a screenplay
by David Hayes
Genres:
action
Sean Murray, a new C.I.A. agent, is ordered to carry out a false flag operation in America.
David Hayes
member since 05/04/2010 |
last login 05/11/2013
If I could sum up my life in one simple sentence, I'd die of embarrassment....
Bio
If I could sum up my life in one simple sentence, I'd die of embarrassment.
Submissions by David Hayes
-
-
a screenplay by David HayesShh. Don't tell anyone. It's a secret dating service.
-
Reviews by David Hayes 67
-
A review of The.Other.Men.by David Hayes on 12/15/2011There are a variety of areas to talk about here, and I'd like to start with format. One of the unsung necessities of screenwriting, I think, is having energy. A good pace, lots of tension, conflicts, goals - all the elements that create energy. I remember when "The Beaver" was on the Blacklist and Billy Mernit saying that the single biggest factor that script got noticed... There are a variety of areas to talk about here, and I'd like to start with format. One of the unsung necessities of screenwriting, I think, is having energy. A good pace, lots of tension, conflicts, goals - all the elements that create energy. I remember when "The Beaver" was on the Blacklist and Billy Mernit saying that the single biggest factor that script got noticed by the industry was because of its energy. What absolutely killed this script and robbed it of any energy it could've had were all of the overwritten action paragraphs. Action paragraphs should be 4 lines or fewer. Period. New writers in screenwriting have the tendency to over-write the scenes and chart every little gesture of the characters when you shouldn't have time for that. Nothing kills the pace and energy more than over-writing your scenes and having lengthy action paragraphs describing inconsequential details. This includes needless parentheticals.
Second, you had scenes that went on for too long with too much boring, conflict-free dialogue, which is a killer. The first example that comes to mind is when Mike enters the Headquarters for the first time. This scene starts on page 17. Then everyone appears, introductions are made, a meeting commences, and this is nothing but a static scene with a bunch of talking heads that went on for eight pages until we reached page 24. If one page equals one minute of screentime, then you've got ten minutes of people talking and no conflict. That's a killer. Scenes really should be 5 pages or fewer. You can have scenes with dialogue longer than that but it has to be great dialogue and it won't be unless there is conflict. Not to mention the fact that I think you might've manipulated the width of the dialogue so you could get more words onto the page, which only makes these scenes longer and even more static. Dialogue should be no more than 3" or 3 1/2" in width. You might want to pick-up Trottier's latest "Screenwriter's Bible." You need to discipline yourself by really cutting the dialogue and learning to accomplish more with less. As they say, enter late and leave early. That is so very true.
I was okay with the concept until I dug into the story and I found myself confused in a couple ways. [Women is my favorite topic. Read all the best books. Screenwriting is my second favorite topic.] You say in your synopsis that Mike is perfect but he's not. He is, as Doc Love would call him, a classic "Wimpus Americanus." LOL He's Mr. Nice Guy, which most women can't stand because essentially, they're weak pushovers. They want A MAN, a guy with a back-bone, a guy who is a challenge, who can say "no." So it's laid out that Mike's cursed without much explanation about this curse, and yet beyond this so-called curse, Mike is clearly imperfect in a few ways, and he needs to go through an arc, but what that arc needed to be was unclear to me. So I found myself a tad confused between a) this curse and b) Mike's imperfections. His character arc felt disjointed. Mike has a conversation with Claire about how he's been thinking only about himself and he's forgotten to think about other people but I never felt like I saw that problem in him earlier in the script. I could be wrong, but that never felt setup to me. We should have, in the early stages of the script, many, many examples of Mike being selfish and people telling him to quit being so selfish. But we never saw that. And frankly, that was never the problem I saw in Mike before we reached his turning point with Claire. He simply needed to grow a pair, which so many men need to do nowadays. LOL
I was also a tad confused about Mike's goals through most of this. Did he want Elaine back? Is that what this secret society will help him achieve? Does he just want to fall in love with any great girl and seal the deal? Then what was so wrong with Julie? And I was not clear how watching that first date with Julie was progress for Mike because he, I'm sure, had many great dates with Elaine and others before Julie. We never saw him have a bad date, so this first date with Julie felt like a payoff that was never setup. Keeping the girl was his problem, not getting them to fall in love with him. And why the need for fancy cars? I couldn't help but wonder if that might be a tad insulting to women in the audience because it suggests that women are mostly materialistic and only look at a guy through his rich clothes and rich cars, which isn't correct. Toward the end, the conflicts that arose between Mike and Julie were mostly Mike's fault. He is the one to blame for not asking Julie what she does for a living and I can't imagine that after all that time together she doesn't just share with him details about her job and what she does. I never bought into that conflict. A more interesting story, for me, would've been that Mike really loves Julie, he really wants to marry her, and there are enormous obstacles that surface, climaxing in their wedding, which is overcome. That seems like the natural progression. But I feel like the mistakes he made with Julie and his Mr. Nice Guy-ishness issues will be made again with April because he never went through the right arc that he needed to go through to ensure that he'll have long-term happiness with April. But… that could be just me.
Ok, the weddings, like Colin's wedding. I couldn't get into those sequence because we never spent time with Colin and his girl to get emotionally involved about a) Colin's love for her or b) the obstacles in his way at that wedding. It all felt suddenly thrown at us and we know good and well that the secret society will most likely achieve their goals, so there was also little tension.
I'm a sucker for secret societies. I wrote about one myself ("Perfect Encounters") which was a different concept, and I like the way this writer thinks. He's imaginative and once he gets disciplined about long scenes and too much dialogue, he could make a splash.
Below are my notes, which I hope proves a little helpful.
Take care,
-D
------------------------------------
Pg 1 - I take it Brian's married to Karen, right? You should give us Brian and Karen's last name in the introductions to make that more clear. Pg 6 - Her father yelling at her should probably be a line of dialogue. This opening sequence is okay, but I can't help but wonder if Dustin should ask Mike to step aside and they finish the wedding? LOL I mean, Elaine could make the point that she paid for the wedding and so, she'd rather marry Dustin. I don't know. Just a thought. Pg 9 - Shouldn't the bride and her family have paid for the wedding? This Master Scene Heading isn't correct: "INT. PUB - NIGHT - MOMENTS LATER". You don't need NIGHT and MOMENT LATER. Just write "INT. PUB - MOMENTS LATER". Obviously, it's still night if it's moments later, right? Pg 10 - I think this is a bit of overwriting: "Colin turns to look straight at Mike. Colin’s eyes are piercing; his gaze steady and determined. His face is chiseled, showing only the faintest softness of age." The other large action paragraph beneath it is also some overwriting. These scenes go by quick on film and you really don't have time to indulge in details like that. Pg 12 - You only need Secondary Headings for the other rooms inside the Apartment. Answering machine? What is this? The 1980s? He can play the voice mail on speaker from his smartphone. Pg 14 - You have Michael's name spelled with -AEL and yet on page 1, it's spelled MichEAL. Dude, come on. Pg 15 - Your action paragraphs are really overwritten and too long. They should be four lines or fewer. Pg 20 - You say that Giorgio likes to drop his pants. That feels like a setup to a payoff, but I don't think that ever happens again in the story, does it? So why bring that up? Pg 21 - This driving the speed limit part is weird because it wasn't setup beforehand. We'd have to see him driving slowly before we get to that problem being addressed in dialogue. Pg 24 - Ok, this scene inside Headquarters, which ended on this page, was pretty bad for a variety of reasons. It's a static scene with just a bunch of talking heads that goes on for eight, count e'm EIGHT, pages. A scene with dialogue really should be contained within five pages unless it's truly great dialogue. The other problem is that it's very exposition heavy. The scene is also robbed of energy because there's very little at stake. If this was a case of Mike wanting to get Elaine back and we're behind him on that, then we'd be more involved in this scene. But, really, it's not clear what Mike's goals are and so this scene feels very muddled. It didn't really go into any detail about the curse. I would've expected, hey, you have a curse, explain the curse and move on. Even the idea of a curse feels muddled. The boy is getting dumped because he's a classic Wimpus Americanus, as Doc Love would call him. If there was nothing wrong with him and he can't keep a girl, I could understand that curse. But, really, he's struggling because of his personality flaws, so the curse feels like overkill. In the synosis, you say he's perfect, but he's really not. Pg 25 - I don't think this scene with Karen and Brian really advanced the story in any substantive way. Plus, this isn't right either: "EXT. HOUSE - LATE AFTERNOON". Scenes are shot for DAY or for NIGHT. Pg 26 - Calling him the "Nice Guy" is not a good thing. I would take it as an insult. lol Pg 27 - Lawrence here couldn't be more wrong about the sense of humor bit. These parentheticals need to go, such as "(smiling not unkindly)". You're overwriting here. Pg 28 - A girl who cancels is a girl with low interest. Pg 32 - There is WAY too much dialogue here. Pg 37 - These scenes at the Headquarters feel like they go on forever. Pg 40 - What a schmucky move to get a kiss. Pg 42 - No, nice guys do finish last. lol Here's another example of overwriting. You have, as a parenthetical, "(suddenly concerned)". You don't need it. That should be obvious in the dialogue. You gotta trust your readers to pick-up on that without having to explain it to them Pg 43 - "For when the real thing arrives?!?" That date was a waste? Pg 50 - Colin's wedding feels like an enormous detour off the main plot because the background behind all the obstacles for Colin to getting married was never really setup so that I'd be emotionally involved in it. Pg 52 - I don't understand why the geeky girl would be dismayed. Pg 56 - What we hear the Event Coordinator saying should be treated as a line of dialogue. Pg 59 - If it's a secret society, why is Mike telling April about it? Pg 62 - This scene at the Car Dealership has WAY TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. Pg 66 - A year has gone by already? And whose fault is that the Mike didn't learn what Julie's job is? This conflict isn't really worth our time, I don't believe. Pg 82 - You're not allowed to reference specific songs unless you have the express written permission from the artist. Pg 94 - Not the proper way to format a Flashback. Pg 97 - Good job. read -
A review of The Holstein Epiphanyby David Hayes on 12/11/2011I'll be honest. This script depressed the shit out of me. However, I do recognize all the thought that went into this story as well as a lot of the quality writing throughout, but I just can't get behind this story. I'm so sorry. I went through this script twice to make sure I had a decent handle on the story before I wrote a review. My notes at the bottom are pushing... I'll be honest. This script depressed the shit out of me. However, I do recognize all the thought that went into this story as well as a lot of the quality writing throughout, but I just can't get behind this story. I'm so sorry. I went through this script twice to make sure I had a decent handle on the story before I wrote a review. My notes at the bottom are pushing 1,200 words, so I'm going to keep the review sort of high-level and let the notes speak for themselves.
I'd first like to talk about this story as it's written up until page 20. I embraced it. I can certainly relate to Baylor because here's a guy who isn't where he wants to be in life. I feel that same way right now as I'm sure most people do. Baylor lost his job. Lost his girl. The town he lives in has dried up. No work. He's sunk so low he's watching black-and-white soft porn stolen from his neighbor's cable. The poor man's hit rock bottom, and I can sympathize. This could've been a great setup for something truly inspiring, illuminating even. But instead, we watch this man plummet to horrifying depths of violent, murderous behavior that did nothing but sadden me greatly. The awful, tragic people that made him want to be violent was sad and then his violent reaction to them was even sadder. So this spec was double-downed in sadness and it's a bit too much for me.
On page 20, the murders began with this gory, horrific beating of Charlie Moon, and immediately, the emotional rug of sympathy was pulled out from under Baylor. I lost all interest in him as a protag, what happens to him, why this has happened, all of it. I almost removed this spec from my list of assignments. But the writing was good, so I opted to finish the script.
