Rites Of Men

Genre: Drama
Premise: A working-class single father's world comes crashing down when his son goes missing.
About: Herman just sold the bank heist spec "Conviction" to Universal last month, which opened up the door to sell "Rites Of Men" a couple of weeks later.
Writer: Jonathan Herman

Rites Of Men is about a single father, Rett, and his introverted teenage son, Billy. Rett's a bit of a screw-up. Doesn't pay his taxes, much less his bills. But his saving grace is that he loves his son more than anything. When Billy starts growing up, gets himself a girlfriend, and starts spending more time with her than him, Rett is predictably hurt. His son means everything to him. But when Billy stops talking to Rett altogether, his hurt becomes concern. Something bad is going on in Billy's life and Rett tries to pry it out of him. But Billy won't budge. Whatever's going on, he's keeping it to himself.

After Rett gets Billy a car for his birthday, Billy heads down to Florida to spend the weekend with his mother. Unfortunately, he never gets there. Billy and his car go missing for weeks. It's every parents' worst nightmare. A few days later, they find Billy's body in some bushes. Rett's world comes crashing down. He is destroyed.

Months pass and Rett's life is one big alcoholic binge. The only thing he feels is hate. The cops gave up on his son's case a long time ago and it's left Rett with nothing but bitterness. It is by complete chance then that he happens to spot the very car he bought Billy. With a little investigation, he discovers the identity of the driver, a beautiful nurse named Carla. He cons his way into meeting her, discovering early on that she had nothing to do with Billy's disappearence, and starts to fall for her. He also befriends Carla's high school son, a teenager who reminds him a lot of his own son. Rett once again finds himself playing the role of father, and the three of them become a weird dysfuncitonal family with a hell of a lot of baggage.

But when Rett finds Billy's old girlfriend and realizes he may finally get some answers to his son's death, he charges blindly into a world that's much deeper than he could've imagined. As the pieces come together, a disturbing chain of events surfaces - the decisions his son made that led to his execution.

Rites of Men nearly made my Top 10. It's an excellent screenplay by an excellent writer. Technically, it blows most screenplays I read out of the water. The characters are all memorable, the emotion is real, the dialogue is great, the story never slows, it hits all the beats and yet it never feels structured. It's just a really good script. Remember "The Low Dweller," the script I reviewed a few weeks back? This was like that script, except entertaining. Herman really really knows how to entertain.

What yanked it out of my Top 10, and even my Top 25, was a late twist that was too convenient, followed by an ending that was too messy. I see this happen a lot with these scripts. A really smart set-up that loses itself in a blur of stabbing and shootings and geographic confusion - the writing equivalent of when a director shoots a fight scene in super close-ups so you can never tell what the hell is going on. It just didn't quite live up to the rest of the script, which always had me guessing.

But still man, this script was really good. Herman crafts tons of lines like this one, where Rett responds to an officer telling him to stay strong: "Maybe put your own child in a hole sometime. Throw a little dirt on top. See how strong it makes you."

Really top-notch stuff. This one's a keeper. Check it out.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: This is a good lesson. Too many writers try to break in with their low-concept scripts. But the reality is, even if these scripts are great, agents and producers know they'll have a tough time selling them, particularly if the person's a first-time writer and doesn't have the track record to justify the gamble. Herman busted in with a way more commercial bank-heist spec a few weeks earlier - something an executive knew he could sell. Now that Herman had a track record around town, he was able to bust out the less commercial "Rites Of Men," and people trusted him enough to buy it. Go in first with your high-concept or highly marketable idea. Once you've made the sale, then bust out the character piece. There are cases of doing it the other way around, but they're few and far between.

Saturday Update

Some good news about the upcoming week. I'll be getting back to the present and reviewing four - count'em FOUR - recently sold specs. As you may have noticed, we're getting some cease and desist orders on the script postings, which means those of you checking in late don't get a chance to read them. I usually post around midnight Pacific time, but if you want that up to the second notification, follow me on Twitter. You'll know as soon as the newest review is posted.

Don't forget to always check my "Scripts Wanted" list to the right there. I just added "Conviction". Loved the script from the same writer I'll be reviewing next week. Dying to read his previous sale. Does anybody have "Signals" or "Doomsday Protocol?" Should I just give up on them? I'm also looking for any Nicholl-winning screenplays not named Butter. Preferably pre-2008, as I have all of last years.

Thanks to all who've have used the script consultation service. You've made me very busy. For those interested in getting some awesome notes on your latest spec, please contact me for prices. I'm booked this week but have openings the week after.

Time for some shut-eye so I can watch the French Open tomorrow. :)

Scriptshadow Challenge 2!

We are here. Finally! For those of you newer Scriptshadow converts, you probably haven't heard of The Scriptshadow Challenge. What is it? Oh man, trying to describe The Scriptshadow Challenge is like trying to describe sex. It's beyond description I'm afraid. It's something you gotta feel deep inside you, you know what I mean? I'll give it a shot though. My buddy Scott (Go Into The Story) and I give you a fairly recent spec script, which you read during the week, then next Friday Scott and I both post our reviews, and you then post your reviews in the comments section. Basically, we're trying to get a big ole quasi-intellectual discussion going on here. Why did this particular script sell? How did it achieve such accolades? What distinguishes it from everyting else out there? Those are the kinds of questions we want you asking yourself.

This month's script? The controversial NUMBER 1 SCRIPT on the 2008 Black List: The Beaver, about a depressed family man who finds a Beaver puppet that he wears on his hand 24/7. Of course the beaver puppet speaks in an English accent (cause, like, why wouldn't he?) and starts to take over the man's life. Dark, weird, edgy. For awhile Steve Carrel was attached, but now it looks like Jim Carrey is circling the project.

I know there are some of you that are saying, "Wait a minute. You're going through this big schpiel, making it sound like we're about to have the time of our lives, and what this all amounts to is you giving us homework?" Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...yeah! Download "The Beaver" here: The Beaver -- And start working on those reviews for next Friday.

The Year Of Wonders

Genre: Drama
Premise: A father who is recovering from the death of his wife takes his daughter on a trip to experience the Seven Wonders of the World
About: This original spec sold a couple of years back, I believe for mid-six figures. It will be directed by the writer and produced by Marvin Acuna (The Great Buck Howard).
Writer: Timothy Scott Bogart


The Year of Wonders would make a great journal. The Year of Wonders might make a good videologue. But the Year of Wonders is not a great screenplay. Nor will it make a great movie. In essence, it's two people hopping around the world talking about someone who just died. There's nothing present about the story. The focus is on the past. So even though we're traveling the world, we never really feel like we're there.

I remember this selling a couple of years ago and thinking it was a neat idea. Being in the presence of the seven most amazing structures/natural wonders on the planet would be the ultimate life-changing experience. The irony is that there's no sense of that wonder in the script. It focuses more on the pain that the two characters are enduring, specifically the dad, and does so in a very heavy-handed manner. For example, these are the first words out of Lou's (the daughter) mouth...
[scrippet]
LOU’S VOICE
Do we choose the lives we live?
(silence, then really thinking about it, before...)
Or do you think we end up living the lives we’ve chosen?
[/scrippet]
I don't know about you but I have no idea what that means. The script follows teenage daughter Lou, and her doctor father, Joel, after Maxine, Joel's wife, dies of cancer. When a messenger delivers a videotape a few days later, it turns out to be Maxine, from the grave, telling her husband and daughter that they're going on a trip. It will be spontaneous, it'll be fun, and it'll be right now. The plane tickets have already been purchased.

Turns out that crafty Maxine was putting together a little video collection on the sly - an international scavenger hunt which focuses on the seven wonders of the world. I can hear the collective groan from cyberspace - and it's deserved. Whether Timothy wrote this before they came out, or just hasn't watched a lot of movies and/or TV - the whole "from the grave scavenger hunt" thing has been done to death, most recently in the Hilary Swank Romantic Comedy "P.S. I Love You" which almost single-handedly made me quit movies. So in addition to the other problems I mentioned, the script feels unoriginal as well.

So they go from country to country, getting new videotapes from Maxine along the way, following directions, all while Lou channels her inner Gray's Anatomy, giving poignant voice over. Again, there's nothing active happening. It's all reflection. It's all following directions and instructions making our two main characters feel like puppets in a show. Drama, conflict, twists and turns. You're not going to find that here.


The one chance the script had to redeem itself was in the relationship between Lou and her father, which we're meant to believe is troubled. The problem is there's nothing in the first act that informs us of this. We only find out it's "troubled" when we're told it is in a Lou voice over late in the second act. I'm not going to care about two people fixing a relationship that I never knew was broken.

Here's a fairly common scene from the script...

[scrippet]
EXT. ITALIAN HOTEL - ROOFTOP - NIGHT

Joel and Lou sit on the roof. All of Rome before them, as -

LOU
Why didn’t he tell me? Why did he lie? I didn’t even really like him.
(then, so honestly -)
So, why does it hurt so much?

JOEL
Because it’s supposed to. And you’re supposed to let it.

Joel reaches out and gently brushes the tears from off her cheeks, but now there’s no stopping them, as -

LOU
I miss her so much, dad. I miss her every second. She’s supposed to tell me what to do.

This just devastates him -

JOEL
I know.

LOU
Who’s going to teach me everything? Who’s going to show me - how to be a woman? How - to get married? How - to hold my babies? It’s not fair.

