthy and costly legal battles to prove that they are unlawfully occupying their property.

WHAT ARE SQUATTERS RIGHTS?

For starters, the term “squatters rights” has no precise or fixed legal meaning, varying contextually speaking based on jurisdiction. In the United States it is most commonly associated with being a specific form of adverse possession, which is an ancient legal doctrine that has been called the “law of the landless.” Adverse possession is defined as:

A method of gaining legal title to real property by the actual, open, hostile, and continuous possession of it to the exclusion of its true owner for the period prescribed by state law. Personal property may also be acquired by adverse possession.

I'm baffled. Why didn't you just say they were tramps in the first place? What's wrong with writing two tramps, in some room inside an abandoned building? I would know what you're talking about instantly. This is just like what Orson Welles said about the writers during the latter part of his life. They like to use big words in order to impress. You're writing for the screen Dustin. You're not Bill Shakespeare.

Dumbstruck. I was dumbstruck.

When you begin your exposition with a mystery, I lose faith in your exposition. You have a mysterious, well dressed, shady figure talking to two tramps about a job. All this is a mystery to the tramps and the audience.

Sure, it isn't illegal to do this. Rather than giving the audience information, as a writer normally does during exposition of a story, you resort to mystification.

I have no interest in this. If I were to see this happening during broad daylight I wouldn't care the slightest.

I would go on my merry way. I believe I'm in the majority when I say that. Now if I saw the Prince of Zamunda talking to two tramps, that would probably grab my attention.

If I saw an officer playing guitar in front of two tramps, that would grab my attention.

If I saw a belly dancer throwing up in front of two tramps, that would grab my attention. What you wrote? Next channel.

That's even worse Dustin! Why did you give them names in the first place?? Skinny tramp and Fat tramp. Done.

Oh this is just brilliant. You believe squat is a big word. Indeed a larger word than Abandoned Building. In my country we can just say 'squat'... but you'd prefer abandoned building because it is a smaller word. People that live in filthy, rat-ridden squats and abuse drugs are always tramps. What else could they be?

I'm guessing this happens a lot with you, James. Excellent choice of words.

Then by this logic all stories are mysteries as we cannot know what is going to happen until it happens. We might feel that we can guess, but it is still a mystery until it actually happens.

Then it isn't exposition.

Ah, I get it. How would you know it was the Prince of Zamunda? You expect a prince to walk around with a crown on their head?

So Skinny Tramp and Fat Tramp are not names?

I hate to be the 40th person commenting on anything, but I've been out of pocket (U.S expression, 1908, meaning away or unavailable).

Effective short -- crisply told, funny lines (eg: "do we still get the money?"), absurdist situation made believable.

For me, there was no confusion about anything. As Janet said, squatter is a pretty common term.

Henry

J.S,

What word do you use instead of squatters?  What's the equivalent?

I believe they're called 'squatters', Max.
Here's a link to the word in the Merriam-Webster, America's number one dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/squatter

No mention there of it being chiefly British.

I believe they're called 'squatters', Max.
Here's a link to the word in the Merriam-Webster, America's number one dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/squatter

No mention there of it being chiefly British.

If you aren't familiar with the term "squatters" J.S, what word are you familiar with? Just curious, because I'm sure you're fully aware of what a squatter actually is.

You can squat in a mansion, btw.

It's just the act of occupying a building and living there without permission of the owner.  You could be a millionaire and a squatter at the same time.

You must know this act by a certain word, surely?  If the word is "squatter" and you've forgotten the term because you haven't heard it since school... then I don't know what to say.

I hate to belabor this...

...but since several have chimed in, we were talking about "squat", the noun, "A building occupied by people living in it without the legal right to do so", which according to the dictionary is chiefly British. I wasn't aware of either squat or squatters/squatting but, regardless, you're missing the larger point I'm making about clarity. Which is...

Even if you had written "INT. ABANDONED BUILDING" how does that somehow make it more clear where your characters are located? You response was, it isn't important. "If you had to guess which room two tramps would be sitting in amidst piles of rubbish, which one would you choose?"

How ironic because when I questioned why you would choose to detail your character so much, you responded with. "It adds character." If you wanted me to guess about the setting, why not have me guess about the characters? Not very consistent.

Exactly, this proves my point. You're not being clear. You want the reader to guess. As one of my teachers once said, "If I have to guess at the meaning of your words, you're getting a lower grade." And another common thing I've heard English teachers say is, "When in doubt, write it out." Yes, in your country you can say "squat", and people will understand what that means. I have never heard anyone refer to an abandoned building or site occupied by tramps referred to as a squat.

No, Dustin. Not knowing what's going to happen until it happens is not the same as, "one often has to wait until the end to tie everything in."

Your script is six pages long.

Middle of page three is when he makes it clear what the job is.

So up to that point its a mystery to the reader and the tramps.

Your exposition ends three quarters in on page 4. Think about that.

Where is the thriller part in this? Last two pages? Poor exposition.

What isn't exposition?

Apparently you don't know who the Prince of Zamunda is ;)

You know what I meant, Dustin. Why did you give them proper names? They don't need it. Not only is more detailed and clear, it avoids confusion

No, I don't know it by a certain word. I was referring to the noun which is chiefly British. Third time I've had to say this.

So you're not prepared to explain your comments?