Scribner made the point (in the 80-page region) that once a soul dies out, it doesn't take long for the roof to cave in, an analogy about Baylor, obviously, which I'm guessing is the theme. But, for me, that isn't a strong enough reason to write a screenplay. We look to stories and art to rise above the challenges of life, not spend time wallowing in the muck with terribly screwed-up men who are plummeting into this kind of murderous, insane, violent behavior. If you're doing this to point out why a man would fall into this kind of behavior, I'd say that's admirable, but those reasons are far more complicated than can be conveyed in a 120-page script and a simplification of all those reasons for the sake of brevity completely undermines the whole purpose of the endeavor. At the end of the day, I didn't like spending time with Baylor. I didn't like what he was doing. I wasn't fascinated by it. He wasn't sane or rational so there was no hope of a character arc, except a predictable descent into murderous extremes until he's caught. And I didn't find the spec illuminating enough about him or the how's and why's to warrant its existence.
Much of the writing was good. I got some of the symbolism, such as the talk of the flood vs. Baylor sitting in an empty water tower, the multiplying bugs vs. the refuse of society, etc. That was good. I enjoyed some of the dialogue. There were a number of creative decisions that I questioned, which are in my notes. But to see Baylor and others do these things saddened me deeply. And when we hit the climax with Breckenridge, it wasn't illuminating but rather, the story sunk to a new low of ugliness that got under my skin and made me want to weep, really.
Now I doubt most prod co's would go for this because it breaks HW's most golden rule of having a "sympathetic protag." I've said this before, but I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory. I think audiences will watch unsympathetic characters who are fascinating and who have depth, which I don't believe Baylor really has. Or, at least, he didn't have enough to interest me. After my emotional reaction to this script, I certainly wouldn't risk my money on a questionable protag who I'm not sure people would actually care about or be fascinated by.
Having said all of this, I really think you guys are actually good writers, and I'd like to see you do something more… cheerful? Please?
Take care,
-D
---------------------------------------
Pg 1 - The opening sequence, I think, is technically a MONTAGE and you might want to consider formatting it as such. I'm also not crazy about this heading: "INT. BLACKSTONE TENEMENT - APARTMENT - DAY - 2012". First, why not do an establishing shot of the Tenement and then do an Interior shot of the Apartment? Second, how would we know just by being inside this apartment that it's 2012? Pg 3 - This is a FLASHBACK to it should be formatted as such. There a couple ways of doing it. It's in the Screenwriter's Bible. Pg 7 - You need a BACK TO PRESENT to end this Flashback. Pg 20 - This is where you lost me. Baylor putting smashing Charlie with the tire iron ruins everything because it pulled the rug out from underneath any sympathy you might've been feeling for the guy. Pg 21-22 - I like how you're cutting back and forth between Baylor cleaning up while also cleaning the scene. Pg 22 - Bottom - You've really lost me again with Baylor saying, "Hope those fuckers remember to pay the light bill so they can keep my chair warm." I can't get behind a guy who's like this. Pg 24 - I wonder if "no trace of evidence" should be a line of dialogue. Pg 25 - It's strange that he's suddenly talking about the Lord when he never seemed all the religious in the first place, and it was only hinted at in that scene with Kimberly before his ill-timed proposal. I do like "Fish-lipped nutsucker." Funny. Pg 37 - I'd care more about what he did in Sarah & her Mother's life had he not committed that atrocious murder on page 20. If you cut that page 20 murder and go from his desperation to THIS, you might still be able to salvage this script. Pg 46 - "Poodles ricochet in the back window like popcorn" LOL Pg 50 - I'll be honest. These visions just aren't working for me, and after thinking about it, I think the problem is that they need to be charged with emotion not these gory visuals. Pg 55 - I'm guessing that by Baylor saying he's a changed man, that means he's fully committed to his murdering ways, which is a change from page 43 when he said, "Maybe I won't have to hurt nobody again." And now there is no chance for any sympathy and we'll be seeing this plummet over the edge of depravity. Not crazy about that. Pg 57 - Tom sorta enters the story out of nowhere without any setup. Plus, who's Georgie? Shouldn't this moment about the news of someone's death be someone that's already been established in the story? Pg 61 - This scene with Kim didn't reveal enough about their issues, for my tastes at least. Also, you're not supposed to call out specific songs in a spec unless you have the expression written permission of the artist. Pg 62 - What's the point of the Good Ol Boys? If they love what Baylor's doing, why wouldn't Baylor try to recruit them? Pg 63 - It would make more sense to me if the Waitress from the previous scene was Terri Rose. Pg 70 - Baylor's talking about soldiers, but we've only seen Tom. Shouldn't his "soldiers" be with him so that we seen them while he's talking about them? Pg 71 - I like this moment with Kimberly and the mouse. Nicely done. Pg 72 - While I liked the emotions here and how it was written, I'm not so sure the happy memories of his childhood ring true to me. Most who descend into serial killings have very troubled childhoods, don't they? Pg 74 - Not crazy about the re-use of "Fish-lipped nutsucker" here. Pg 75 - I'm not sure about all this dialogue here between Teddie and Wakefield. I'm not sure it advances the story. Pg 79 - I don't know. I'm not sure I buy that Breckenridge would get mixed up in all of this. Pg 81 - Here Scribner is making the point that once a soul is lost or dies out, it doesn't take long for the roof to cave in, an analogy about Baylor, obviously, which I'm guessing is the theme here. But that isn't enough of a point to have a screenplay, as far as I'm concerned. We look to stories and art to rise above the circumstances, not see an example of a man plummeting into murderous, violent behavior, and I think that's what's bugging me so much about this script. Pg 82 - At this point, I'm wondering why Scribner and Terri and Sarah's mom haven't come forward offering, at the very least, descriptions of Baylor, which should alarm local police to the fact it might be Baylor. It was confusing as to what it was that they've come upon and it feels like it should be revealed here before moving on to another scene. Pg 88 - I'm not sure I'm crazy about Pappy getting involved in this horrible business, too. It depresses me that so many others are getting involved in Baylor's shenanigans. In the cabin - how do we know, VISUALLY, that the gift's from Kimberly? You might want to note that there's a card. On the other hand, it feels out of character for Kimberly to buy him a gun. Now, I could buy it more if it was Kim, the Bartender. Maybe that's what you meant but you better be clear that it's Kim not Kimberly. Pg 91 - I like this scene by Kimberly but I feel like it would be more plausible if she left him, not died, and he's doing these things in large part over the fact that he's still reeling over her rejection. That's the more logical extension of the earlier scene when she said "let's talk" after he proposed. Pg 92 - I imagine there would still be a smell in the basement. Pg 93-94 - I think Bowden's a wasted character. Why couldn’t it be Teddie or Wakefield do this dialogue? It's way to late to be introducing new characters. Pg 95 - The problem with this scene with David is that I think we should've seen Baylor discover this news about Breckenridge and then we're made to understand why he's there. The surprise just sorta came out of nowhere without being setup. And yet, despite the fact that I understand why Baylor's doing this awful thing, this moment is so ugly and awful, it just depresses me. It's a script that's fallen into a depth of ugliness instead of rising above, and I can't get behind that. Pg 101 - It seems odd to end the story with Betty. That doesn't quite feel right. read -
A review of Saving Sevenby David Hayes on 12/10/2011This script has all the hallmarks of a new, young screenwriter who may be just starting out. And so, in this script are all the common learning curves that we all have to go through as writers. Having said that, I thought Darwin was a stand-out character, some of the dialogue was funny, and it's a very good thing that characters are your strength because everything else can... This script has all the hallmarks of a new, young screenwriter who may be just starting out. And so, in this script are all the common learning curves that we all have to go through as writers. Having said that, I thought Darwin was a stand-out character, some of the dialogue was funny, and it's a very good thing that characters are your strength because everything else can be learned.
So the first thing I want to talk about is formatting, which was frankly horrific. So much of my notes at the bottom are about formatting. You had terrible spacing issues, which leads one to think that you were adding all those extra spaces in order to pad your script so that you can take a rather thin story line across the 90-page mark. If you find yourself adding extra spaces to pad your script, the problem isn't the industry or the parameters of the formatting, the problem is that your story is too thin and you need to add layers to it. It's far better to have too many ideas than too few. You cannot have all this extra spacing as you have here. It won't impress anyone. Get Trottier's latest "Screenwriter's Bible," memorize it, and then you won't have to think about formatting as you write and you can stay focused on story. Until then, you may want to consider my notes.
As far as the story goes, there were lots of newbie mistakes beginning with the wasted voice overs from Eli. There was nothing Eli told us in voice over that couldn't come out a) IN a scene or b) from the expressions on his face. Like on pag 9, Eli says in voice over, "And I thought… why the hell not?" Well, that should be obvious to us through his expression without needing to be told. As they say, "show, don't tell." This kind of thing is a common newbie mistake because the writer hasn't yet learned to trust the reader to get it without having to be told. I went through this myself. You've got to trust the reader. Like on page 66, you didn't need to explain to us that "KIDNAPPER 2 is eliminated." That was quite obvious from the explosion, don't you think? You gotta trust the reader.
My other big complaint is that so much of the first 2/3 of the script lacked drama, conflicts, tension, suspense, and almost nothing was at stake, all of which made for a very boring read. When you're writing a happy scene with happy characters having fun and cracking jokes and you're feeling the happy feelings of the characters as you write that scene, you kind of deceptively think that those happy feelings will be felt by the readers, which rarely happens. This is a common newbie mistake that we all have to go through. It takes drama, conflicts, a protag with a goal and huge obstacles in his way in order to really hook your readers. Everything else is boring. For me, these parties, Eli meeting Emily, and their very dry conversations were laborious to get through because everything seemed to be going right for Eli and very little, if anything at all, was at stake in the story.
As far as the ending goes, it's hard to say what to change. The problem with the comedy is that it totally undermines the tension we should be feeling. We should be worried and concerned and I never felt that because you know how it's going to play out and it's a matter of getting from point A to point B, although there were some good chuckles along the way, which I appreciated.
At the end of the day, I don't think this is a high enough concept to really go anywhere, but I do like this writer and the strength of the characters makes me think he'll be going places once he goes through these common learning curves. I would only suggest getting focused on conflicts and drama and obstacles to goals to lift the work above the crowd of other aspiring writers. Even in comedy, tension in a scene is essential for laughs.
I look forward to reading more of your work.