JOEL
I know.

Joel reaches for her and pulls her towards him -

LOU
I can’t breathe...

JOEL
Yes, you can. Yes, you can.

And as she continues to cry in his arms, Joel is finally the support she needs. Strong. Loving. Embracing. Her father.
[/scrippet]
And it hurts to write this because Timothy is clearly telling the story from a place of honesty and possibly real-life experience. It's not easy to bear your pain in a screenplay. But it can't *just* be emotion. You have to tell a story. And the story in The Year Of Wonders isn't compelling enough.

[ ] trash
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The first act is where you set up your story. One of the most important places to focus your attention is the relationships between the characters. If there's a specific issue between two characters, you have to give us at least one scene that clarifies it. Many writers are hesitant to bring too much attention to these problems for fear of "hitting the audience over the head." But if you're too subtle, the transformation the characters/relationships go through later on in the script won't carry enough weight.

Horror and The Scriptshadow Challenge

A couple of quick things. First off, horror. I know you've been demanding it, but my horror aficionados are busy. Which means *I'm* the only one left to brave the genre. As I've pointed out before, I'm not the biggest horror fan. But I'm a huge *story* fan. I like good stories, no matter what the genre. So for you - the people - I'm going to read a horror script for next week. But I want suggestions. Give me something GOOD. Not some excuse to throw fake blood on people. No, I will not review The Strangers 2. That is exactly the kind of script I *don't* want to read. So give it to me. Horror, zombies, etc. I want something that's going to make me say, "Hmm, this horror stuff isn't so bad. I want to read more of it."

Also, as some of you have noticed, it's that time of month. No, not *that* time of month. But the time of month for The Scriptshadow Challenge! Woo-hoo! Scott Myers and I from Go Into The Story give you guys a script to download, a week to read it, and then we all get to review the thing instead of just me. So be looking for that tomorrow morning. Scott and I have chosen a script that will surely provoke some discussion. I wonder what it's going to be. :)

Exit Zero

Genre: Sci-Fi Thriller
Premise: A young computer genius discovers a series of computers cooperating with each other. He suspects foul play.
About: Exit Zero is on a few of those "Best Unproduced Scripts in Hollywood" lists. Wimmer has a couple of scripts in my Top 25, including Law-Abiding Citizen (which I seem to be the only fan of) and Salt. Exit Zero was purchased for 1.5 million dollars back in 1996.
Writer: Kurt Wimmer


Exit Zero is about a young computer genius, Max, who begins to suspect that a series of supercomputers are communicating with each other. He mentions it to some coworkers and his superior and their responses are predictable: "So the fuck what?" Just when Max thinks he's overreacting - BAM - he's hit with a mass murder charge. ??? What??? The FBI shows up within minutes to arrest him but our young spry Max slips away.

Soonafter, he runs into Sandy, an icy bitch who has some sort of advanced cognitive ability that allows her to see holograms inside newspapers and magazines that very well may be holding subliminal messages meant for the human race. The messages say, "They stopped using subliminal messages in movies back in 1996" as well as something about "Prepare for Exit Zero."

The CIA joins in on the chase, forcing Max and Sandy to find out what's going on before they're caught (and maybe even killed!). They hop from city to city, picking up clues along the way, and learning that dozens of supercomputers are communicating with each other without any human interaction! Packages are being sent from all over the world to a central location. The question is: What's in the packages?

Well if I told you , I'd be giving away the big secret right?!

.......

Okay fine I'll tell you. (***spoilers***) The packages are robot parts, being manufactured during downtime at the factories when workers aren't around. So then who's ordering the factories to make and ship these parts? Are you ready for this?? Well, finally the internet has found some sort of central conscious after being fed gazillions of bytes of information for so long. But since it can only do so much as an invisible entity, it's using computers from all over the world, mainly in car and machine factories, to create a physical embodiment - read "robot" - which it can then transfer itself into.

I'll be honest, I was kind of into this. But that's because I'm into anything techno-thriller-like. If it wasn't so dripping with 90s ideas, I'd like it more. The whole "being able to erase your identity and charge you with any crime at any moment" thing? Sandra Bullock in the "The Net" anyone?? Even 15 years later though, this is still a hell of a lot more creative than that piece of crap, Eagle Eye.

A couple of other problems I had were that the girl was completely worthless. There was nothing likable or intersting about her at all - unless you count her nonsese ability to see secret codes embedded in magazines that no one else in the world could. They don't exploit any sort of relationship between her and Max- and I'm not saying you have to do that in every movie. But if she's just there to run around and be annoying, why even include her?

And the ending of this thing. Oh my God. All I can tell you is there's a space shuttle involved. Why they're all of sudden in a space shuttle? How they got on the shuttle?? I could probably read this thing 50 more times and I still wouldn't be able to answer those questions. I just know that Kurt Wimmer was putting a damn space shuttle in that third act through hell or high water. He clearly had no concerns whatsoever about if it had anything to do with the story or not.

And yet still, through all of this, I really dug Exit Zero because the mystery portion of the script was fun. I have a feeling some of you will vehemently disagree, but if you're like me and "CNET's" one of your main bookmarks, there's a chance you'll enjoy Exit Zero.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Get into your story FAST. One thing I constantly see in beginner scripts is writers who take their time getting into the story. Four, five, six scenes go by before we even get a whiff of what the story is about. I'm not saying this can't be done. But whenever you see it in a film, I can almost guarantee you it wasn't a spec script. It's a writer-director or an independent script with a director attached. In spec scripts you have to start the story quickly and never stop moving. In the very first scene of Exit Zero, Max encounters a problem (with the computers). And so right away, the story has begun. Save the ponderous stuff for your first directing gig where you don't have to win over a reader. In the spec world, it's all about getting to the story NOW.

Snatched

Genre: Thriller
Premise: A father takes a man he beleives is his daughter's abductor for a little ride.
About: Snatched is a 2008 Nicholl winner.
Writer: Lee Patterson


I’ve covered a lot of scripts here on Scriptshadow. I’ve given you million dollar sales. I’ve given you Black List scripts. I’ve given you adaptations and reviews where I haven't even read the script (click here for reference). But one script I haven’t given you is a Nicholl winner. For writers millions of miles away from Hollywood, winning a screenplay competition is their best bet at getting noticed. So I thought I’d show you exactly what a Nicholl-winning script looks like. Here is my review of Snatched.

You know Snatched has it going on after only a few pages. We learn that a young girl has gone missing. Her grade school teacher, Lewis, is devastated, as is everyone in the community. They all fear the worst. At the end of the school day a mysterious man, Jack, introduces himself to Lewis. Jack is the father of the missing girl and he’d simply like to talk to Lewis for a few minutes. For 15 pages, the two walk through the school, through Lewis’s classroom, vaguely discussing their personal ways of dealing with this horrible tragedy. But the genius of this scene is that everything that’s being said is secondary to everything that’s not being said.

Remember the scene in The Fugitive when Ford starts to realize that the cops aren’t asking him what he knows? They're accusing him of killing his wife. Lewis realizes that there's something similar going on here. So he makes up an excuse for having to leave early and ends the meeting with Jack. But when Lewis gets to his car, his tire is mysteriously flat. How convenient it is then, that he's offered a ride by the passing Jack? Of course Lewis is hesitant, but Jack gives him a poor sob story that makes Lewis question whether he misread their earlier conversation. So he gets in the car. And Snatched begins.

We find out that Jack's done his own investigation and he already knows who the kidnapper is. But there are still a lot of unanswered questions. Is Lewis, the most mild-mannered teacher in the history of grade school, the kidnapper? And if he is, is Jack's daughter still alive? Can she be saved? It's a smart decision by Patterson because it keeps Jack from wasting Lewis right then and there. Whether Lewis is the kidnapper/killer or not, he knows that that question is the only thing keeping him alive.

We've seen these vigalante justice scripts before. The damn things are becoming their own genre for Christ's sake. But this one gets it right. If you enjoyed Prisoners (sadly, no longer in my Top 25), I can pretty much guarantee you'll like Snatched.

There are a few areas I took issue with. There's a scene where Lewis gets away and Jack must drive through a mall parking lot to find him in a high stakes game of hide-and-seek. I understand that in theory this might work. But you ask the audience to make a huge leap of faith when your “protagonist” gets into a heavily populated area and your “bad guy” throws all logical thinking out the window and chases him anyway. Obviously, you gotta change things up when 80% of your script takes place in a car. But this was a moment where I thought, even a crazy person would’ve cut his losses and left.

***MAJOR SPOILER!***
The biggest issue I had with the script, however, was that in end, we’re subjected to the old tape recorder trick. The one where the good guy is secretly recording the killer’s confession and then proudly shows him that "AH-HA! I WAS RECORDING YOU ALL ALONG!" I’m actually kind of baffled that writers still use this as it’s literally been used 10 billion times - 9 billion of those on 90210 and Melrose Place. Then again, what do I know? The Inside Man, one of the biggest heist flicks of all time, and Michael Clayton, a movie that was nominated for an academy award, both used the “tape recorder trick”. Maybe it's me who's the dummy for not using it.

Both of these were minor issues compared to what was otherwise a solid script. I think you guys will like this one. Check it out.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: The power of subtext! Conversations are always more interesting when what people say and what they actually mean are two different things. The first fifteen pages of Snatched are a mastercourse in this technique. Pay attention to how the most innocent line can have a multitude of meanings when you realize that Jack is probing Lewis for information.