In a squat of this description (rats scurrying, rubbish everywhere, no electricity) it really doesn't matter which room it is because they are just rooms full of shit. Maybe the bathroom would be worth remarking upon, but aside from that, it could be any room as they would all look the same. It's a squat. If I were to write LIVING ROOM, then this could actually cause the reader to imagine a type of living room. I don't want that. I just want people to imagine a rat, scurrying, rubbish-filled squat cohabited by two drug abusers. Which most can.

I'm not sure this actually warrants an answer. It's bordering on complete idiocy.

So by this logic this makes the story a mystery?

I'm pretty sure it ends on page 6, James.

Their names are not important but it helps ease the read if they're given them.

Yeah.

The noun means "a building occupied by people living in it without the legal right to do so"

You've heard of that, right? So what "noun" do you use to describe a building that has been illegally occupied by people?

What noun do you use? That's what I'm asking.

I thought I just told you I don't use a noun.

It could be a mansion, as Max pointed out. It could be an airport. It could be a casino. It could be a bathroom. It could be a mall. It could be in the elevator. It could be on the ceiling. It could be in a cellar. It could be at the bottom of an empty swimming pool. It could be ..............

I don't understand why I have to hold your hand to get you to understand you're being extremely ambiguous. I can't make this any more clear for you. You'll have to make a little bit of an effort to understand. Despite how hard you hate to admit I'm right.

Setting = Ambiguous.

I originally asked you, "Are you sure the genre of this is not a mystery?" I wasn't claiming the entire story was a mystery. The more important question here is, where's the thriller part in this? Last two pages?

Your exposition ends on page 6??? Mind = blown. Is this Dustin or some tramp typing up these responses?

Yes. Ease the read alright. Might I suggest you call them Gabe, Gavin, and Gamal? That will really ease the read.

You don't even want to cede a single point I made because you know I'm right but it angers you. That's why you resort to insults. Deep down in your heart you know how right I am and it burns your insides.

Anyway, I've overstayed my welcome.

I've clarified myself enough for you.

I can't help you more than this.

Well... okay, but to be honest I felt you were being disingenuous, so I just figured move on. I don't actually post stuff to start arguments, and IMO the tone of your feedback felt like something that I didn't want to engage with.

There is always opinion in regard to the work we do, and that goes from the script to the finished product as you are aware. So, my explanation - Gianni, dressed dapper, stylishly, pointing to a 'clean spot' would only have done so because he was mindful of his attire. Using 'Unmindful' felt that it went against the nature of the character - if he was so casual about it, then I feel he probably wouldn't have even looked for a 'clean spot' in the first place.

It is a criticism of your work, but only where I think there is a contradiction, and it is valid.

If I'm wrong, I'll accept that.

Really? You normally just run away for a few months.

Do not critique my style choices. Well you can, but be prepared for me to bite back.

You noticed. You missed me. I'm touched.

Dustin, firstly make your mind up; and secondly, if posted in a public forum, I'll critique whomsoever I wish. And do you really want to frame your minor tantrum as you 'biting back'. Dummy back in please :)

Hey, Dustin

The premise, for whatever reason, reminded me of the Godfather, "An offer he can't refuse." Basically, do it or I'll kill you. Here, however, it's the person who can't refuse the offer, which is kind of funny in a dark comedy sort of way.

Anyway, nice read. I like how the story funneled to its conclusion, Gianni's list of most hated.

BLB

Dustin

“Gavin sits back, disappointed, this doesn’t sound like it’s
going to be easy.”

- Sh?t, so this guy would rather put out!

GIANNI
The second worst kinda people in
the world are people that refuse to
pay, make me get a court order and
then, then refuse to leave. Know
what happens then?

- One too many "then" here?

“Steve nods, they look easy enough.”

- You just know this is too good to be true. The fee is exorbitant and the targets are vulnerable. It all screams “there’s a catch/it’s a set up”! Reading on...

STEVE
(considers)
Yeah, I s’pose we can. Let’s scare
the shit out of them first though.

- Ha, only junkie logic would think it better to alert the residents of their presence before robbing them rather than the other way around.

STEVE
You bastard.

Gianni grins.

GAVIN
Are we still getting paid?

Gianni and Steve glare incredulously at Gavin.

GIANNI
Do you understand the thousands of
pounds worth of damage you animals
have caused? My client and his wife
almost separated a few times due to
the heartache.

STEVE
It was already like that when we
got there.

- I would consider omitting all of this. Once Gianni says:

GIANNI
The penny drops. Clients pay me to
get rid of unwanted guests.

We know what's going down...From there, I would have him tell Gavin and Steve his number one most hated thing before shooting them. I feel it has more impact if the scene is abrupt like that rather than including those extra explanatory lines.

Also Gavin's "Are we still getting paid" line is just pushing the cluelessness factor a little too much, in my opinion. Gianna has a gun pointed at them and tied them to beams in a basement so it’s pretty clear to all involved their deal no longer stands.

Anyway, that aside it’s an effective twist at the end. Like most, I figured something was coming but didn't anticipate this (which thinking back I really should have) so good job there.

I really enjoyed this one!  I love how very consice your action and descriptions are.  Definitely something I could learn from!  You use just enough words to paint that picture.  

You need to persuade them that you're the man for the job on that feature then!

I only spotted one continuity slip, when one of them sits up at the mention of £500, when it changes angle he's slumped baclk again... Hardly a major issue.

Good luck with this (wherever it goes) and future work with them.

CONGRATULAIONS!!! That was great!  8)

I noticed the directors were different than who first was going to make it?

It was only a couple of months ago that I found them, so the turnaround has been a lot faster than it may seem.