-D
------------------------------------------------------------
Title Page - You don't need a period after the title. That just looks amateurish. Page 1 - Where's FADE IN? That's my favorite part of a screenplay. Second, this is not acceptable: "ESTABLISHING SHOT: MANSION - EVENING." You have to do EXT. MANSION - DAY and then give us a description of the mansion. What does it look like? What does the style of the mansion say to us about the characters? Plus, you don't have periods at the end of a Master Scene Heading. And generally speaking, scenes are shot for DAY or for NIGHT. Now I know that I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't like "we" or "us" in the action lines. I know that some pros do it, but I think it's weak writing. There is no sentence in screenwriting that can't be rewritten without the word "we" and still convey the same idea about what we're seeing on the screen. You've got a spacing issue above Ruben. This script really looks shoddy so far. By the way, what room are we in inside this mansion? Pg 2 - You don't call out the Opening Titles. And you don't use CUT TO's in specs. And you've got way, way too many spaces here. One might get the impression that you're trying to "pad" the script with extra spaces to meet the minimum 90-page requirement. This voice over doesn't work. It's being used as a crutch for exposition, which really should come out in a scene of some kind. Pg 3 - This isn't correct: "ELI (NERVOUSLY)". (Nervously) is a parenthetical that should be underneath the character name. Pg 6 - Avoid Beats. And you don't need to put in caps every character's name in the action lines. They only have to be in caps when they make their first appearance. Pg 8 - The names for Emily and Eli look too similar and can be confusng when reading the dialogue. You usually try to avoid having similar sounding names. Pg 9 - And this voice over of "And I thought… why the hell not?" is obvious through his expression without needing to be told this in dialogue. Pg 9-10 - this collection of shots with all the CUT TOs is not correct. This is called a MONTAGE and should be formatted as such. Pg 10 - This is an unfilmmable: "This is the first sign of confidence we’ve seen from ELI." We should know this on our own by watching the scene without having to have it explained to us in an action line. You have a huge spacing issue after ROOF Master Scene Heading. This voice over about it being the best night of his life should be obvious to us without him telling us. FADE OUT is supposed to be at the end of the script. What you want is a FADE TO but that kind of transition isn't really warranted here. Action paragraphs should be 5 lines or fewer. A huge spacing issue before the Library Master Scene Heading. I'm not pointing these out anymore. This looks terrible. Pg 15 - This conversation between Eli and Emily is a snoozer, I'm sorry to say. You've got to come up with dialogue more lively than this. This is the kind of dialogue that's more interesting if you're IN that conversation with someone you like as opposed to watching two people have this conversation. Pg 17 - The problem with these party scenes is that there's really nothing going on, no conflicts, no tension, nothing's at stake. Pg 22 - This is SO not how to format a montage. Pg 23 - You need a Secondary Heading for the bathroom. It's a different room. Plus, this is boring. Pg 24 - The montage continues? What montage? Pg 42 - Watching Eli and Darwin get drunk is boring because there's no drama, no conflict, no tension, and nothing's at stake. Pg 44 - You can't write in an action lines, "Back to COCKTAIL BAR." You have write a new Master Scene Heading. Pg 47 - Eli's acting like such a schmuck here, it's kind of annoying. Pg 49 - This BACK TO BUILDING and BACK TO BRIDGE crap is confusing. This is why a screenplay has Master Scene Headings. For crying out loud, man. Pg 66 - You didn't need to explain to us that "KIDNAPPER 2 is eliminated." You need to develop a certain amount of trust in your readers that they'll get it without you having to explain it to them. Pg 70 - Not buying that Darwin would still be drunk at this point. Pg 76 - a CUT TO inside a scene is completely irrelevant. When we go from one action paragraph to another, we always assume it's a cut to a new shot. There's no point in calling this out in a screenplay. Pg 79 - I'm not buying that a cupboard would still be intact after that explosion. Pg 89 - Good job. read
Write a Comment
Submissions by David Hayes
-
a screenplay by David HayesGenres: action
Sean Murray, a new C.I.A. agent, is ordered to carry out a false flag operation in America.
-
a screenplay by David Hayes
Shh. Don't tell anyone. It's a secret dating service.
-
Reviews by David Hayes 67
-
A review of The.Other.Men.by David Hayes on 12/15/2011There are a variety of areas to talk about here, and I'd like to start with format. One of the unsung necessities of screenwriting, I think, is having energy. A good pace, lots of tension, conflicts, goals - all the elements that create energy. I remember when "The Beaver" was on the Blacklist and Billy Mernit saying that the single biggest factor that script got noticed... There are a variety of areas to talk about here, and I'd like to start with format. One of the unsung necessities of screenwriting, I think, is having energy. A good pace, lots of tension, conflicts, goals - all the elements that create energy. I remember when "The Beaver" was on the Blacklist and Billy Mernit saying that the single biggest factor that script got noticed by the industry was because of its energy. What absolutely killed this script and robbed it of any energy it could've had were all of the overwritten action paragraphs. Action paragraphs should be 4 lines or fewer. Period. New writers in screenwriting have the tendency to over-write the scenes and chart every little gesture of the characters when you shouldn't have time for that. Nothing kills the pace and energy more than over-writing your scenes and having lengthy action paragraphs describing inconsequential details. This includes needless parentheticals.
Second, you had scenes that went on for too long with too much boring, conflict-free dialogue, which is a killer. The first example that comes to mind is when Mike enters the Headquarters for the first time. This scene starts on page 17. Then everyone appears, introductions are made, a meeting commences, and this is nothing but a static scene with a bunch of talking heads that went on for eight pages until we reached page 24. If one page equals one minute of screentime, then you've got ten minutes of people talking and no conflict. That's a killer. Scenes really should be 5 pages or fewer. You can have scenes with dialogue longer than that but it has to be great dialogue and it won't be unless there is conflict. Not to mention the fact that I think you might've manipulated the width of the dialogue so you could get more words onto the page, which only makes these scenes longer and even more static. Dialogue should be no more than 3" or 3 1/2" in width. You might want to pick-up Trottier's latest "Screenwriter's Bible." You need to discipline yourself by really cutting the dialogue and learning to accomplish more with less. As they say, enter late and leave early. That is so very true.
I was okay with the concept until I dug into the story and I found myself confused in a couple ways. [Women is my favorite topic. Read all the best books. Screenwriting is my second favorite topic.] You say in your synopsis that Mike is perfect but he's not. He is, as Doc Love would call him, a classic "Wimpus Americanus." LOL He's Mr. Nice Guy, which most women can't stand because essentially, they're weak pushovers. They want A MAN, a guy with a back-bone, a guy who is a challenge, who can say "no." So it's laid out that Mike's cursed without much explanation about this curse, and yet beyond this so-called curse, Mike is clearly imperfect in a few ways, and he needs to go through an arc, but what that arc needed to be was unclear to me. So I found myself a tad confused between a) this curse and b) Mike's imperfections. His character arc felt disjointed. Mike has a conversation with Claire about how he's been thinking only about himself and he's forgotten to think about other people but I never felt like I saw that problem in him earlier in the script. I could be wrong, but that never felt setup to me. We should have, in the early stages of the script, many, many examples of Mike being selfish and people telling him to quit being so selfish. But we never saw that. And frankly, that was never the problem I saw in Mike before we reached his turning point with Claire. He simply needed to grow a pair, which so many men need to do nowadays. LOL
I was also a tad confused about Mike's goals through most of this. Did he want Elaine back? Is that what this secret society will help him achieve? Does he just want to fall in love with any great girl and seal the deal? Then what was so wrong with Julie? And I was not clear how watching that first date with Julie was progress for Mike because he, I'm sure, had many great dates with Elaine and others before Julie. We never saw him have a bad date, so this first date with Julie felt like a payoff that was never setup. Keeping the girl was his problem, not getting them to fall in love with him. And why the need for fancy cars? I couldn't help but wonder if that might be a tad insulting to women in the audience because it suggests that women are mostly materialistic and only look at a guy through his rich clothes and rich cars, which isn't correct. Toward the end, the conflicts that arose between Mike and Julie were mostly Mike's fault. He is the one to blame for not asking Julie what she does for a living and I can't imagine that after all that time together she doesn't just share with him details about her job and what she does. I never bought into that conflict. A more interesting story, for me, would've been that Mike really loves Julie, he really wants to marry her, and there are enormous obstacles that surface, climaxing in their wedding, which is overcome. That seems like the natural progression. But I feel like the mistakes he made with Julie and his Mr. Nice Guy-ishness issues will be made again with April because he never went through the right arc that he needed to go through to ensure that he'll have long-term happiness with April. But… that could be just me.
Ok, the weddings, like Colin's wedding. I couldn't get into those sequence because we never spent time with Colin and his girl to get emotionally involved about a) Colin's love for her or b) the obstacles in his way at that wedding. It all felt suddenly thrown at us and we know good and well that the secret society will most likely achieve their goals, so there was also little tension.
I'm a sucker for secret societies. I wrote about one myself ("Perfect Encounters") which was a different concept, and I like the way this writer thinks. He's imaginative and once he gets disciplined about long scenes and too much dialogue, he could make a splash.
Below are my notes, which I hope proves a little helpful.
Take care,
-D
------------------------------------
Pg 1 - I take it Brian's married to Karen, right? You should give us Brian and Karen's last name in the introductions to make that more clear. Pg 6 - Her father yelling at her should probably be a line of dialogue. This opening sequence is okay, but I can't help but wonder if Dustin should ask Mike to step aside and they finish the wedding? LOL I mean, Elaine could make the point that she paid for the wedding and so, she'd rather marry Dustin. I don't know. Just a thought. Pg 9 - Shouldn't the bride and her family have paid for the wedding? This Master Scene Heading isn't correct: "INT. PUB - NIGHT - MOMENTS LATER". You don't need NIGHT and MOMENT LATER. Just write "INT. PUB - MOMENTS LATER". Obviously, it's still night if it's moments later, right? Pg 10 - I think this is a bit of overwriting: "Colin turns to look straight at Mike. Colin’s eyes are piercing; his gaze steady and determined. His face is chiseled, showing only the faintest softness of age." The other large action paragraph beneath it is also some overwriting. These scenes go by quick on film and you really don't have time to indulge in details like that. Pg 12 - You only need Secondary Headings for the other rooms inside the Apartment. Answering machine? What is this? The 1980s? He can play the voice mail on speaker from his smartphone. Pg 14 - You have Michael's name spelled with -AEL and yet on page 1, it's spelled MichEAL. Dude, come on. Pg 15 - Your action paragraphs are really overwritten and too long. They should be four lines or fewer. Pg 20 - You say that Giorgio likes to drop his pants. That feels like a setup to a payoff, but I don't think that ever happens again in the story, does it? So why bring that up? Pg 21 - This driving the speed limit part is weird because it wasn't setup beforehand. We'd have to see him driving slowly before we get to that problem being addressed in dialogue. Pg 24 - Ok, this scene inside Headquarters, which ended on this page, was pretty bad for a variety of reasons. It's a static scene with just a bunch of talking heads that goes on for eight, count e'm EIGHT, pages. A scene with dialogue really should be contained within five pages unless it's truly great dialogue. The other problem is that it's very exposition heavy. The scene is also robbed of energy because there's very little at stake. If this was a case of Mike wanting to get Elaine back and we're behind him on that, then we'd be more involved in this scene. But, really, it's not clear what Mike's goals are and so this scene feels very muddled. It didn't really go into any detail about the curse. I would've expected, hey, you have a curse, explain the curse and move on. Even the idea of a curse feels muddled. The boy is getting dumped because he's a classic Wimpus Americanus, as Doc Love would call him. If there was nothing wrong with him and he can't keep a girl, I could understand that curse. But, really, he's struggling because of his personality flaws, so the curse feels like overkill. In the synosis, you say he's perfect, but he's really not. Pg 25 - I don't think this scene with Karen and Brian really advanced the story in any substantive way. Plus, this isn't right either: "EXT. HOUSE - LATE AFTERNOON". Scenes are shot for DAY or for NIGHT. Pg 26 - Calling him the "Nice Guy" is not a good thing. I would take it as an insult. lol Pg 27 - Lawrence here couldn't be more wrong about the sense of humor bit. These parentheticals need to go, such as "(smiling not unkindly)". You're overwriting here. Pg 28 - A girl who cancels is a girl with low interest. Pg 32 - There is WAY too much dialogue here. Pg 37 - These scenes at the Headquarters feel like they go on forever. Pg 40 - What a schmucky move to get a kiss. Pg 42 - No, nice guys do finish last. lol Here's another example of overwriting. You have, as a parenthetical, "(suddenly concerned)". You don't need it. That should be obvious in the dialogue. You gotta trust your readers to pick-up on that without having to explain it to them Pg 43 - "For when the real thing arrives?!?" That date was a waste? Pg 50 - Colin's wedding feels like an enormous detour off the main plot because the background behind all the obstacles for Colin to getting married was never really setup so that I'd be emotionally involved in it. Pg 52 - I don't understand why the geeky girl would be dismayed. Pg 56 - What we hear the Event Coordinator saying should be treated as a line of dialogue. Pg 59 - If it's a secret society, why is Mike telling April about it? Pg 62 - This scene at the Car Dealership has WAY TOO MUCH DIALOGUE. Pg 66 - A year has gone by already? And whose fault is that the Mike didn't learn what Julie's job is? This conflict isn't really worth our time, I don't believe. Pg 82 - You're not allowed to reference specific songs unless you have the express written permission from the artist. Pg 94 - Not the proper way to format a Flashback. Pg 97 - Good job. read -
A review of The Holstein Epiphanyby David Hayes on 12/11/2011I'll be honest. This script depressed the shit out of me. However, I do recognize all the thought that went into this story as well as a lot of the quality writing throughout, but I just can't get behind this story. I'm so sorry. I went through this script twice to make sure I had a decent handle on the story before I wrote a review. My notes at the bottom are pushing... I'll be honest. This script depressed the shit out of me. However, I do recognize all the thought that went into this story as well as a lot of the quality writing throughout, but I just can't get behind this story. I'm so sorry. I went through this script twice to make sure I had a decent handle on the story before I wrote a review. My notes at the bottom are pushing 1,200 words, so I'm going to keep the review sort of high-level and let the notes speak for themselves.