"Buffy" sequel without Whedon or Gellar?

Today's Hollywood Reporter has a story about the development of a new Buffy The Vampire Slayer feature film. It wouldn't be a sequel to the utterly terrible 1993 Kristy Swanson film, nor would it have any connection to the fantastic series that ran on UPN and the WB from 1997-2003... and here's the real rub, folks.

Buffy" creator Joss Whedon isn't involved and it's not set up at a studio, but Roy Lee and Doug Davison of Vertigo Entertainment are working with original movie director Fran Rubel Kuzui and her husband, Kaz Kuzui, on what is being labeled a remake or relaunch, but not a sequel or prequel.

While Whedon is the person most associated with "Buffy," Kuzui and her Kuzui Enterprises have held onto the rights since the beginning, when she discovered the "Buffy" script from then-unknown Whedon. She developed the script while her husband put together the financing to make the 1992 movie, which was released by Fox.

...The new "Buffy" film, however, would have no connection to the TV series, nor would it use popular supporting characters like Angel, Willow, Xander or Spike.

...The parties are meeting with writers and hearing takes, and later will look for a home for the project. The producers do not rule out Whedon's involvement but have not yet reached out to him.

Say what? They "don't rule out Whedon's involvement but have not yet reached out to him?" Geez, the guy is only the creator and the man who shepharded the series to the phenomenom it is today. This is the guy with legions of loyal and insanely devoted fans. Granted, they don't seem to be turning out for Dollhouse, but they can make quiet a rumbling in the blogosphere. (Exhibit A: the phemonom of Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-Long Blog.)

My gut says that if they want any chance of pulling in the hard-core Slayer fans, they'll have to get Whedon's blessing somehow. I can also see fans being ticked that supporting this reboot might kill any chance of a Buffy feature film with the TV cast (though let's face it - that was a long shot.) As a fan, I think this sucks.

But the Kuzuis have every right to do this. They own the rights on the movie and they licensed the show to TV. As I understand it, Whedon had right of first refusal on any sequels and TV shows - which is how he ended up running the show in the first place. Apparently, the producers went to him, expecting he would pass on it. Clearly they're not obligated to go to him in a legal sense, and he wouldn't be the first creator pushed out of his franchise by producers.

I think not using the characters from TV might have less to do with respecting that continuity and more to do with how the rights to those particular characters are tied up. If the Kuzuis only own the movie they might not be able to acknowledge anything unique to the series. Or I suppose it's possible that they might own the movie characters outright, but that ownership of the TV elements is divided among different producers - which could force a sharing of the profits with those players if Xander, Willow, Giles, et al, were involved. It's hard to say for sure without seeing the actual deals.

I'm sure Whedon is entitled to a share of the profits, but I'm also sure that he'd much rather have full creative control. At the time he made that deal, though, he was a nobody and no one ever anticipated it would be the cult hit it became.

Let this be a lesson to future screenwriters - if you sign away your rights, this is the risk you take.

Lovers, Liars and Thieves

Genre: Period Drama/Adventure
Premise: A pair of thieves develop a scheme to steal the Mona Lisa in 1911 Paris.
About: "Thieves" has enjoyed semi-cult status in Hollywood as one of the better unproduced screenplays of the last 10 years. It was going to be made back in 2002 but fell apart at the last second. It's gearing up to be shot again by the writer himself.
Writer: Jeremy Leven

The original celebrity

Well, I gave it a shot. The script's pedigree and the fact that it was being championed by two of my friends convinced me I would fall in love with it. But alas, I did not. I wanted a story with an elaborate "Thomas Crowne Affair"-like plot to steal the Mona Lisa - I wanted people coordinating a series of impossibly timed maneuvers inside a small once-in-a-lifetime window. I wanted 1911 Mission Impossible. Instead I got a slightly above-average love story with characters I found mildly amusing.

Lovers, Liars and Thieves is a tough read. 6-7 line action paragraphs litter the script, testing your fortitude and making every page read likes it's 3. I coulda swore I was on page 30 as I sludged through the opening act. When I looked up I found I was still on page 10! The writing is pretty. It's just laborious and overly-detailed.

The story is about con artist/adventurer "The Marqui" and his partner in crime Daphne. The two are thick as thieves in the most literal sense and they luuuuuuuuv money. It's clear right off the bat that they're secretly in love each other. But both know that to give in to that love would mean the end of their edge. After their latest plan goes awry, however, Daphne decides she's had enough and wants to retire. The Marquis suggests one last job - something so big they can spend the rest of their lives in luxury - the theft of the Mona Lisa.

Of course to pull off their plan they'll need someone on the inside, and that person comes in the clumsy naive 60 year old cabinetmaker, Vincenzo. The plan is for Daphne to win over Vincenzo's heart, then convince him to steal the Mona Lisa for her. That way even if he's caught, they can hightail it out of town and let poor Vincenzo take the rap.

But that's the problem I had with "Thieves". Is that I wasn't interested in that plan. I was more interested in the plan to steal the damn Mona Lisa! And that gets short shrift in the script. Instead we watch as Daphne starts to fall for Vincenzo, and The Marquis, who's secretly in love with her of course, must make a choice. He can either call it all off before Daphne falls in love, thus ensuring they will be together. Or he can stay the course and land more money than he's ever dreamed of. Money or love? That's The Marquis question.

As I've alluded to, when the theft actually arrives, it's quite simple, even bizarrely so. Vincenzo basically has to take the painting when the guards' aren't looking. I'm assuming that Leven's betting by this point that we've developed more sympathy for Vincenzo, but to be honest I thought Vinenzo was the least interesting of the three and actually a big sad sap. Therefore I didn't really care whether he got away with the theft or not. I would've been much more involved had The Marquis and Daphne been doing the stealing.

There are some fun moments along the way. For you period-heads and art historians you get a pre-fame over-sexed Picasso pushing his controversial new painting style. When the Mona Lisa goes missing, Picasso is one of the first ones questioned (Picasso is on record for hating the Mona Lisa and believing it should be burned). The Maquis trading quips with Daphne is enjoyable. The overall dialogue is impressive. There are gems like this one sprinkled all over the script:

[scrippet]
MARQUIS
You're too hard on yourself, Daphné. The world was created with a tragic flaw. Many were given little, and a few were given too much -- much too much. By an accident of fortune, we seem to have been blessed with a unique talent in asset reallocation.
[/scrippet]
I'll even go on record as saying the structure and characters are written with an exceptional level of skill. So why didn't I like this thing? I think it comes down to my expectations. I was expecting and hoping for something different. When I didn't get it, I turned on the poor guy. This may have barely kept my interest, but it's such a well-liked script I'm still going to recommend you check it out.

[ ] trash
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Forcing your main character to choose between the thing he wants most (in this case, money) and the thing he doesn't realize he needs (in this case, love) is the cornerstone of any great character arc. Because in the end, he'll have to make a decision between the two. If he chooses money, he's still the same shallow person. Whereas if he chooses love, it shows that he's changed (or "arced"). Most (but not all!) screenplays have a main character that arcs.

Script reading and American Idol

I haven't watched American Idol regularly at all during its previous seasons, but for various reasons I got pulled in this season with the hype over Adam Lambert, who certainly has to be one of the more talented contestants to grace the Idol stage. I'm also somewhat proud to say that I have enjoyed Kris Allen since his Top 36 performance of "Man in the Mirror." (And as long as I'm drifting off topic, let me say that Allison Iraheta was a star in the making from her performance of "Alone" that same night.)

Some of you are probably wondering, why are you discussing America Idol on a screenwriting blog? Is it because you're shamelessly trolling for hits by including the names "Kris Allen" and "Adam Lambert" in your blog posts?

Hell yes, but I swear there's a context for all of this.

As I watched this season, I realized that there are many, many days where I as a script reader feel like a judge on American Idol, particular when I'm in a position where my feedback is going straight to the writer and not a producer or an agent. It's one thing to tell a development executive that a script sucks and give them their reasons for passing on it - it's quite another to put those reasons down in black in while in a document that you know is going straight to the writer.

And at the end of the day, every script reader is either a Randy Jackson, a Paula Abdul or a Simon Cowell. (The fourth judge who shall not be named is generally irrelevant when she's not putting bikini-wearing contestants in their place, so I shall not acknowledge her.) Randy - a guy with knowledge but little deep insight, or the ability to dissect a performance without falling back on increasingly repetitive jargon; Paula - a woman with occasional insight buried under a vocabulary desperately striving for intelligence. She might nail the issue, or she might just confuse you with double-talk.

And then there's Simon - the "mean" one, the guy who seems to take pleasure in taking down weak singers. He's almost - dare I say it? - bitter that he has to endure these talentless wannabes who can't realize when they're out of their depth. Most hate him for that - but often he's the first to praise the few contestants with talent. Granted, personal taste can cloud it. (His hard-on for Danny Gokey this season was incomprehensible, and I felt he rarely gave Kris his due.) For the most part, he's spot-on and razor-sharp.

As a script reader, I hope that I'm most like Simon. I tend to blunt in my criticisms, and I don't often apologize for it. While it's always good to temper harsh notes with some praise, it's important to remember that you do the writer no favors if you don't tell him when something plain doesn't work. At times I've "gone easy" on a terrible script, pointing out critical flaws without using strong adjectives to express just how wretched the writing choices were. Guess what? Often the writers then resubmitted making only very basic changes, failing to fix the major issues.