I'd first like to talk about this story as it's written up until page 20. I embraced it. I can certainly relate to Baylor because here's a guy who isn't where he wants to be in life. I feel that same way right now as I'm sure most people do. Baylor lost his job. Lost his girl. The town he lives in has dried up. No work. He's sunk so low he's watching black-and-white soft porn stolen from his neighbor's cable. The poor man's hit rock bottom, and I can sympathize. This could've been a great setup for something truly inspiring, illuminating even. But instead, we watch this man plummet to horrifying depths of violent, murderous behavior that did nothing but sadden me greatly. The awful, tragic people that made him want to be violent was sad and then his violent reaction to them was even sadder. So this spec was double-downed in sadness and it's a bit too much for me.
On page 20, the murders began with this gory, horrific beating of Charlie Moon, and immediately, the emotional rug of sympathy was pulled out from under Baylor. I lost all interest in him as a protag, what happens to him, why this has happened, all of it. I almost removed this spec from my list of assignments. But the writing was good, so I opted to finish the script.
Scribner made the point (in the 80-page region) that once a soul dies out, it doesn't take long for the roof to cave in, an analogy about Baylor, obviously, which I'm guessing is the theme. But, for me, that isn't a strong enough reason to write a screenplay. We look to stories and art to rise above the challenges of life, not spend time wallowing in the muck with terribly screwed-up men who are plummeting into this kind of murderous, insane, violent behavior. If you're doing this to point out why a man would fall into this kind of behavior, I'd say that's admirable, but those reasons are far more complicated than can be conveyed in a 120-page script and a simplification of all those reasons for the sake of brevity completely undermines the whole purpose of the endeavor. At the end of the day, I didn't like spending time with Baylor. I didn't like what he was doing. I wasn't fascinated by it. He wasn't sane or rational so there was no hope of a character arc, except a predictable descent into murderous extremes until he's caught. And I didn't find the spec illuminating enough about him or the how's and why's to warrant its existence.
Much of the writing was good. I got some of the symbolism, such as the talk of the flood vs. Baylor sitting in an empty water tower, the multiplying bugs vs. the refuse of society, etc. That was good. I enjoyed some of the dialogue. There were a number of creative decisions that I questioned, which are in my notes. But to see Baylor and others do these things saddened me deeply. And when we hit the climax with Breckenridge, it wasn't illuminating but rather, the story sunk to a new low of ugliness that got under my skin and made me want to weep, really.
Now I doubt most prod co's would go for this because it breaks HW's most golden rule of having a "sympathetic protag." I've said this before, but I don't necessarily subscribe to that theory. I think audiences will watch unsympathetic characters who are fascinating and who have depth, which I don't believe Baylor really has. Or, at least, he didn't have enough to interest me. After my emotional reaction to this script, I certainly wouldn't risk my money on a questionable protag who I'm not sure people would actually care about or be fascinated by.
Having said all of this, I really think you guys are actually good writers, and I'd like to see you do something more… cheerful? Please?
Take care,
-D
---------------------------------------
Pg 1 - The opening sequence, I think, is technically a MONTAGE and you might want to consider formatting it as such. I'm also not crazy about this heading: "INT. BLACKSTONE TENEMENT - APARTMENT - DAY - 2012". First, why not do an establishing shot of the Tenement and then do an Interior shot of the Apartment? Second, how would we know just by being inside this apartment that it's 2012? Pg 3 - This is a FLASHBACK to it should be formatted as such. There a couple ways of doing it. It's in the Screenwriter's Bible. Pg 7 - You need a BACK TO PRESENT to end this Flashback. Pg 20 - This is where you lost me. Baylor putting smashing Charlie with the tire iron ruins everything because it pulled the rug out from underneath any sympathy you might've been feeling for the guy. Pg 21-22 - I like how you're cutting back and forth between Baylor cleaning up while also cleaning the scene. Pg 22 - Bottom - You've really lost me again with Baylor saying, "Hope those fuckers remember to pay the light bill so they can keep my chair warm." I can't get behind a guy who's like this. Pg 24 - I wonder if "no trace of evidence" should be a line of dialogue. Pg 25 - It's strange that he's suddenly talking about the Lord when he never seemed all the religious in the first place, and it was only hinted at in that scene with Kimberly before his ill-timed proposal. I do like "Fish-lipped nutsucker." Funny. Pg 37 - I'd care more about what he did in Sarah & her Mother's life had he not committed that atrocious murder on page 20. If you cut that page 20 murder and go from his desperation to THIS, you might still be able to salvage this script. Pg 46 - "Poodles ricochet in the back window like popcorn" LOL Pg 50 - I'll be honest. These visions just aren't working for me, and after thinking about it, I think the problem is that they need to be charged with emotion not these gory visuals. Pg 55 - I'm guessing that by Baylor saying he's a changed man, that means he's fully committed to his murdering ways, which is a change from page 43 when he said, "Maybe I won't have to hurt nobody again." And now there is no chance for any sympathy and we'll be seeing this plummet over the edge of depravity. Not crazy about that. Pg 57 - Tom sorta enters the story out of nowhere without any setup. Plus, who's Georgie? Shouldn't this moment about the news of someone's death be someone that's already been established in the story? Pg 61 - This scene with Kim didn't reveal enough about their issues, for my tastes at least. Also, you're not supposed to call out specific songs in a spec unless you have the expression written permission of the artist. Pg 62 - What's the point of the Good Ol Boys? If they love what Baylor's doing, why wouldn't Baylor try to recruit them? Pg 63 - It would make more sense to me if the Waitress from the previous scene was Terri Rose. Pg 70 - Baylor's talking about soldiers, but we've only seen Tom. Shouldn't his "soldiers" be with him so that we seen them while he's talking about them? Pg 71 - I like this moment with Kimberly and the mouse. Nicely done. Pg 72 - While I liked the emotions here and how it was written, I'm not so sure the happy memories of his childhood ring true to me. Most who descend into serial killings have very troubled childhoods, don't they? Pg 74 - Not crazy about the re-use of "Fish-lipped nutsucker" here. Pg 75 - I'm not sure about all this dialogue here between Teddie and Wakefield. I'm not sure it advances the story. Pg 79 - I don't know. I'm not sure I buy that Breckenridge would get mixed up in all of this. Pg 81 - Here Scribner is making the point that once a soul is lost or dies out, it doesn't take long for the roof to cave in, an analogy about Baylor, obviously, which I'm guessing is the theme here. But that isn't enough of a point to have a screenplay, as far as I'm concerned. We look to stories and art to rise above the circumstances, not see an example of a man plummeting into murderous, violent behavior, and I think that's what's bugging me so much about this script. Pg 82 - At this point, I'm wondering why Scribner and Terri and Sarah's mom haven't come forward offering, at the very least, descriptions of Baylor, which should alarm local police to the fact it might be Baylor. It was confusing as to what it was that they've come upon and it feels like it should be revealed here before moving on to another scene. Pg 88 - I'm not sure I'm crazy about Pappy getting involved in this horrible business, too. It depresses me that so many others are getting involved in Baylor's shenanigans. In the cabin - how do we know, VISUALLY, that the gift's from Kimberly? You might want to note that there's a card. On the other hand, it feels out of character for Kimberly to buy him a gun. Now, I could buy it more if it was Kim, the Bartender. Maybe that's what you meant but you better be clear that it's Kim not Kimberly. Pg 91 - I like this scene by Kimberly but I feel like it would be more plausible if she left him, not died, and he's doing these things in large part over the fact that he's still reeling over her rejection. That's the more logical extension of the earlier scene when she said "let's talk" after he proposed. Pg 92 - I imagine there would still be a smell in the basement. Pg 93-94 - I think Bowden's a wasted character. Why couldn’t it be Teddie or Wakefield do this dialogue? It's way to late to be introducing new characters. Pg 95 - The problem with this scene with David is that I think we should've seen Baylor discover this news about Breckenridge and then we're made to understand why he's there. The surprise just sorta came out of nowhere without being setup. And yet, despite the fact that I understand why Baylor's doing this awful thing, this moment is so ugly and awful, it just depresses me. It's a script that's fallen into a depth of ugliness instead of rising above, and I can't get behind that. Pg 101 - It seems odd to end the story with Betty. That doesn't quite feel right. read -
A review of Saving Sevenby David Hayes on 12/10/2011This script has all the hallmarks of a new, young screenwriter who may be just starting out. And so, in this script are all the common learning curves that we all have to go through as writers. Having said that, I thought Darwin was a stand-out character, some of the dialogue was funny, and it's a very good thing that characters are your strength because everything else can... This script has all the hallmarks of a new, young screenwriter who may be just starting out. And so, in this script are all the common learning curves that we all have to go through as writers. Having said that, I thought Darwin was a stand-out character, some of the dialogue was funny, and it's a very good thing that characters are your strength because everything else can be learned.
So the first thing I want to talk about is formatting, which was frankly horrific. So much of my notes at the bottom are about formatting. You had terrible spacing issues, which leads one to think that you were adding all those extra spaces in order to pad your script so that you can take a rather thin story line across the 90-page mark. If you find yourself adding extra spaces to pad your script, the problem isn't the industry or the parameters of the formatting, the problem is that your story is too thin and you need to add layers to it. It's far better to have too many ideas than too few. You cannot have all this extra spacing as you have here. It won't impress anyone. Get Trottier's latest "Screenwriter's Bible," memorize it, and then you won't have to think about formatting as you write and you can stay focused on story. Until then, you may want to consider my notes.
As far as the story goes, there were lots of newbie mistakes beginning with the wasted voice overs from Eli. There was nothing Eli told us in voice over that couldn't come out a) IN a scene or b) from the expressions on his face. Like on pag 9, Eli says in voice over, "And I thought… why the hell not?" Well, that should be obvious to us through his expression without needing to be told. As they say, "show, don't tell." This kind of thing is a common newbie mistake because the writer hasn't yet learned to trust the reader to get it without having to be told. I went through this myself. You've got to trust the reader. Like on page 66, you didn't need to explain to us that "KIDNAPPER 2 is eliminated." That was quite obvious from the explosion, don't you think? You gotta trust the reader.
My other big complaint is that so much of the first 2/3 of the script lacked drama, conflicts, tension, suspense, and almost nothing was at stake, all of which made for a very boring read. When you're writing a happy scene with happy characters having fun and cracking jokes and you're feeling the happy feelings of the characters as you write that scene, you kind of deceptively think that those happy feelings will be felt by the readers, which rarely happens. This is a common newbie mistake that we all have to go through. It takes drama, conflicts, a protag with a goal and huge obstacles in his way in order to really hook your readers. Everything else is boring. For me, these parties, Eli meeting Emily, and their very dry conversations were laborious to get through because everything seemed to be going right for Eli and very little, if anything at all, was at stake in the story.
As far as the ending goes, it's hard to say what to change. The problem with the comedy is that it totally undermines the tension we should be feeling. We should be worried and concerned and I never felt that because you know how it's going to play out and it's a matter of getting from point A to point B, although there were some good chuckles along the way, which I appreciated.
At the end of the day, I don't think this is a high enough concept to really go anywhere, but I do like this writer and the strength of the characters makes me think he'll be going places once he goes through these common learning curves. I would only suggest getting focused on conflicts and drama and obstacles to goals to lift the work above the crowd of other aspiring writers. Even in comedy, tension in a scene is essential for laughs.
I look forward to reading more of your work.
-D
------------------------------------------------------------
Title Page - You don't need a period after the title. That just looks amateurish. Page 1 - Where's FADE IN? That's my favorite part of a screenplay. Second, this is not acceptable: "ESTABLISHING SHOT: MANSION - EVENING." You have to do EXT. MANSION - DAY and then give us a description of the mansion. What does it look like? What does the style of the mansion say to us about the characters? Plus, you don't have periods at the end of a Master Scene Heading. And generally speaking, scenes are shot for DAY or for NIGHT. Now I know that I'm probably in the minority on this, but I don't like "we" or "us" in the action lines. I know that some pros do it, but I think it's weak writing. There is no sentence in screenwriting that can't be rewritten without the word "we" and still convey the same idea about what we're seeing on the screen. You've got a spacing issue above Ruben. This script really looks shoddy so far. By the way, what room are we in inside this mansion? Pg 2 - You don't call out the Opening Titles. And you don't use CUT TO's in specs. And you've got way, way too many spaces here. One might get the impression that you're trying to "pad" the script with extra spaces to meet the minimum 90-page requirement. This voice over doesn't work. It's being used as a crutch for exposition, which really should come out in a scene of some kind. Pg 3 - This isn't correct: "ELI (NERVOUSLY)". (Nervously) is a parenthetical that should be underneath the character name. Pg 6 - Avoid Beats. And you don't need to put in caps every character's name in the action lines. They only have to be in caps when they make their first appearance. Pg 8 - The names for Emily and Eli look too similar and can be confusng when reading the dialogue. You usually try to avoid having similar sounding names. Pg 9 - And this voice over of "And I thought… why the hell not?" is obvious through his expression without needing to be told this in dialogue. Pg 9-10 - this collection of shots with all the CUT TOs is not correct. This is called a MONTAGE and should be formatted as such. Pg 10 - This is an unfilmmable: "This is the first sign of confidence we’ve seen from ELI." We should know this on our own by watching the scene without having to have it explained to us in an action line. You have a huge spacing issue after ROOF Master Scene Heading. This voice over about it being the best night of his life should be obvious to us without him telling us. FADE OUT is supposed to be at the end of the script. What you want is a FADE TO but that kind of transition isn't really warranted here. Action paragraphs should be 5 lines or fewer. A huge spacing issue before the Library Master Scene Heading. I'm not pointing these out anymore. This looks terrible. Pg 15 - This conversation between Eli and Emily is a snoozer, I'm sorry to say. You've got to come up with dialogue more lively than this. This is the kind of dialogue that's more interesting if you're IN that conversation with someone you like as opposed to watching two people have this conversation. Pg 17 - The problem with these party scenes is that there's really nothing going on, no conflicts, no tension, nothing's at stake. Pg 22 - This is SO not how to format a montage. Pg 23 - You need a Secondary Heading for the bathroom. It's a different room. Plus, this is boring. Pg 24 - The montage continues? What montage? Pg 42 - Watching Eli and Darwin get drunk is boring because there's no drama, no conflict, no tension, and nothing's at stake. Pg 44 - You can't write in an action lines, "Back to COCKTAIL BAR." You have write a new Master Scene Heading. Pg 47 - Eli's acting like such a schmuck here, it's kind of annoying. Pg 49 - This BACK TO BUILDING and BACK TO BRIDGE crap is confusing. This is why a screenplay has Master Scene Headings. For crying out loud, man. Pg 66 - You didn't need to explain to us that "KIDNAPPER 2 is eliminated." You need to develop a certain amount of trust in your readers that they'll get it without you having to explain it to them. Pg 70 - Not buying that Darwin would still be drunk at this point. Pg 76 - a CUT TO inside a scene is completely irrelevant. When we go from one action paragraph to another, we always assume it's a cut to a new shot. There's no point in calling this out in a screenplay. Pg 79 - I'm not buying that a cupboard would still be intact after that explosion. Pg 89 - Good job. read -
A review of Rex Tanner and the Sword of Damocles (6th Draft)by David Hayes on 12/07/2011I love scripts like these. I do. I've had a couple of accounts on TS before this one and over the years I've read a number of adventure comedies along the same vein as this one, and they're just so much fun. They're easy for people to dismiss because it looks so easy to write, which can be deceptive. So much more work goes into scripts like these (and perfecting those jokes)... I love scripts like these. I do. I've had a couple of accounts on TS before this one and over the years I've read a number of adventure comedies along the same vein as this one, and they're just so much fun. They're easy for people to dismiss because it looks so easy to write, which can be deceptive. So much more work goes into scripts like these (and perfecting those jokes) than most people realize. As a reviewer, I think there are only two questions you have to ask yourself: 1) Was the adventure fun? Yes. 2) Did the comedy make you laugh? Yes. Then the script achieved its goals and should be recognized for that. How substantive it could've been is really beside the point, I think. The point is to have fun. Some might talk about "mindless fun" as praise or as a back-handed compliment, but there's a place for stories like these because in its giddy, whimsical way, it makes you feel good and have some child-like fun. I think it'd make for a good date movie, frankly, because it is fun and harmless and makes you laugh. As a guy, you want to get your girl laughing and feeling good, which this script accomplishes.
Over the years, I've seen other adventure comedies like these land the top three of big contests and a few might get optioned but I rarely see them actually get made. I don't know why. I think it's just too easy for people to dismiss stories like these, which is wrong. I knew one writer who was so frustrated by that that he decided to go "serious" and it just wasn't the same. And the only advice I have to give this writer is to say that, for the long haul, you have to cling to the whimsical ways of your storytelling and never let that go despite the frustrations of the business. There's no telling what concept will click, so you just have to keep at it and cling to the humor and good nature of your storytelling style because it will win people over. It's just a matter of finding the right concept with the right characters being read by the right people.
What few comments I have to say about the story itself is in my notes below and I don't feel any need to elaborate. You might want to take note of the formatting comments.
Great job, Olufemi. Look forward to reading more of your work.
-D
-----------------------------
Pg 1 - Okay, answer me this. Top of the page. How can Dr. Hyde be (O.S.) if the screen is black? How would we know if Hyde's off screen or not? Plus, I think a smash cut is a visual thing involving the same or similar objects in two different locations. You don't need a smash cut if we're still in the same location, I don't believe. I think they use "SUPER" now instead of the old "TITLE CARD". Pg 2 - I laughed at the "I ain't sure what 'resilient' means" line. Good job. Pg 6 - Bottom, Rex's explanation doesn't make a lot of sense to me. One could still kick down a wooden door without breaking any bones. At least, I've seen that on TV, lol. Why not make it a thick metal door just to be safe and so no one will doubt what he's saying? Pg 11 - Don't need "(cont'd)" if a character speaks twice in a row. Pg 12 - No need for the "CONTINUOUS" in the Secondary Headings. That's always implied unless we're told differently. And it's distracting. Pg 19 - "Idunno" really should be two words, lol. Pg 36 - Loved the brotherly exchange in this scene. Good job. Pg 43 - I'd shorten Mick's line to just: "I apologize. I must clean out the trunk one of these days." Pg 82 - Rex hanging on a branch was fun. Good job. Pg 94 - I just don't believe the plane would "hold steady." Pg 108 - Great job! Loved it! read -
A review of Justiceby David Hayes on 11/27/2011First, I like this writer. We had a good pace, short scenes, twists, and at times, some crackling dialogue. Even though I'm not so sure this concept is really "high" enough to go all the way in HW (sold, produced, and distributed widely), I do think there's talent here. OK, well, there were 2 areas that bothered me. 1) I think this writer revealed too much too soon in the... First, I like this writer. We had a good pace, short scenes, twists, and at times, some crackling dialogue. Even though I'm not so sure this concept is really "high" enough to go all the way in HW (sold, produced, and distributed widely), I do think there's talent here.
OK, well, there were 2 areas that bothered me.
1) I think this writer revealed too much too soon in the plot. When Phil arrives on the scene and explained who killed Amy and that there's a tape, there’s no room for doubt about what he’s saying and there are no lingering questions placed into the minds of the readers that would make them want to keep turning the pages to get their answers. You take what Phil’s telling you at face value despite his checkered background. You kind of suspect that, because of this genre, there will probably be more going on here that meets the eye, but I'd suggest that there needs to be a question of some kind that makes you want to dig further into the story. "How is it possible Paul killed Amy if X, Y, and Z?" That kind of thing. It's a question that needs to be answered, which is what's driving the story, not "this is the situation and we've got to fix it" kind of thing. The fact that Tyler was at the murder scene, and also the Judge, are details that I think should be revealed later and it should be info that's surprising and earned by the hard work of the protagonist.
2) Generally speaking and while I liked this writer a good deal, I think the writing was a bit too obvious about too many things. It was obvious Tyler and the Judge were baddies, fingered from the beginning, and it may have been more interesting if they were at first seemingly good people who Keenan was close to and then he discovers these awful revelations about them later, which puts him into a state of inner conflict. On page 12-13, we had an exchange that, for me, was a bit too on the button. Tyler and the Judge are obviously bad, Keenan obviously hates them, and the exchange they had was all just too straightforward. Something more layered, a bit of cat-and-mouse, maybe, might've heightened that scene. Keenan revealing his past to Eve was way too straightforward as well, I thought.
I'd also like to talk about Keenan. I have a protag in my "Perfect Encounters" script who puffs on cigars, because it's flippin' cool. LOL Yet, pro-readers hammered me for that and a couple rejected my spec on the sole basis of the fact that my protag smokes. I suspect you'll encounter a lot of that as well, a lot of objections about smoking in general, although that's a rich element for this kind of genre. While I liked Keenan, I think other readers will question how sympathetic he is. Is he a really strong enough protag that audiences can get behind him? He's one of thos ambulance chasing types with the tacky commercials on TV. Will audiences really go for that? He can also be sarcastic, perhaps to a fault, which may undermine support for him, too. Audiences tend to get behind guys who can rise above the temptations to be a smartass. Also, I think it'd be interesting if he had a stronger love story with Eve. I suspect a girl like her might be secretly wrestling with issues of self-worth, which Keenan recognizes and sort of addresses with her and pushes her in the right direction and Eve's decision to come forward has more to do with her own need for self-worth than serving justice. But I could be wrong.
A few minor thoughts:
- I never got a sense of the size of this city we're in. Is this a small town where everyone knows everyone or more metropolitan?
- I wasn't crazy about the way you broke up the sentences in the dialogue, such as "Why is it every time I’ve seen you? There’s been some kind of disaster?" Just make it one sentence. That was distracting.
- Pg 1 – If we’re just looking at the interior of a bedroom, how would we know it’s in Fairborn, NC? And on page 40 the same question: if we're just inside a college room, how would we know we're in Alaska?