Writers are lazy - if you don't tell them something sucks, they won't go out of their way to rewrite it.

The other issue is that I hope that by being so hard on the scripts that are bad, my praise will mean more. If my bosses know that I have no hesitation about opening up both barrels on a piece of shit script, then when I rave about a screenplay, they're more likely to take notice. (Granted, with some agency coverage it behooves the reader not to be *too* savage in his criticisms, but that's a whole 'nother column.) And writers who have sat through my nitpicking their logic, lambasting their character choices, and stopping just short of insulting their talent will know that when I say "This is strong writing" I mean it.

The other reason for being harsh is that often the worst writers are the ones most delusional about their talent. I've read those kinds of scripts hundreds of times - from writers who clone and cobble their scripts together from many other sources, yet somehow remain convinced of their own brilliance. They're the screenwriting equivalent of Bikini Girl or William Hung. These people are so convinced of their own talent that it takes harsh criticism to get through to them.

I don't have a problem offering encouragement - but giving someone false hope doesn't help them in the long run. Watch the audition weeks of American Idol and ask yourself how a person incapable of being on-key for two successive notes could ever think they stand a chance in a singing competition. In those cases, is Simon mean for telling the truth? Or is he actually doing those people a favor?

I don't think any script reader enjoys savaging a script or its writer. Don't get me wrong, the mean coverages can sometimes be fun to write, especially when the script proves to be offensive, but it takes an hour to read, an hour to synoposize and often an hour or more to write up a critique. With an investment of three hours per script, no reader looks at his stack thinking, "Boy I hope this sucks so I can tear it a new one."

Quite the opposite, most readers are desperate for that diamond in the rough - for that script that they can impress their bosses with by "discovering it." And there's no feeling like being able to tell a writer, "This is brilliant."

So the next time you get a harsh critique, give yourself a few minutes to get the reaction of "How dare that asshole!" out of your system. Then, take a deep breath, read it again and see how the reader is trying to help you.

And ask yourself, seriously and honestly "Do you have what it takes?"

Or are you up there tone-deafly crooning "I Have Nothing"?

Never Let Me Go

Genre: Sci-Fi Drama
Premise: A trio growing up in a boarding school discover they are clones grown for the sole purpose of organ donation.
About: Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) directs Keira Knightly in this adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel. Garland wrote The Beach, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine. So if you liked any of those scripts, this might interest you.
Writer: Alex Garland


Never Let Me Go is a moving tale about a group of individuals who discover they will only live 1/3 of the life the rest of us do. The premise itself is unimpressive. Organ harvesting storylines dominated the headlines in the late 90s/early 2000s, culminating in the criminally bad Michael Bay directed sci-fi flick "The Island" - which curiously didn't have anything to do with an island. But it's the way the subject matter's addressed here that ultimately saves the script.

A group of friends attend a boarding school that treats its inhabitants like royalty except for a few rules. Anger is discouraged. Diet is strict. And life is ordered. There's an odd haunting quality about the place, as if we're living in the world's most beautiful coffin. Which, for all intents and purposes, we are.

Ruth and Kathy are frenimies. Ruth is the pretty one. She gets all the attention from the boys. And Kathy is the bookish introspective one (who will be played by Knightley when she's older). Tommy, the third member of this group, is a handsome boy with anger issues. We observe this complicated relationship as it evolves over the course of their stay at the school. Kathy confides in Ruth that she likes Tommy and it's clear that Ruth is jealous of their connection. So what does Ruth do? What any good frenimy would do. She asks Tommy out. The two, who couldn't be more wrong for each other, begin a long relationship, fueled by Ruth's desire to keep Kathy away from Tommy.

There aren't a lot of twists and turns in Never Let Me Go. The kids are told of their fate early on. Their organs will be harvested, one or two at a time, and after the third harvesting, somewhere in their 20s, they will die. But they're taught that it's their duty. So while under normal circumstances you'd expect anger or resentment. There is none of that here. Only acceptance.

After school, the organ-crew is allowed out into the real world, and our dysfunctional trio separates, only to meet up again in their early 20s, with Ruth near death, Tommy two donations down, and Kathy still yet to have her first donation. The three try to make up for past mistakes but find that it might be too late.

What was unclear to me is if this was happening in the future or if it was happening in some sort of alternate history. The harvesting is so frank, so non-secretive, that I figured we had to be in a hell of a far-off future. Yet the story had a very contemporary feel to it - so it was difficult to figure out just where we were. I was curious as to why a world would allow something like this to happen. Would a country like England really be okay with killing people for organs?

Never Let Me Go poses some interesting questions. The idea that these people know they're only living a portion of a life and are okay with that is the big one. But while we feel sorry for them, they don't feel sorry for themselves. And it's that fearless approach that keeps this from spiraling into Depressingville. Don't get me wrong, it's still dark stuff. It's just a unique way to approach the material. For that reason, it's worth checking out.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: One of the most tried and true formulas in storytelling is the love triangle. It can be used in any genre and as long as you make each of the individual characters compelling, it almost always works.

Untitled Bill Carter Project (Fools Rush In)

Genre: Drama
Premise: A man moves into war-torn Sarajevo hoping to get over his girlfriend's death. At first just an observer, he gradually becomes an active participant in trying to end the war.
About: Last I heard, Liam Neeson, Orlando Bloom, and Javier Bardem were to star. The script is based on the real-life experiences of Bill Carter living in Sarajevo during the war. It also landed near the middle of the 2007 Black List, which is the same year it sold.
Writer: Bill Carter (revisions by Jordan Roberts)

not exactly the Hollywood sign

It's hard to get excited about these "Untitled" projects. They feel like rejected versions of themselves. Like they weren't good enough for a title. "It's untitled," I think. "How good can it be?" I guess somewhere along the way "Untitled Bill Carter Project" begrudgingly accepted the title "Fools Rush In" to appease people like me. Although accepting a title that sounds like Sandra Bullock's next romantic comedy doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

You might remember this script from Geoff Latulippe's interview when he said it was the best script he had ever read while at New Line. After finally conquering my "untitled" fear, I called this sucker up to see if it belonged in the big leagues.

To say the plot of Bill Carter's memoir is unusual is a bit of an understatement. For the most part, writers writing spec scripts are encouraged to tell a clear story, with character objectives and plot points that are laid out in an easily digestible order. The direction of Untitled Bill Carter is anything but clear and it's far from digestible. Actually, I would call this the exact opposite of what you'd normally do when writing a spec. And yet somehow, after it's all over, it works in its own odd charming way.

Bill Carter is a young man in love. He and his girlfriend, Corinna, are hiking through the Redwood Forest when we first meet them. They're at that perfect stage of the relationship - right after casual and just before serious. Everything is perfect, nothing you ever do is wrong, and the possibilities the future holds seem endless. This opening scene is beautifully written and sets up the emotional undercurrent that drives the rest of the story. We know these two were meant to be together forever.

HARD CUT to SPLIT-CROATIA, two years later. Bill is as unkempt as an Atlantic City street corner (if you haven't been, trust me, that's bad). And at the moment, he happens to be fucking an overweight Croatian prostitute (if you haven't had one, trust me, that's bad). The jarring transition leads into the revelation that Corrina is dead. And since her death, Bill has been drifting from country to country trying to forget her.

way too many jokes to make here

Split (pun intended?) is about as far away from the Redwoods as you can get. And that's exactly how Bill likes it. He wakes up every day more depressed and more hopeless than the previous. He has no job, nothing to eat. What little money he has comes from selling drugs, something that will get you into deep shit in Split. Yet Bill doesn't care. It's almost as if he wants to get caught. His friends plead for him to come back home and it's only after he's spent his last dollar that he realizes he has no other choice. Bill will do anything to not go home. Maybe even end his life.

That night though, Bill runs into a crazy drunken orange-haired Englishman named Graeme. The two strike up an odd friendship and Graeme offers Bill a job. "Doing what?" Bill asks. Graeme just smiles. Bill will have to find out for himself. Things only get stranger when Bill is introduced to Graeme's crew, a multi-cultural band of vagabonds, a motley bunch if there ever was one. All Bill knows is that they call themselves the "Serious Road Trip" and that there's a picture of the Road Runner on the side of their truck. Not exactly the most accepting bunch, when Bill waffles they unsympathetically tell him he can either get on or get out. Bill gets on. But he has no idea how much his life's about to change.

Bill's more than a little concerned when they cross into Bosnia, where - oh yeah - there's a war going on. Checkpoints with armed soldiers and towns shattered by mortar fire are the norm. Before he can get acclimated, they're already stopping in their first town. Someone throws Bill a clown nose and green wig and pushes him into a mob of children. "Dance!" they scream. "Do something funny!" What the hell is going on?? The rest of the group have also thrown on their clown-suits and are entertaining the kids. It turns out The Serious Road Trip is a group of clowns that go into war-ravaged towns, offering entertainment and food to people. This is all the more delicious when you take into account that all the members are drug-addicted psychopaths!