- Pg 28 - I didn't understand what video Keenan took at the end of that scene. Was it just any video? I think you need to give him a specific reason to grab a certain video, like a date that's on the label or something.
- And finally, I just couldn't buy that the governor can order a re-trial to suddenly take place in three days. This re-trial is the only section where you really lost me. I just couldn't buy into it. Plus, this is the kind of story that calls for a high-suspense ending, not a trial.
Below are my notes, which I hope helps you. Don't let my criticisms give you the wrong impression. I think you're good. Keep at it.
-D
-----------------------------------------
Title Page - You really should have SOMETHING on your title page. Pg 1 – If we’re just looking at the interior of a bedroom, how would we know it’s in Fairborn, NC? Pg 2 - I'm surprised Maxine doesn't bring up that she has a tape. You'd think that's a hand she'd be anxious to play at this point. Pg 5 – I suspect that Phil’s revealing too much too soon about who killed Amy Loveland. Pg 6 – Now I really feel that Phil is revealing too much. There’s no room for doubt about what he’s saying and there are no lingering questions placed into the minds of the readers that would make them want to keep turning the pages to get their answers. I know that there might be more going on here that meets the eye, but there needs to be a question of some kind that makes you want to dig further into the story. As it is, you take what Phil’s telling you at face value despite his checkered background. Pg 7 – Phil should probably mention the metal box here at the top of the page. Pg 12-13 – Not crazy about this exchange between Keenan and Tyler and the Judge. It's all just too straightforward and obvious. Pg 17 - The "Male Voice" should address Keenan by his name since he knows him. Reading this a second time, the dialogue feels off because they would be addressing each other by their names since they know each other. It seems a little late for Ludie to do that at the bottom of the page. I don't know. It didn't really work for me. Pg 19 - Not crazy about this this dialogue is broken up into two questions: "Why is it every time I’ve seen you? There’s been some kind of disaster?" Pg 21 – “What happened with Tyler and Judge Burke.” Is that a statement or a question? Pg 22-23 - What feels off about this scene is that you take everything that Paul tells you at face value and there are no lingering doubts or questions in your mind, which makes the scene kind of flat. There needs to be more going on here. Pg 24 - Don't think it's necessary to repeat exposition we already know (Phil's dead). You could start this scene with Cory simply telling Keenan, "I told you to stay away from Phil." Pg 25 - It's kinda weird that his own son would call him "Keenan." Pg 28 - I don't understand. What video did he take? Just any video? He just grabbed a random video and left? I think you need to give him a specific reason to grab a certain video, like a date that's on the label or something. That didn't make sense to me. Pg 29 – A little too descriptive at times: “Keenan grabs her well-toned arm.” I would just write “Keenan grabs her arm.” We already have a strong sense of how she looks by this point, so it seems like you’re pointing out things that are already established and don’t need to be pointed out again. Pg 30 – Here’s a weird comment. You’re inconsistent with the spacing in your action lines. Sometimes one space, sometimes two. And it’s kinda distracting. Pg 33-34 - You might want to establish visually that the Roach's are alive on page 33 rather than verbally on page 34. Pg 37-38 - This scene with Keenan and Eve feels a little flat because he's being so straightforward about what had happened and you take everything at face value. Might be more interesting if she had to really work to pull that information out of him. Pg 40 - Why would Keenan to go Alaska? Why not be somewhere else in NC? Alaska might be a bit too visually out of step with the rest of the script. Plus, if we're just inside a college room, how would we know we're in Alaska? Pg 48 - Might be a bit too coincidental that Michael Loveland just happens to be here in this diner, and he only gives this one piece of information and returns to the trial but that's it. He might be a waste of a character. Pg 53 - It's hard to believe that they didn't kill him off and stage his death. Either that or I think it's a wasted opportunity to not show the scene where he's unconscious in his car and the car's about to explode and you build up that suspense only to be saved at the last minute by the police. That's something I think you should show instead of tell on page 54. Pg 57 – What’s a Hotel Detective? Pg 58 - I'm not sure I'm buying this plot about using the tape to blackmail the governor to stay Pual's execution. Why not make the tape public? Put it online? Share it with the media? There'd be such a public outcry over the new evidence that the governor would politically have no choice but to stay Paul's execution and he'd be in a political shit storm from which there would be no recovering. Pg 63 – I think you had one too many dead political career jokes here. Pg 69 - Just not buying that the governor can order a re-trial to suddenly take place in three days. This element, plus the actual trial at the end, really didn't work for me. Pg 79 – These broken sentences in the dialogue really bug me at times because the breaks make no sense, such as, “Takes a real man to admit. That he wasn’t man enough to accomplish the job he was sent to do.” Pg 82 – I think this chase and fight in the slaughter room could’ve been built up more and generally more exciting. Pg 82 - I doubt Warner Brothers would give permission to allow those characters into a movie like this, but I could be wrong. I’ve read screenwriting articles saying that you cannot have copyrighted characters of any kind in your script without the express written permission of the copyright’s owner. I suspect most in the biz would let this go, but I would caution you on doing things like this in your script. I’d keep it general about what cartoons we’re seeing. Pg 84 - You'd think Keenan would press Tina for more details. Pg 86 - This trial is the only section where you really lost me. I'm not buying that they'd be having a re-trial all of a sudden in three days. Plus, this is the kind of story that calls for a high-suspense ending, not a trial.
Good job. read -
A review of Oh Sinner Manby David Hayes on 12/17/2010Yeah, baby! I was damn excited to get the chance to go through this script again and it's become one of my favs on TS without a doubt. I want to first talk about the adaptation itself. I mentioned this in my last review, and it's worth repeating. My first introduction to this book was an article from maybe a year ago about a screenwriter from the U.K. (I think) who had... Yeah, baby! I was damn excited to get the chance to go through this script again and it's become one of my favs on TS without a doubt.
I want to first talk about the adaptation itself. I mentioned this in my last review, and it's worth repeating. My first introduction to this book was an article from maybe a year ago about a screenwriter from the U.K. (I think) who had been hired to write an adaptation of this book. The article was basically about how he has his work cut out for him because the book is pretty damn impossible to adapt for a variety of reasons. So, naturally, I added "Confessions" to my own personal list of potential projects just because the article said that the book's impossible to adapt. But I have since removed the idea from my list because - why bother? Richard has already done a splendid job. We know from Wikipedia that the book is downright unclassifiable because it's part-gothic novel, part-psychological mystery, part-curio, part-metafiction, part-satire, part-case study of totalitarian thought, etc. So to take content as difficult as that and turn it into a script as understandable and compelling as this one, is a phenomenal achievement.
In this day and age, we SHOULD be able to recognize the talent and achievement of a pre-pro writer who has created a great cinematic experience from an exceptionally difficult book. Adaptations are a giant part of this business, and I think it's wise to get experience. I'm sure that someday this script will reach SOM and it's a travesty that ScriptShark would likely refuse to even dig into the story just because it's an adaptation, as in my case with "Anthem." That's ridiculous. How many reviews of films have you read in which the critic said, "I haven't read the book, so I'm just going to give my reaction to the film." And what's wrong with that in the case of coverage for screenplays? Besides, in this day and age, if you're curious about the source material but you don't have time to read it, Wikipedia provides thorough summaries of most classic novels, which could give anyone a sense of what that writer was dealing with. You should easily get the impression from Wiki that this story just isn't going to fit into your typical three-act structure or your Blake Snyder beat sheet or any of that. You just have to go into this script with an open mind, try to accept it on its own terms, be patient about its very big breaks in structure, and hope that the results will be rewarding for you.
Last time, I had no idea what to say about this spec, but now that I've gone through it a few times, I think I've been able to wrap my head around it well enough to know what to suggest. There only minor suggestions and I leave it in your capable hands.
The first thing I want to talk about is Opening and Closing Shots. Not sure if you've seen this, but Jim Emerson (Ebert's editor) has for years been conducting an Opening Shots Project on his film blog (http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/opening_shots_project/). An opening shot sets up what that film is about, establishes tone or theme(s) or makes a statement about a character, and usually, the opening shot sets up expectations about what is to come. In some films, that opening shot will also mirror the closing shot in order to punctuate a shift in values of some kind that's taken place. 'Godfather' opened in the Don's office and the film ended just outside the Don's office with a new Don. There's been a shift in values, you see? So here, I'd like to see a stronger opening that mirrors the final sequence. Maybe a close-up of the book? Maybe you open with scattered papers? I don't know. Something with visual meaning. Hope that makes sense.
The other thing I'd like to see is you embracing more cinematic writing in your scripts. Take for example, the opening scene in the Farmland. You write:
"A site under excavation. Several off-road vehicles are parked close to a patch of ground which is being examined by archaeologists and forensic scientists. One of the vehicles displays signage for 'IDEAL TV'. "
I'd like to see you be more cinematic and the lead the minds eye with the visuals. So, maybe, you establish the scene with a shot of some visual identifier telling us that we're on a farm, like a tractor or something and then you move the camera (without calling out camera angles) around the farm so that we start to see things that shouldn't belong on a farm, the media, the scientists, etc, and you make us wonder what's going on, and then you reveal the excavation site. As it is, so much of what you've written is too generic and I'd see you be more cinematic.
Beyond that, I have some very MINOR THOUGHTS:
- I read on Wiki that Wringham had self-doubt in the novel, which I'd love to see. It shouldn't be that he questions his own faith b/c we've seen that a billion times over, so maybe he could have doubt about his own eternal security b/c he did something awful with Rabina? That'd give him I different side to his character that'd flesh him out even more.
- I'd alo like to see Robert have stronger inner conflicts about each killing. In his heart he's against it but maybe he just doesn't possess the intellectual ability to argue with Gil-Martin? I thought that page 44 was a great spot to exploit even more an inner conflict in Robert.
- I also wonder if Robert's voice overs should exist throughout the script, perhaps going all the way back to the first scene, as someone tries to read his "memoirs?" This might emphasize better that he's the protag.
- On page 6, I wondered if you should give a stronger hint of a growing physical relationship between them. When Wringham and Rabina go outside, what if Rabina has a breakdown and he hugs her, which gets dangerously close to being innapropriate?
- If there was a section that didn't work for me this time around, it had to be the McGill and Robert subplot. The ending to that sequence seemed too anti-climactic and all things considered, it wasn't revealing enough about Robert's character to really warrant its existence.
- On page 71, don't you need to note that this is a flashback?
- I remember complaining about not really feeling the ending in that last draft, but this time around, it really worked for me. Great job, Richard.
-D read -
A review of Aquarianna (v2)by David Hayes on 11/17/2010Greetings, Mr. Young. I have to admit, I was pretty damn excited to get this assigned to me. The concept is just strange enough to be cool. And, of course, this script, which won't budge off of the Top Ten, is full of all the quality writing you would expect - quick pace, lean prose, short scenes, great format, easy on the dialogue, blah-blah-blah. Good job. Let's talk... Greetings, Mr. Young. I have to admit, I was pretty damn excited to get this assigned to me. The concept is just strange enough to be cool. And, of course, this script, which won't budge off of the Top Ten, is full of all the quality writing you would expect - quick pace, lean prose, short scenes, great format, easy on the dialogue, blah-blah-blah. Good job.
Let's talk Leif. Has it occurred to you that in HW, which is overly sensitive about all things politically correct, very few people would support a whale-killing protagonist? LOL I seriously doubt anyone would plunk down the big bucks for a big production when many would have concerns about animal rights protestors and mothers refusing to allow their children to see the film because your protag kills whales for a living. Once word got out about that, the film would be DOA. If we're talking about a Moby Dick adaptation, then you could get away with it. Or if the whale-killer was the antag, then okay. But the protag? I guarantee you, it'll never fly. (Hell, my own "Perfect Encounters" script got rejected twice simply because my protag puffs on cigars. It's not like cigar-puffing is anything like cigarette-smoking. You just puff on cigars. You don't inhale. But whatever.)
Don't misunderstand me. There's nothing at all wrong with a whale-killing protag. A) It makes sense. The whales killed Arianna. Whale harpooning is what they did back then. B) The harpoon throwing is a cool thing to see in a hero-protag, and C) a little controversy is actually good for business. But it won't matter. All the logic and reasoning in the world won't make the insecure feel any less insecure. And that speech by Torm on page 41 isn't going to help matters much either. I can already hear them insisting that you cut this business about whales killing Arianna and make a point to show that something strange attacked them - that maybe Ardan killed Arianna. And then you make Leif crazy about not killing whales but this one particular sea monster who killed his beloved. That's a little Moby Dick but you could probably get away with it. Maybe he could practice harpooning killer sharks in the Caribbean?
You may laugh at my suggestions, but that's the kind of stupid shit they throw at you.
Beyond that, there are two other things that bother me about Leif.
1) I didn't understand the need to kill off his father in the very next sequence, which I think was designed to introduce Ardan, but that should've happened in the opening sequence with Arianna. You have two similar sequences happening in quick succession and it's a bit repetitive. Plus, it's like you're unnecessarily doubling-down Leif's motivation to kill this sea monster when you only needed the death of Arianna to do that. I don't really see any reason to pile on the death of Leif's father and have a second similar sequence to do all of this. I know what you're going to say. Arianna has to die first before the monster can start appearing and asking for Aquarianna. You'll have to figure that one out. Or, perhaps, just let Arianna die under different circumstances so that these first two sequences aren't so similar.
2) I think you played Leif a little too safe, and as a result, he turned out kinda bland for my tastes. To win over audiences, I think he needs to have a bigger-than-life personality. And I also think he needs to be more changed b/c of what happened with Arianna. He needs to be big. He should be a wild, crazy man who will do anything and who is more fearless than anyone else on land or sea simply b/c he isn't afraid to die b/c that would mean he'd get to be with Arianna again. But he has a weakness of some kind and a little depth b/c he can be serious about certain things. Or something like that. He needs to have some defining characteristic in his personality that makes him unforgettable and stand out from the crowd of movie heroes.
A FEW OTHER THOUGHTS
- It felt to me that Leif's motivation to grab the mermaid seemed kinda weak. I think it would've been better if (on page 16) Blackwood tells Leif and Torm that it's a shame there won't be any passage back to the New World while that sea monster's out there destroying ships b/c he would've happily taken them on as part of his crew on his next voyage. Thus, the boys would have a greater motivation to find a way around Ardan to get back home.
- Pg 22 - If Renard hands a few of Culter's bills to Torm, why does Culter say later on page 38 that "It's all here?" When asked for a small fee here on page 22, why not have Torm return Culter's bills to Renard? That'd be kinda funny. Beyond that, I think you should come up with a more entertaining way of getting into the building, not this easy-way-out of a "guest entrance." Please. That's not screenwriting that impresses people.
- If Aquarianna knew enough to point out the window to the ocean on page 44, why wouldn't she point to get thrown over the London Bridge on page 30? And it just sorta bothered me that Leif and Torm weren't involved in this sequence with her crawling back to the ocean. They were too passive in this sequence.
- The only other suggestion I'd make about the action sequences is to really drag out the tension and suspense to unbearable heights. You need to go even farther than what you've offered us in this draft.
- I loved the lines for Queen Victoria. I could hear Judi Dench's voice speaking those words. On the other hand, I'm not sure how I feel about Queen Victoria stepping in and switching up the whole plot and forcing everyone to go back on Blackwood's ship. It just felt like they were headed too much in the right direction for Aquarianna's sake. I could be wrong. It feels like what should be happening is that tension escalates b/c CULTER wants to do something diabolical at sea with the mermaid. You know? Maybe he knows of the medallion and he's trying to get his hands on the booty. Plus, Aquarianna was released too easily into the ocean in the middle of the night when I think it should've happened in the midst of a huge suspense-filled action sequence. We should be scared to death for her safety, tension rises, shit happens, and then we are left breathless by the time she plops into the ocean. She should be tied up and left dangling over the ocean for Ardan to find her, you know? I needed something more exciting. It felt obligatory that Ardan had to show up to attack the ships after Aquarianna was released.
- On page 91, I think we need the payoff of seeing Renard get his share of the booty.
But don't let these thoughts fool you. I thought it was, all in all, a job well done. I thoroughly enjoy your style and I genuinely look forward to reading more of your scripts.
-D read -
A review of 5,4,3,2,1-GO! (Orgasm Mix)by David Hayes on 11/11/2010Man, that fuckin' assignment generator is one generous mother fucker. And let me fucking tell you - as I was fucking reading this (yes, I was fucking AND reading at the same time), I laughed my fucked-up, misshapen, zit-covered, hairy-moled, bad-fucking-ass right off. This fucking script makes "Balls Out" look like it was written by nuns. And it has the good fucking decency... Man, that fuckin' assignment generator is one generous mother fucker. And let me fucking tell you - as I was fucking reading this (yes, I was fucking AND reading at the same time), I laughed my fucked-up, misshapen, zit-covered, hairy-moled, bad-fucking-ass right off. This fucking script makes "Balls Out" look like it was written by nuns. And it has the good fucking decency to actually be fucking funny as hell, which was really fucking great.
I'm going to quit with the F bombs before I get sent to the House of Fucking Justice.
I loved it. Great job!
Just a couple of thoughts...
The bottom of page 8 felt like a setup to a payoff later in which a plan is revealed to set the bomb off in America. On page 93, Bad-Ass says, "I don't give a fuck where they use." I can't help but wonder if it would be better that Bad-Ass wants the bomb to go off in Miami.
This bonfire sequence starting on page 23 gives me pause. Nothing serious. I guess they were doing this "vision quest" in order to see whether they'll make it through Arizona. But then it sorta became about Stud's courage to get through Arizona. Sascha Grey tells him, "If you can watch me make sweet love to Charity and you can stay here and watch without jacking off, you’ll have the courage to drive through Arizona." Stud having the courage to go through Arizona didn't feel like it was the right question, because he seems like Mr. Courage to me. And we never find out whether he jacked off or night. I can only guess he didn't. It feels like there was supposed to be a funny payoff we didn’t get to see at the end of this sequence. Also, this should be a setup to an arc in Stud. Like, maybe this sequence explores a hidden demon in him that he has to overcome. Like, if he can, for the first time in his life, think without using his dick, he'll get through Arizona, save the day, and have the greatest sex in his life. Thus, he'd have an inner conflict everytime someone offers him sex throughout the story and he'd get a big payoff at the end during the orgy, as if he was being rewarded for not thinking with his dick on this adventure. Or something. It might be a nice contrast to all of the baddies who lose because they ARE thinking with their dicks.
Pg 37 - After the Stud ratted out Mikey, I couldn't help but wonder if we should catch a shot of Mikey walking out of prison hot for revenge… with a few guys behind him - fellow-inmates now under his control for sucking down his spooge in prison. That might get a laugh.
Pg 39 - This bit between Faith and Mikey was fun but still sorta predictable. I wonder if you should do something to make it a little less predictable. Imagine this - Mikey spins her around, drops his pants, and lets his giant dick slowly swing back and forth like the pendulum of a clock. And you have this comical look on Faith watching his dick swing back and forth… as if she was being hypnotized. And thus, audiences will think, "Oh no, she's being hypnotized, this may not turn out as we thought," and then it becomes a surprise when she bites off his dick.
Pg 58 - This part about Faith's period feels like a setup without a payoff. Maybe Faith uses her period to some nasty diabolical end?
The 70's - I laughed my ass off when Sheriff Hunter didn't even notice the nuclear weapon in the trunk as he was trying to plant a baggie of pot. And then I laughed even harder when Hope said "nucular."
Okay, the ending. I think the ending felt a little too staged. It needed more suspense and that "all hope is lost" feeling. So hear me out. Let's say the nuclear device is hidden in a beer keg or something. And the plan was, in fact, designed to blow up the bomb on American soil in Miami. Bad-Ass puts the nuclear beer keg on a smaller yacht. He puts Stud and the girls onto the smaller yacht, as well. There's no way to stop the nuclear bomb from going off. They break off the helm of the smaller yacht and fix it so that the boat cannot be stopped and it is set to speed straight to Miami and the nuclear device will blow up in one hour right as they get near the coast. In the meantime, Bad-Ass will be sailing his yacht at top speed away from the Miami coast to clear the blast. All is lost on the smaller yacht. The yacht cannot be stopped. The nuclear device cannot be disarmed. And even if they jumped off the boat, there's no way they could swim away far enough to clear the blast. The boat speeds toward the coast and there's nothing they can do. So Stud and the gang have one last orgy. Funny secrets are revealed. Confessions are made. (Kinda like the crashing plane scene in "Almost Famous.")
The clock is ticking. New positions are tried. The coast keeps getting closer. The clock runs down to zero and then... they discover that Hope switched kegs, the bomb's still on Bad-Ass's yacht, which explodes way off in the distance, and upon learning this, they all have orgasms at the same time. The fact that Hope didn't tell everyone was because... she thought it'd make the sex better. And it did.
And then they jump off the boat just as it crashes into a dock in Miami.
Or something like that. Maybe this'll inspire something better, but you get the general idea. Something with suspense and tension and big jokes and then… a twist and all is well again.
Beyond that, the only other thing I would encourage you guys to do is to push the envelope even farther in the dialogue. Forget about realism and write even crazier shit than what you have. Just go crazy - lines that are almost unspeakable. And I would make sure that almost every single line is funny. There were a few lines, like this one on page 25, "Oh, Stud she’s good. Her tongue is good" that it felt like a missed opportunity for a joke. Make sure EVERY LINE is funny and/or crazy. If you can find room somewhere, you might want to see if you can squeeze in some hilarious commentary about film ratings. Maybe one of the girls talks about how she refuses to see films anymore because it's unfair that they don't show dicks and that the MPAA rewards violence and punishes sex, etc, etc. That'd get the critics talking and in a few cases, maybe even supportive of your film.
A couple more notes:
Pg 1 - Should be, "metal loud enough TO MAKE". Also, should be "Massive TATTOOED knuckles".
Pg 2 - Uncapitalize "T" in "Charity, This fucker".
Pg 46 - You repeat on this page "Sunrise in farm country USA." You can come up with something better than "I wanna ride you like a bad pony, baby."
Pg 79 - It's spelled "Weeki Wachee" although I think the misspelling here is my fault. I spelled it wrong in IM before looking it up. But then on Pg 81, you started spelling it "Wikee Wachee," which I think is my fault again b/c I misspelled it again even after trying to look it up, LOL. It's WEEKI WACHEE. Sorry, man. I'm to blame for that.
Pg 93 - You need to setup the Disney Cruise joke better. He should say something like, "You're going to need all five million bucks to afford where you're going." "Where's that, a Disney Cruise?" LOL
Great job! I loved it! read -
A review of The Ballad of the O'Briens (Rev.3)by David Hayes on 11/11/2010Greetings, Mr. Proudman. Thanks for sharing the script. I enjoyed it. Okay, the O'Briens. We have a fairly straightforward (and somewhat familiar) revenge plot, a land owner has a few naughty locals who are trying to scare him away so they can do some oil drilling. Parents are left for dead. Father barely survives. The daughter is kidnapped and has amnesia. The father... Greetings, Mr. Proudman. Thanks for sharing the script. I enjoyed it.