They make it to Sarajevo, Bosnia's largest city, and use it as their main outpost, shipping food to places that everyone else is too afraid to go. While at first overwhelming to Bill - keep in mind that going to the corner store can get you shot - he finds a sort of inner peace in all the chaos. It's almost as if the constant threat of death is better than even the most fleeting thought of his Corrina.


Bill becomes friends with a lot of the locals, particularly a young Bosnian girl who is impossibly happy and optimistic despite the dire circumstances. When the war continues to get worse, even the die-hards say 'seeya!' One by one "The Serious Road Trip" members pack up and go, until there's only Bill left. This fearlessness and loyalty impresses the locals and they begin to see Bill as something more - someone who has the potential to bring change to their country. Unaccustomed to any kind of leadership role, Bill shies away at first. It's not until a televised U2 concert that he comes up with a radical idea. In a twist that no reader in reader history will anticipate, Bill decides to go to U2 and ask them for help!

Yes, you actually read that correctly. Bill hunts down U2. Cooking up some cockamamie story about being a reporter, he cons U2's assistant into meeting Bono before a concert. He makes a case for himself and to his surprise, Bono actually agrees to help. He'll do a satellite link-up to Sarajevo before all of his concerts, spreading awareness of the war. And if I'm to understand this right, this actually fucking happened!

There are a lot of touching moments in Fools Rush In. From the constant dreams of Corrina, to the friendships in Sarajevo cut short by death, to the camaraderie with the other men in the group. It's these characters that elevate Fools Rush In from your average spec to something real and alive. It really does seem like we're Bill, drifting through these crazy experiences that are indescribable out of context.

The script has its share of faults, though most of them are minor. The biggest problem, I believe, is that we spend too much time in Sarajevo, particularly towards the second half of the script. We've seen Bill's despair from page 4, so to push him further and further down the hole becomes almost masochistic. Plus it's repetitive and somewhat boring. I think that part can be quickened up a bit with a little chop-chop.

This script won't be for everyone because the subject matter is fairly dark. But if you give it a chance, I think you'll enjoy it.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] pretty damn good
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Fools Rush In eschews the traditional 3-Act structure, which makes it a bit of an anomaly. So why does it still work? Well, in any spec script, you have to do at least one thing exceptionally, whether that's structure or dialogue or imagination or, in this case, character. From the first page, Carter creates two characters that you fall in love with and care for. And from that point on, he never stops creating characters that are interesting, eccentric, or unforgettable. What do you do in your script that's exceptional?

Working in the public domain

A friend of mine - let's call him "Reign of F-ing Genius" - sent me an email weighing in on my post yesterday regarding using characters in the public domain:

Sadly, I am here to report that public domain is not nearly so clear cut when it comes to characters that have been adapted into film. The specific example I'm thinking of is the Invisible Man. H.G. Wells has been dead long enough that the character is technically in the public domain. Alan Moore put him to excellent use as a member of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. However, Universal still holds exclusive film rights for the property. So, when Fox adapted League into film, they legally could not use the same character from the book. So, in the film version, he's not THE Invisible Man, he's just AN invisible man. He's got a different name and the movie avoids specific references to his past. In this case, the change made as much difference to the final product as a leper catching a bad case of sniffles, but it goes to show that once a corporate entity has gotten its mitts on an existing character, the ownership issue becomes significantly more complicated.

Just something to keep in mind. I admit I'm not a lawyer, so do your homework when playing with characters of legally dubious status.

Paul

Genre: Comedy
Premise: Two British nerds fresh off a trip to Comic Con head off to Nevada to see the famed Area 51.
About: I believe this is the third collaboration between Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. Unfortunatley, their longtime director Edgar Wright is busy selling out and making Scott Pilgrim. So Pegg and Frost have decided to equally sell out and hire Greg Motolla, the director of Superbad. Pre-production is almost over and they should start shooting soon.
Writers: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost


Since "Help Me Spread Goodness" wasn't blazin' up the charts of any "to read" lists, I thought my Tuesday review should be something more mainstream. Everybody and their mother's mother is piping in about this script so I thought, what the hell, why not review it?

Now I'm about to lose some major geek street cred here but.....Oh man, I can't believe I'm about to say this...........I didn't like Shawn Of The Dead. Not only that, but I thought Hot Fuzz was pretty unwatchable. Does that mean I hate Simon Pegg? No, of course not. I thought "How To Lose Friends And Alienate People" was pretty good. And that Star Trek movie will easily be the best of the summer. Although he was kinda upstaged by that mini-Alien friend of his, who, if I may be the first to suggest, deserves his own spinoff movie.

Which is pretty ironic because Simon Pegg opts to share the screen with another little green man in his newest movie "Paul". Paul happens to be the name of an alien that Pegg's super-geeky character, Graham, and his even fatter and geekier sidekick, Clive, bump into during their cross country trek across the good ole United States. The desperadoes of dork meet the little green man, "Paul", outside of Area 51 not-so-desperately searching for someone to save him. It's not like they have anything better to do so they figure...why not?

And thus begins the first cross-country roadtrip with alien-on-board. Paul himself is a 3 foot tall alien that speaks perfect English and has been advising the American government for the past 60 years after his craft crashed on earth. When Clive realizes he could have *the* Roswell alien right here in his car, he freaks out:
[scrippet]
CLIVE
Oh my God! Roswell?! That was you?!

PAUL
Roswell was a smoke-screen man, designed to distract from the truth.

CLIVE
They invented a fake alien crash to distract from an actual alien crash?

PAUL
I know, fucking stupid, isn’t it?

CLIVE
What have you been doing here all this time?

PAUL
Oh you know, kickin’ back, shooting the shit. Advising the government.

GRAHAM
(Paul's already told him the story)
Not just the government.

INT. ROOM - DAY

CAPTION: 1980

A room lit by a single bulb, furnished with a table and chair. PAUL sits with his back to us, he is smoking a cigarette, whilst talking on the phone. We hear the voice on the other end of the line. It is strangely familiar.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
...I want him to have some kind of special power, you know? Something sort of messianic...

PAUL
How about molecular revivification.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
I don’t know what that is.

PAUL
Restoration of damaged tissue through telepathic manipulation of cellular intrinsic field memory.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
I...uh...

PAUL
Healing, Steven.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
Oh right yeah. Like by touch sort of thing? His little finger could light up at the end and-

PAUL
You know what? Sometimes, less is more.

The line beeps.

STEVEN SPIELBERG
You got another call?

PAUL
Yeah I gotta take this man. It’s the fucking V guys again.
[/scrippet]

The infamous Area 51

Paul would still be kicking it with his government peeps if they hadn't decided to terminate his alien ass. So he gets out of Dodge just in time to find the two biggest sci-fi nerds on the planet. Needless to say, it doesn't take long for the government to find out who has their alien.

Our trio meets up with Bible Babe Ruth, whose entire belief system is shattered when she meets Paul. They find the 7 year old girl (now 67) that Paul's spaceship almost killed 60 years ago, and who's lived her entire life having the world tell her she's crazy for believing in aliens (see the script "IGB - Intergalactic Being" for a similar premise). They also make a ton of references to Aliens, Star Wars, and Back To The Future. The majority of it is pretty funny.

However this script can never be as funny as it will be onscreen. You can practically smell the improvisiation potential on the pages. And I think that the duo did play the writing fairly safe. There is a scene late in the script that pits religion against evolution which, at the very least, takes a chance. But that scene is more the exception than the rule.

I'll leave you with one last scene for the day. This is just after Clive, Graham, and Paul have hit something in the road.

[scrippet]
EXT. DESERT ROAD - DAY

The door to the RV swings open, CLIVE and GRAHAM step out. The desert road is silent. We can see for miles. On the road lies a yellow and black bird, it is very dead.

PAUL
Fuck, that made me jump.

CLIVE
Ah yes, the waspish markings of a Scott’s Oriole. Unmistakable.

PAUL
What a waste.

GRAHAM
Poor thing.

CLIVE
Nothing anyone could’ve done.

PAUL looks at them, then scoops the bird up in his hands.

GRAHAM
What are you doing?

PAUL closes his eyes. His skin ripples with color as he sways slightly. The bird’s eyes flicker, its head lifts, it opens its beak and tweets. GRAHAM and CLIVE are astounded by what they are seeing.

GRAHAM
It’s a miracle!

PAUL stuff the bird in his mouth with a grotesque crunch.

PAUL
I’ll miss these.

CLIVE
Why would you do that?

PAUL
I’m not gonna eat a dead bird, am I?
[/scrippet]
[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I'm not sure I learned anything here but I did try an experiment. As I was reading, I was trying to imagine this script as a virgin property, not something Pegg and Frost had written or were attached to. I was trying to see how I felt about the script minus the elements and if I, or anyone else for that matter, would still turn it into a movie. I think I concluded that while the concept is definitely funny, I don't think the execution is good enough to get a green light. Give it a try yourself. Is this a script that's only funny because you can see Simon Pegg and Nick Frost in the roles? Or is it funny period? Please let your thoughts be known in the comments.

Reader mail - animated sequel specs

Again I have to apologize for the scarcity of postings lately. Real life has been keeping me busy. How about some reader mail?

I got this email last week from a reader named Martin:

I just completed an animated screenplay based on a character from a Disney animated movie, [REDACTED]. I’m a father of three kids that loved the movie just like countless kids throughout the world that went to see the movie at the theatre and now continue to view it today in the privacy of their homes. My son, in particular, loved the character [REDACTED] and wished there were more stories related to that character. I agreed whole hardily and one day began to write down some thoughts that ultimately, years later, turned into a full blown script.