Okay, the O'Briens. We have a fairly straightforward (and somewhat familiar) revenge plot, a land owner has a few naughty locals who are trying to scare him away so they can do some oil drilling. Parents are left for dead. Father barely survives. The daughter is kidnapped and has amnesia. The father has to reconcile his differences with his dying brother in order to get on with the business of getting his daughter back. This conflict between the brothers is dressed up with some revealing flashbacks that did more to fill in gaps than it did to advance the story.
A few thoughts. Westerns, for the most part, are dead right now, which I've heard repeated by a number of agents in those Script Mag podcasts. It's not that there's an unwillingness in audiences to go see westerns, it's that there's this ridiculous box-office-killing-bias by the MPAA, who for some strange reason thinks that all westerns should now be rated R b/c of the guns even if the violence was as light as an old John Wayne film. There was no plausible reason at all for Costner's "Open Range" to be rated R. That's just insanity. Even recently, we had that western/horror mashup in "Jonah Hex" and the filmmakers had to completely gut that film (and the violence) until it was 80 minutes long (including credits!) in order to get the PG13 rating. For these reasons alone, I don't believe anyone would be very interested in reading another western, and so I'd suggest either a) change the setting or b) treat this as a writing sample.
So if we were to look at this as a writing sample, there are promising aspects to admire: lean writing, short scenes, no meandering, a point and a reason to most details in the story, some decent drama, an eye for milking sympathy, and a good focus on a strong ending.
On the other hand, I gotta say, I needed something deeper. We've seen a lot of revenge stories, many of them make statements about the toll the revenge takes on the protag or how the protag became that which he/she was hunting, and so we understand the reasons for watching those stories. Here, you admire how the machinations of story played out, even if it was somewhat predictable, but I needed more. I needed a clearly identifiable theme, a reason we can point to for sitting through this story. You have so many differing elements, the revenge plot, the amnesia subplot, and the conflict between the brothers, which is such an eclectic mish-mash of ideas, that whatever theme you had seems to have been lost in the process. It seemed to me early on as I was reading about Nell's memory loss that this should've been a story about identity. Her loss of memory and questioning of who she was should've somehow mirrored Pat's story in order to create a more unified theme. You know? Let's say there's a duality to Pat that makes him question who he is and what he should be and do in light of these tragedies. Like Hamlet.
The weakest aspect has to be the conflict between William and Pat. The problem is the flashbacks. We watch this conflict play out but it comes across more as melodrama than anything else because we don't know what happened and we, therefore, aren't emotionally invested at all in seeing these two men reconcile, so we don't care that much. We're just waiting for the revenge to take place. Now you adequately explained what happened via the flashbacks but explaining what happened doesn't make us care more. It's just exposition. It's better to open the story with Pat finding out about William and Joy, there's huge drama, William leaves, the men come to do their dirty work, and then William returns. We'd be more invested that way and we'd care more about their reconciliation because of the drama in the opening scene. And then, instead of flashbacks, William drops the bomb on Pat that Nell is HIS daughter. That'd have a bigger impact on the audience in a scene with big drama than it would in a flashback.
I'd say those are my two big issues. A smaller issue would have to be the handling of Nell. I thought the moment where Nell remembered Pat on page 80 was a missed opportunity for big emotions. It was almost glossed over. And, frankly, I was expecting her amnesia to create complications in the plot, like, for example, she won't go with Pat and William because she doesn't know who they are. Or as a twist in the knife in Pat's back, Bob convinces Nell that she is HIS daughter, which she says to Pat when he tries to rescue her. You know? Her subplot could've been so much stronger. And I think you need to be careful about how you handle male characters because, particularly when William and Pat were fighting, they would sometimes come across a little as bitchy girls and I've watched enough films with guys to see that when a male character is too much of a complainer or a crybaby, he loses their support.
Hope that makes sense. You're a good writer and I look forward to more of your scripts. read -
A review of The Farmby David Hayes on 09/12/2010Hello, Senior Mike, I was excited to get this assigned to me. I know this was at one point sitting in the top ten and the logline is just strange enough to be cool. I'd say that's pretty much how I felt about the story as a whole, so great job. I was intrigued to learn the answers at the end and I found myself very weirdly satisfied by the results. Like I said, strange... Hello, Senior Mike,
I was excited to get this assigned to me. I know this was at one point sitting in the top ten and the logline is just strange enough to be cool. I'd say that's pretty much how I felt about the story as a whole, so great job. I was intrigued to learn the answers at the end and I found myself very weirdly satisfied by the results. Like I said, strange enough to be cool.
I only have a few thoughts that I hope you'll consider.
* There were two problems with the dialogue. 1) You had way too much of it in some places. For example, this conversation between Casey, Madison, and Tucker when they first met starting on page 13 went on for 6 pages and I'm sure you already know that many screenwriting books suggest that you keep the scenes down to 5 pages or fewer. But it wasn't just here. I felt that just as much or more could've been accomplished with only half the dialogue. Of course, there's nothing wrong with a few scenes with a lot of dialogue so long as it's good dialogue and you didn't have much of that here because so much of the dialogue lacked tension and conflict and drama. The happy conversations between Casey and Madison were okay at first but as you got into the story it got old because those moments needed drama. And this leads me to my second complaint. 2) Too much of the dialogue and the scenes lacked drama. By the time I got to page 24, I was hungry for some drama of some kind. Now I guess it might've been calculated that there'd be little drama between Casey and Madison because Madison wasn't programmed to create drama, but the fact that she is programmed should've made her behavior weird in some situations to the point where it would've created drama because Casey is concerned, you know?
* I think it was a mistake to go to Tucker's farm and to never see Wayland again. I think a stronger story would've been Casey and Madison returning to Madison's old farm and finding Wayland and his behavior is incredibly strange and Casey decides he wants to get to the bottom of who her family is and what their dirty little secrets are. That just makes more sense to me. As it is, the story gets increasingly difficult to believe that those two would stick around for a wedding after the crazy shit they've been through. If this was taking place at Wayland's farm and they wanted to stick around longer, it makes more sense because he's FAMILY and Casey wants answers about the person he's about to marry. And you could create plenty of drama because maybe Madison not acting all that concerned about Wayland abandoning her years ago. And Casey's like, "WTF?"
* I'd like to see you have more scenes with stronger tension and suspense that's dragged out to excruciating levels. Generally, I think you're being too easy on your readers. Make them 10 times as uncomfortable and nervous than what you've got now. They'll love you for it.
And that's all I got. It's a great story and I had a very good time. I look forward to reading more of your work. read
Comments About David Hayes 96
-
adampryor on 11/22/2012
Thanks for the review. You raise some very good points, and I'll keep your notes in mind during my revisions. Again, thank you for taking the time to read this. -
jayb on 01/10/2012
David Hayes wrote:I'm getting rid of this whole newbie gets recruited aspect. He'll be a part of the team. The opening will be a real false flag op so that I'll show it instead of tell it. I'm still trying to figure out the details but they do something morally questionable, which would include civilian casualties, and the emphasis would be on Sean's increasingly conflicted feelings about what they've been doing. So when we get to the Mall, he basically snaps and decides "enough's enough." So he wouldn't be trying to simply stop what's happening but he's also fighting for his own redemption. That kind of thing. He's like America in the sense that he got a little lost in the war on terror and feels its time to stop the madness, so to speak.
I'm not set on the ending either. I had a number of ideas but went with the airport only because it had the biggest bang to it. But I keep feeling that this kind of story demands a false flag ending in which Sean does an FF op to save himself and pin the guilt on the bad guys but I have no idea how to do that.
Sounds good. Great idea for a reverse false flag ending... The perfect bookend!
Good luck with it. - Jay -
snony on 12/26/2011
Hey David,
Thanks for the comment. You're welcome! Always a pleasure to help. And it's a pleasure to read a decent screenplay such as yours.
Regards,
Tony -
jayelveejr on 12/22/2011
Doggone it, Mr. Hayes. I didn't mean for your head to go spinning now but at least I got you to take a walk ... exercising is good. And please, I don't want to be the one who shoots Kitty ... don't do that to me man, plus Agent Villanueva sounds like a Cuban drug dealer or a guy on a rowboat headed straight North to go see Lebron James play. I liked Kitty, you go ahead and keep that one and be the one responsible. LOL ... all the best.
JV
(AKA ... The man who will not shoot Kitty) -
OliRichards on 12/21/2011
Yeah, I think that brings a nice moral dimension to the story - Sean's prepared to kill people (women/children) who aren't American, but not American women/children. However at the end of the day people are people, wherever they're from.
However you might not want to make too much of this angle as you've already got the moral dilemma of 'killing some Americans now to save many more in the future' which is the justification for their bombing the Mall of America in the first place. Incidentally, you might want to make a bit more of that as it's their central justification and one Sean is fighting against.
I also like the betrayal angle. Perhaps Duke or one of them had previously saved Sean's life so they feel a personal sense of betrayal as well. -
capper on 12/20/2011
You're welcome! Glad to help and good luck! -
OliRichards on 12/20/2011
I think that's a good idea. I was going to suggest the following but didn't as didn't want to start re-writing your script for you.
Have it like you say, perhaps starting a war between two countries, or a seeming attack on China by North Korea to stir tensions or something similar. During it Sean has to shoot an innocent woman who is going to wreck the whole thing. He pauses. Duke notices. Then Sean shoots her. Also show Duke as someone who'll shoot kids without a second thought.
Afterwards Duke confronts Sean, Sean denies it, but we can see he's troubled. Kitty sympathizes with him, they have a chat about whether it's all worth it, how do they know they're doing the best thing for the US (setting up Kitty going AWOL)
Back home Sean gets an official dressing down. He denies everything. He gets reminded that he can't stop now. Your in or you're dead, that's what they signed up to - it's too risky to have people wandering the streets knowing this stuff. He says he's in, when has he ever let anyone down. Good - because we got a big job coming up - and we need the best...
Take or leave it, just my thoughts.
ta,
Oli -
westinlee on 12/18/2011
Thanks so much for the extensive, thoughtful feedback on Good Brother. It's obvious you are a fan of that type of story and I think that with the changes you suggest, that it would be a better script.
Congratulations on your script being featured! -
Revale on 12/17/2011
Congratulations on FALSE FLAG being featured. You and your excellent script deserve it. -
Revale on 12/16/2011
Dear God, you're right. Thanks for the laugh.
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About David Hayes 96
-
Quote
Thanks for the review. You raise some very good points, and I'll keep your notes in mind during my revisions. Again, thank you for taking the time to read this.
-
Quote
David Hayes wrote:
I'm getting rid of this whole newbie gets recruited aspect. He'll be a part of the team. The opening will be a real false flag op so that I'll show it instead of tell it. I'm still trying to figure out the details but they do something morally questionable, which would include civilian casualties, and the emphasis would be on Sean's increasingly conflicted feelings about what they've been doing. So when we get to the Mall, he basically snaps and decides "enough's enough." So he wouldn't be trying to simply stop what's happening but he's also fighting for his own redemption. That kind of thing. He's like America in the sense that he got a little lost in the war on terror and feels its time to stop the madness, so to speak.
-
Quote
Hey David,
+ more commentsadampryor on 11/22/2012
jayb on 01/10/2012
I'm not set on the ending either. I had a number of ideas but went with the airport only because it had the biggest bang to it. But I keep feeling that this kind of story demands a false flag ending in which Sean does an FF op to save himself and pin the guilt on the bad guys but I have no idea how to do that.
Sounds good. Great idea for a reverse false flag ending... The perfect bookend!
Good luck with it. - Jay
snony on 12/26/2011
Thanks for the comment. You're welcome! Always a pleasure to help. And it's a pleasure to read a decent screenplay such as yours.
Regards,
Tony