It started as just a hobby and although now completed, I just assume keep it on my hard drive and look to it as a completed personal masterpiece; quite an accomplishment. However, I have dreams of the story being developed into a film to see how the story jumps off the page and how it would look on the screen. I understand the truth behind animated films and the in house development of these films by Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks. I was considering sending a few Query Letters out just to gauge interest, but after reading your brief article, “Writing Animated Specs”, perhaps I should just keep it to myself and enjoy it with my family. I just wanted to get your thoughts and see if you had any additional insight.

First, considering you wrote a sequel to an existing movie, I'll direct you to my thoughts on the practice in this post.

However, in the event that the character you're working with happens to be in the public domain, the problem might be less restrictive. No one owns those characters, so those "toys" are available. A really good example of this would be, Wicked, the book and Broadway production that focuses of the life of the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz. The novel The Wizard of Oz (but not the movie) is in the public domain, so anyone can do anything with those characters. In that case, using characters with an existing following and name recognition can be a benefit. Studios are cranking out remakes like nobody's business, and there's always room for a new take on an old story, especially if it's high concept. When you think about it, isn't it strange that no one asked, "What if Peter Pan grew up?" before Steven Spielberg explored that question in Hook?

However, if your fairy tale character isn't in the public domain, you're screwed. If you're writing this to be a sequel to an existing animated film, you're probably also screwed. The odds of a first time writer selling an animated script are extremely long. If you were a guy thinking about starting a script, I'd tell you to invest your time on something else.

But at this point, the script is written, so you might as well make some use of it, right?

My advice: rewrite the story so it doesn't necessarily have to be an animated film. Then, rewrite it so that there's some wiggle room for it to be taken as less of a direct sequel to the original film. In the same way that Hook isn't a direct follow-up on Disney's Peter Pan, your script need not be beholden to the original story. (Though in the case of this specific story and character, I have to admit I'm unsure if the lead of your script exists in the original tale and is in the public domain. Double-check this fact.)

Then, get to work on your second script. Have a strong treatment, and possibly a few other pitches. A realistic best case scenario is that people might like your animated spec, but feel like it's either not for them or that there's nothing that they can do with it. However, if the quality of your writing and your imagination impresses them, they might very well as, "What else you got?"

Make sure you have a good answer for them. My gut feeling is that you're not going to sell this first script, but it might be enough to open the door for another, more marketable spec.

Good luck.

Help Me Spread Goodness

Genre: Drama
Premise: A banker who gets swindled in a Nigerian internet scam travels to Nigeria to get his money back.
About: From Variety - "Ben Stiller will direct/produce with Red Hour partner Stuart Kornfeld and Jeremy Kramer. While the project is meant to be entertaining, it sheds light on current issues in Nigeria and other African countries, fitting the Participant Media mandate to make films that compel social change." This is way more drama than comedy and quite an interesting choice for Stiller. Then again, his directing tastes tend to be different than his acting tastes (Tropic Thunder excluded). It also received 6 votes on the 2008 Black List (people can dog that list all they want but it seems like everything on it is made into a movie).
Writer: Mark Friedman


The hardest thing to understand about Help Me Spread Goodness is why an intelligent middle-aged middle-class man with a good education and a job in *banking* would be so stupid as to fall for one of the most obvious scams in the history of the internet. Before they even extend one leg of tripod to shoot this picture, they're going to have to fix that problem.

We're introduced to PATRICK, the aforementioned banker, who's itching for a promotion so he can send his son to astronaut camp. When the promotion doesn't happen, Patrick finds himself confiding in a man who's sent him one of those infamous "I am dying and need to give you my 130 million dollar estate" Nigerian e-mails. This part of the script is quite funny, as we get cutaways to the Nigerian's alleged story along with voice over. He's lying in bed. Dying. Signing his last will and testament. Then we have Patrick casually writing back, "I didn't get the promotion. Can you believe that??"

But when it becomes clear that Patrick actually believes the story and is going to send money, the script takes a huge step backwards. This scam is an ongoing joke in almost every circle of America. You're saying Patrick is the one guy who's never heard of it? Okay, well, whatever. Let's go with it for now.

Surprise surprise, when Patrick checks his bank account a couple of weeks later, there's a large sum of money missing and it seems that - gasp - his Nigerian buddies aren't e-mailing him back. Not only can Patrick not send his son to astronaut camp, but he just lost 25 grand of his college fund. I don't know if Patrick was more pissed that the Nigerians ripped him off or that he was a complete moron, but he takes it upon himself to right this wrong and travels to Nigeria to get that money back.

So Patrick jets to Lagos, Nigeria, a city with over 8 million people, and starts snooping around as if it's the Old West and you can pop into the local watering hole and ask, "Hey, you know of any suspicious people in these parts?" Just an observation here, but if you're a banker and can't even make sound money decisions, what makes you think you can be a detective in a strange country where you don't even speak the language?

But here's the thing. If you can get over all that (and it's not easy), you just might find yourself enjoying a sweet story about a man who learns a little bit more about the world.

What Patrick begins to see is that the Nigerian men involved in these scams - however wrong they may be - are doing it to survive. This isn't the First World where as long as you have an education and work hard, you can get a job. There aren't any jobs there, there's no education, and scamming whoever you can to make it through the day is better than the alternative: to starve. So when Patrick says "You stole from me," they basically say, "Yeah, but you were dumb enough to fall for it" (and because Patrick is so stupid, I kinda agree with them).


But getting back to the story, Patrick actually does run into one of the scammers, OTUMBO, who promises to take him to the man who orchestrated the scheme. This leads to a series of mis-adventures that leave Patrick worse off than if he'd never come to Nigeria in the first place. For some reason though, Patrick continues to trust him.

After Patrick is conned for the third time and has finally discovered that small part of his brain that still functions, he calls it quits on Otumbo, telling him to get out of his life. Except that the very next day, when he comes out of his hotel, Otumbo is there, waiting for him on another journey that he promises will lead Patrick to the man who stole his money. But Patrick's not having it. "Wait here, I'll be back in a minute," he tells Otumbo, with no intention of ever returning. So Otumbo sits down and waits.

And waits...

And waits...

When Patrick gets back to the hotel, out of eyesight, he sees that Otumbo is *still* there. He sneaks up to his room and comes back down a couple hours later. He's shocked to see that Otombo is *still* waiting for him. He leaves a third time, comes back hours after that. It's been seven hours in total. Mark Friedman writes:
[scrippet]
Later

Half-eaten room service lunch on the desk. Patrick goes to the window, knowing what he’ll find...

Then he frowns. Otumbo is gone. He’s puzzled-- And then he spots him. He’s WALKING IN TRAFFIC in front of the hotel, selling... TOILET PLUNGERS.

PATRICK
He’s selling toilet plungers.

And Patrick stands there, and he watches. Traffic is heavy now but it still speeds up occasionally and is dangerous, Otumbo weaves between cars, face shiny with sweat.

Patrick is transfixed. Something about this moves him. This young guy who found some plungers and is trying to sell them, doing whatever he can... and still taking an occasional glance back at the hotel, waiting for Patrick to emerge.
[/scrippet]
It's this kind of heartbreaking moment where you realize that Patrick isn't just a scam for Otumbo. He's survival. He's a way to last a few more days out in the jungle. It was a touching moment that really drove home, I believe, the reason why Friedman wrote this.

So while this script is not without faults, it does have enough high points for me to recommend. Read it yourself and tell me what you think.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[x] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I think I've said this before but sometimes we're so blinded by wanting to tell our story, that we forget to ask if our characters are acting rationally. I guarantee you there's no way this will be filmed before this problem is fixed because nobody will believe that Patrick is that dumb. There's another script out there called "Big Hole" that's similar to this except in that script, the protagonist is much older - is not nearly as computer savvy - so the fact that he would get swindled by an internet scam is a lot more believable. Just make sure your characters are making believable choices.

Quick Update

Take a look over to the right there. There's a whole crop of new specs I'm looking for. I know some of you have'em, so fire up that e-mail and send'em my way.

Some of you have been nice enough to occasionally write me with suggestions. Keep them coming. Even though I can only review one script a day, I try to get to anything that's highly recommended.

For no good reason, here is the "Downloading Box Office" on my last 10 reviews...

1) Unbound Captives
2) Passengers
3) Kristy
4) Aaron and Sara
5) You Again
6) Orbit
7) A Couple Of Dicks
8) Dubai
9) Parasite
10) Paper Wings

I'm quite surprised that a period film got the most downloads. I'm curious as to why this script was downloaded more than the others. Was it the 5 million dollar price tag that intrigued you? Or was it the subject matter?

Passengers (G.J. Pruss)

Genre: Dark thriller/drama
Premise: Microscopic proteins/aliens ride human beings as passengers for their own personal enjoyment.
About: Based off a 1969 Robert Silverberg short story that won a Nebula Award, this project was being circled pretty heavily by Fincher around the turn of the century. Since then, it's been pretty much forgotten. I believe it's currently being developed by Focus Features.
Writer: G.J. Pruss

Does Fincher still want to take a ride?

This is not going to be a traditional review because this was not a traditional script. In fact, I'd probably call this the most original script I've ever read. Some of you may have heard of it before. It's based on a short story and made some headlines when Fincher was attached back in 2000. But when you're David Fincher and have the pick of the litter of every weird odd dark script on the market, you toy with a lot of projects. And it looks like this one got toyed with. Then thrown out. Well I'm here to throw it back in.

The first thing you notice about Passengers is that it's written in the first person. Yes, the script is written in the first person. "I walk over to the store." "I have sex with the beautiful woman." It's so weird and jarring at first that you can't help but be pulled in. You feel like you're right there with this guy - Charles - and all of a sudden you're wondering why every movie isn't written this way. It seems so real. So immediate. How the hell they plan to transfer this onto the screen I have no idea. I thought maybe they tell it from a first-person perspective, like a video game, but that would be too bizarre and too hard to pull off. Then again, why not? It would create the same jarring shock I had when I picked this up.

So Charles spends most of his life in a blur. He's an alcoholic. Blacks out all the time. Finds himself in his bed, not remembering anything about the previous night's events. He stumbles into his high-paying job. His bosses are concerned. They know he's an alcoholic. They know it's starting to affect his work. He promises them it isn't. -- I'm thinking "Okay, a guy with a really bad alcohol problem. We haven't had a good one of those in years."

But that isn't Passengers. No, this movie is way more fucked than that. Charles goes home, finds an old strawberry rotting on the floor, covered by ants. Picks it up. About to throw it away....then realizes. It's not a strawberry. It's a woman's finger. He freaks out. What's going on? Figures it was something that happened in one of his drunken nights but for the life of him can't figure out what or why. He puts it on ice and throws it in the freezer.

He heads to the doctor. Doesn't like doctors. Asks him what's wrong with him. The doctor acts strange. Starts asking him weird questions. Has this been going on a long time? How long does he black out for? What does he remember? This appears to be much worse than an alcohol problem. Something else is causing the blackouts.

Charles must go to the underground for answers. People don't sell medicine for this kind of thing on the streets yet because that would imply there was a problem. Whatever's happening, it's being covered up. What is happening? The unthinkable. People are being "ridden" - their bodies used as amusement park rides by...who? Aliens? Ghosts? Collective bacteria so small we can't yet recognize it? Whatever it is, it's intelligent, and it takes control of us. We don't remember anything when it happens. Sometimes we end up in strange people's houses with no memory of how we got here. Other times it kills us. To the rest of the world it's passed off as disease or being drunk or being high or depression. But really it's this entity, taking over our bodies for its own pleasure.

I don't think there's any question that the "Passengers" are meant to be our own individual demons. Whether they be alcohol or drugs or anything that gets you high. The passengers tend to take you over at night, when you're most susceptible, the rides last 1-3 days (suspiciously the same amount of time as your average alcohol/drug binge). A lot of the people being "ridden" have bloody noses (cocaine). But even if you want to ignore that and take Passengers literally, it still works because trying to figure out who or what the passengers are is fun.

There's so much to enjoy here. And no, the script isn't perfect. The end drags on a little too long but it's such a trippy "ride" you don't care. This is a great fucking script. It had me racing through every page to the point where I felt ridden. I don't know who the hell is waiting to make this, but they need to make it now. It breaks into my Top 25 at #14.

[ ] trash
[ ] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[x] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: Pruss took a big chance by writing this in the first person. But it wasn't just to be different and hip. He had a purpose. We felt like we were Charles, which made all of our experiences more personal. It completely worked. My point being, if you're going to break rules, especially big ones, make sure there's a valid purpose behind it.

Monday Script will move into my Top 25

Man, I read something really amazing today. It's an older script and if you're new to the game - say the past 5 years or so, you've probably never heard of it. It's dark. A thriller of sorts. With maybe just a touch of sci-fi. If it were up to me, I'd make the damn thing tomorrow. It's just really different and unique and unlike anything I've read before. Hopefully some Scriptshadow love will push it through the pipeline. Tune in Monday!

edit: You guys are going to kill me. I realized that I already posted my Friday script review with You Again. Which means - gasp - you'll have to wait until Monday for this! Oh man, I better prepare for some hate mail.

You Again

Genre: Comedy
Premise: A girl finds out that her brother is marrying the bee-atch who made her life a living hell in high school.
About: "You Again" sold to Disney last month, will star Kristin Bell and be directed by Andy Fickman (Race To Witch Mountain).
Writers: Moe Jelline, revisions by Dave Johnson, further revisions by Moe Jelline


It's been awhile since I've read a script that started off so promising then fell apart so quickly. This could've been a younger hipper version of Meet The Parents, but instead becomes a formless farce of prat falls and spit takes.

Marni is a former high school dweeb who spent her entire teenage existence getting tortured by super-popular Nazi-bitch-from-hell, JJ. But once she enters the real world, Marni's determination helps her land a public relations job at one of the top PR firms in New York, and after eight years, high school is nothing but a memory. So when Marni goes home for her brother's unexpected wedding, imagine her surprise when she finds out he's marrying super-popular Nazi-Bitch-From-Hell JJ (now Joanna). Marni, who's not only terrified of being pushed back into the "nerd" role, must also decide whether to tell her brother the truth about who Joanna was (and probably still is).

I enjoyed this early scene, where Marni and Joanna meet for the first time since high school.
[scrippet]
INT. KITCHEN - DAY

Gail stands at the kitchen island watching JOANNA GOLDMAN (25), aka JJ Freeman, dicing a tomato with the knife.

She’s a vision of perfection. A refined woman oozing with self confidence.

JOANNA
Then you simply finish it like this.

She’s carved the tomato into a DECORATIVE FLOWER DESIGN.

GAIL
How beautiful, Joanna.

JOANNA
It’s nothing compared to this beautiful spread. I can’t believe you made all this food. You’re amazing.

REVEAL ten impressive platters of food on the counter.

GAIL
Well, I didn’t know what kind of food your aunt liked, so I just made a little of everything. It was nothing.

Just then, Wade enters with Marni in tow...

WADE
Look who I found...

Joanna and Marni make eye contact. After a long beat...

JOANNA
(emotional)
Marni.
(then)
Marni. Marni. Marni.

Are those tears in Joanna’s eyes?

JOANNA (CONT’D)
Oh, Marni. I’ve waited so long for this moment and finally it’s here.

MARNI
You waited so long?

JOANNA
There’s just so much to say.

MARNI
I know. Believe me, I know.

JOANNA
But first, let me say...

Could this be it? The big apology?

JOANNA (CONT’D)
...how...

Wait for it... Wait for it...

JOANNA (CONT'D)
...nice it is to finally meet you.

Marni’s JAW DROPS. Say what?

MARNI
Excuse me?

JOANNA
Wade's told me so much about you, but now here you are. In the flesh.

MARNI
But--

JOANNA
I can’t wait to spend the next four days learning all about my new sister.

Joanna EMBRACES Marni, who is too stunned to hug back.
[/scrippet]
Not a bad little twist if I do say so myself. Instead of the fireworks happening right away, we get a little mystery. Does Joanna really not remember Marni? Or is she lying to protect her wedding? Of course we think she's lying. Of course Marni thinks she's lying. But there's just enough doubt to keep us wondering, and the mystery inspires a bunch of wonderful subtext-heavy scenes between the two . Up til this point in the script, I was prepared to declare this the de facto standard for how to execute a high concept idea.

And then You Again goes off and becomes The Three Stooges. I honestly can't remember a script changing on a dime this fast. We go from an intriguing thoughtful comedy to an 8 minute slapstick dance scene that has nothing to do with the story and everything to do with someone who's watched too many episodes of Dancing With The Stars. We then move to Marni getting drenched in a sprinkler scene as she halfway tries to protect Joanna's dress, to Marni's mom accidentally dropping Joanna's Aunt's expensive ring down the sink. Yes, we actually get a ring down the kitchen sink scene. It's a radical change in tone that pretty much lasts the rest of the script.

But the biggest mistake You Again makes is creating an entire sub-plot that involves Marni's mom dueling with Joanna's aunt (the two also went to high school together) that's not nearly as funny or interesting as the main plot, and can be argued takes up just as much screen time. Marni and JJ are the draw here. Every second we're away from them feels like stalling.

If you're interested in this premise, you should check out Brad Cutter Ruined My Life Again in my Top 25 list. It's about a former high-school nerd turned company star who finds out that the most popular guy from high school has just been hired into the company. I don't think I've ever read a script that delivers more on the promise of the premise than that one. It's a great read.

To sum up, I feel like two voices are fighting for direction of the script here and as a result, it feels off. You gotta go all one way or all the other. I'd go with the thoughtful comedy. Leave the wacky hijinx for Scary Movie 8.

[ ] trash
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: I think we as writers get a little too wrapped up in what we think the studios want us to do. In a light-hearted movie like this, we assume that the story *has* to end with a wedding. And we write everything around that. But in doing so, we restrict ourselves from exploring much more interesting choices. In You Again, there was never any doubt that Wade and Joanna would end up together. For that reason, they always had to write Joanna really safe because if she was *too much of a bitch* we wouldn't buy Marni sticking up for in the end. But had you opened yourself up to an ending where Wade and Joanna didn't end up together, you could've made Joanna the secret bitch from hell, playing the devil to Marni and the angel to Wade. I think that direction held a lot more comedic potential. Whether you agree with me or not, it's always good to leave yourself open to every story idea, even if it goes against the ending or character or scene or line that you originally conceived. Never set anything in stone. It could open up a whole new avenue of ideas for you.

Parasite

It’s Tuesday which means it’s time for another horror review. Another horror review that I won’t be giving. But I’ve left you in good hands. Jonny Atlas knows his shit. As he points out in his review, he’s a Rules Nazi, and I’ve been the recipient of some of his analysis before. It’s not pretty. But while he can be harsh, he always has good advice. Here is his review of Parasite.

Genre: Horror
Premise: When the crew of an underwater research station discovers a new parasite that turns its host homicidal they have to defend themselves against the surrounding sea life and their infected crew mates in order to stay alive.
About: This horror script was making the rounds not long ago and got some pretty good heat. Ultimately, it failed to sell. It’s good to read these “almost” sales every once in awhile so you can study what separates a sale from a non-sale. Kristy sold. This did not. Why?
Writer: Ehud Lavski

When Carson asked me to review this script, I asked him what it was about. He responded, "I don't know but Tarson says it's good. I think you should read it." A fine endorsement if ever I've heard one. I found the logline on trackingb, and I have to say the premise really intrigued me. It's a fresh take on the late 80s/early 90s underwater thriller formula.

The script opens on plankton, which get eaten by a striped bass in a fisherman's trap. Halfway through the first page we meet our antagonistic force: THE PARASITE! Our gluttonous bass chomps down on the parasite and spits it back out. Too bad the parasite has other plans. It uses it's tentacles to force-feed itself to the bass. We then see the other fish in the trap huddled in the far corner, "crazed with fear".

I like scripts that open with a bang. This certainly opened with a pop, but I don't know that I really felt a bang. The sequence was creepy and the parasite was pretty damn cool, but it ends too soon. We don't get to see what the parasite does, other than force fish to eat it. In my opinion, this is a huge wasted opportunity on Lavski's part. He says it's "the parasite", but I was hoping to see this thing as bad news straight out of the box. I wanted Lavski to give me something I should be afraid of. He let me down.

From there, the script turns to shit for a good 24 pages.

Let me rephrase that. It turns into a shitty horror script for the next 24 pages. The stuff that happens on pages 2 through 25 isn't drek. In fact, it's pretty well written. Unfortunately it doesn't belong in a horror script. Lavski gives us 24 pages of pure character development. I shit you not. There is only one mention of the impending parasite threat on page 6, where a herring beats another fish to death by repeatedly swimming into it. After that, nothing until page 26.

We meet Jane and Doc. Jane's cramped in a small exploration sub, and Doc is her connection to the underwater station. They do their job, with a chunks of exposition thrown in for good measure. Their first interaction is a great example:

[scrippet]
Doc wears a pair of HEADPHONES. She stares at a beat-up family photo. Doc hugging her husband and kids.

JANE (O.S.)
(Coming from headphones)
Staring at the picture again?

Doc laughs, busted.

INTERCUT JANE/DOC

DOC
How could you tell?

JANE
I can hear you ovulating from down here.

DOC
You holding up OK?

JANE
Ask me when I’m out of the coffin.

DOC
Claustrophobia’s acting up?

JANE
What do you think?

DOC
From one to ten?

JANE
Beansprout.
[/scrippet]
Reading this, I felt like I was getting beat over the head with the information hammer. It's written with skill ("I can hear you ovulating from down here"), but it is one massive exposition dump. Doc has a family, wants more kids, been away for a long time. Doc and Jane are good friends. Jane has claustrophobia. Bla bla bla.

I'm sure some would argue that it's a good use of a few lines of dialog and action to dump info on the reader. If it were really that good Lavski could spare us the next two pages. You see, Jane has Doc sing her a lullaby as she collects samples in her tiny sub for two fucking pages.

Is Jane's proficiency with the mechanical arm on the sub important to the plot? Yes. Do we need two pages to establish it? Fuck no.

Right here, I already had a few huge problems.

Problem 1: Why the fuck would a claustrophobic person (whose claustrophobia is a pretty big plot point) sign up to work in an UNDERWATER RESEARCH FACILITY? More importantly, why the fuck would they agree to get in a miniature submarine with "barely enough space to move"? Sorry, I don't buy it.

Problem 2: Why have some random "infected" fish attack another random fish on page 6, when you could have the striped bass from page 1 attack the other fish at the bottom of page 1? Seriously, it's a waste of an opportunity. More importantly, there's a huge disconnect because we never see random fish #2 get infected. We have to draw the conclusion on our own. Why risk the chance of losing your audience?

Anyway, after the shit with the fish, this guy Curtis persuades Doc to let him talk to Jane "alone". We get the vibe he and Jane had a thing before he screwed it up somehow. Doc agrees and leaves the room, which leaves psycho-ass Curtis free to try and kill Jane. Why? Because he and Jane were dating until Jane started fucking the Captain.

You read that right. Jane's best friend on the ship just left the guy Jane fucked over (who is apparently known for having an anger problem) alone in the room with her sub's remote controls. That's two problems in one. A) Doc is either a moron (doubtful since she's a mom and a fucking DOCTOR) or she doesn't give a shit about her friend, and B) our claustrophobic protagonist is cramped in a tiny sub when the fucking thing has a remote control station! Seriously, what the fuck?

I'm gonna stop harping on details now because if I don't I'll be here all fucking night. Seriously, the minor plot holes and glaring errors regarding science and plausibility made me want to bash my head against a wall. Moving on.

So Curtis tries to kill Jane for eleven pages and the mighty Captain Matt comes to the rescue. Once again, it was well written. There was definitely some suspense here. Really though, eleven pages? So not necessary. Then there's six pages of aftermath from the attempted murder, which puts the sequence at seventeen pages.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about deep characters. However, it is the job of the screenwriter to weave character development into the unraveling of your premise's plot. Throughout this script (and especially in the first act), Lavski does one or the other. Consequently, the real story doesn't start until page 26.

On page 26, Doc pulls in the fisherman's trap from page 1 (like the audience is going to remember that shit after 25 pages of character drama), bringing the parasite onto the ship.
Yeah. The inciting incident doesn't happen until page 26. But hey, that means we're gonna get to the good stuff now, right?

Wrong.

More character drama. In fact, there's eight more pages of characters blabbering until Curtis eats the parasite on page 34. Then they talk for another five pages before more shit starts to happen. I wouldn't mind the five pages if I hadn't already read a whopping thirty-two pages of plotless character exposition.

On page 40, crazy shit starts happening. On page 41 we finally make it to the second act when the crew discovers the parasite in a fish. Mind you, it's in a fish. Curtis is still MIA.
On page 50, they realize Doc has a parasite in her brain. Page 53, someone has their first run-in with parasite-controlled Curtis. It's not until this point that there's any palpable suspense from the antagonistic force (the parasite).

You're probably wondering why I'm harping on page count so much. It's not because I'm a rule nazi, I promise. Take a look at the script's logline: "When the crew of an underwater research station discovers a new parasite that turns its host homicidal they have to defend themselves against the surrounding sea life and their infected crew mates in order to stay alive."

None of that shit starts to happen until page 41. Hell, they don't even face an infected crewmember until page 53! That's practically the fucking midpoint.

Basically, you wind up with a script that promises to be like DeepStar Six but starts out like The Abyss (don't get me wrong - The Abyss is by far a superior film; DeepStar Six is just a more action-packed horror flick). Actually, This script starts out like a tortoise in a marathon. Too bad slow and steady doesn't win the fucking race. It just puts me to sleep.

Speaking of DeepStar Six, Parasite's story actually follows its formula pretty fucking rigidly. All the beats are there, down to the slightly crazy crewmember whose personal beef with crewmember X motivates him to kill, which leads to a fistfight between him and crewmember Y. If only this script followed DS6's lead and put the characters in danger at the beginning of the script instead of the middle...

For the rest of the script, it's pretty nonstop. There's a lot of crazy shit - giant crabs, parasite-controlled sharks, kamikaze dolphins... some really cool (and sometimes silly) stuff. There are still a ton of errors in the story (as mentioned earlier), but the second half of the script is a fun ride nonetheless. I really wish the whole script was like the last 61 pages. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

[ ] trash
[x] barely kept my interest
[ ] worth the read
[ ] impressive
[ ] genius

What I learned: As important as character development is in a script, you must integrate it with your plot. Otherwise you wind up with a schism between character and plot that no amount of flowery prose can mend. Find creative ways to reveal your characters through the action of your forward-moving storyline. If you don't, your story will get lost in the incessant blabbering of your characters and your first act will be over forty pages.

I also found Parasite to be further evidence that writing eloquently and knowing how to tell a great story do not always come pre-packaged together. If you don't have both abilities naturally, it takes time and effort to develop the skills necessary to execute a great script. Don't shortchange yourself by hoping the good will outweigh the bad.

If you want to read more from Jonny, check out his blog here: Jonny Atlas Writes

A final word here. Jonny brings up a great point in his “What I learned” section. Character development is extremely important to your script. But you have to do it on the move. You have to hide it inside actions and sneak it into dialogue. You can’t set apart large chunks of your screenplay just to develop characters or you’re going to put the reader to sleep. Keep the story moving. I saw that this was 114 pages. Most horror scripts are closer to 100 pages because the writer knows they gotta keep the story moving. It sounds like that could’ve helped here.