a screenplay
by Shook
Genres:
drama, sci-fi/fantasy
A group of scientists must decode an alien message before the authors arrive.
Shook
member since 02/07/2003 |
last login 12/05/2011
This is what I want on my tombstone: an arrow (it can point either left or right) and beneath the arrow these words -- "I'm with Stupid."...
Member Participation Level:
0 1 2 3Recent Activity
Bio
This is what I want on my tombstone: an arrow (it can point either left or right) and beneath the arrow these words -- "I'm with Stupid."
Submissions by Shook
Reviews by Shook 127
-
A review of THE RIGGS TRANSLATIONby Shook on 04/04/2011Once again, Fuzzy Face, you've cranked out a brisk read with sharp characters. And once again, I've got some notes. First off - can't say I'm in love with the title. I don't have a suggestion for you, I just don't like it. I think we see more of Tip-of-the-Horn than Eagle Help. And is this HIS story? Sarah's? What's the through-line? Indian converts and then reverts... Once again, Fuzzy Face, you've cranked out a brisk read with sharp characters. And once again, I've got some notes.
First off - can't say I'm in love with the title. I don't have a suggestion for you, I just don't like it. I think we see more of Tip-of-the-Horn than Eagle Help. And is this HIS story? Sarah's? What's the through-line? Indian converts and then reverts to old ways? Missionary learns to question the value of her work?
Over all, the relationship between the missionary and his wife seems a little "modern" to me, especially early on. This shows up in their speech and how they deal with each other. There is, at times, a playfulness there.... Now this is not a bad thing, necessarily (another example might be p.103, this time between Indians), but it does not seem consistent. It is something that I just noticed more than was bothered by, but it makes the tone sort of drift in and out of "modern" Western (i.e., Butch & Sundance or Little Big Man) and "retro" Western (i.e., Dances With Wolves).
Some page notes:
P. 42 -- Sarah's VO was a little jarring to me, and do we need the little explanatory scene after? (Also, throughout the VOs seem unnecessary for the most part, and we get more than one person doing it, which, unless you're doing a Rashomon, can be distracting.)
P. 51 -- "Boschean panorama of horrors" Wow. You just took me from the northern plains to the MOMA and back in 4 words. Don't. Please.
p. 52 -- I wrote a note: "subtitles not necessary here", but I don't know. Might want to keep them consistent.
p. 53 -- I'm sure your research is better than my instincts, but I always thought of scalping as a trophy taken in battle. Anyway, my thought was "they scalp the women too?"
p. 56 -- Sarah's Day montage. Just been there, just done that. Show it again and all she's been thru actually loses its power.
p. 61 -- "I heard you the first time." So did we.
p. 72 -- Whittle ammo?!?! Even if you come back with research that shows it was done, I gotta say NO! Exceptional lapse in logic.
p. 78 -- the church ladies talk. It seemed petty and unlikely, considering what they have all been thru together, and it just doesn't seem to go anywhere, even with the deposition later.
p. 83 -- I've got a note here, "what about her hand?" Been a long time and it hasn't even been mentioned. Kinda big deal, then just dropped.
I don't have the pp.# for it, but the Eagle Help dream sequence just didn't do it for me (but then you know my standard objections to flashbacks, especially late in the script, and in this case its a flashback to a dream!!!).
I don't think ending with the dream quite works, but the added scene seems to need a little "more" to it. Best line is t-o-t-h's line about teaching white people, but you don't want to end on that either. (But keep the line!)
Really did enjoy this, and never once had to push myself to keep reading. Good luck with it.
read -
A review of Unmasked (Alternate Ending)by Shook on 04/18/2010Well, I have to hand it to ya. That ending is not a mistake or an accident – you went for the melodramatic double-downer, complete with explanatory speeches. Seriously tough in your face no-you-don't-get-your-happy-ending-too-stinking-bad choice. Bold. Very very bold. But no. I didn't buy that as the choice that either of them would make, especially after the scenes... Well, I have to hand it to ya. That ending is not a mistake or an accident – you went for the melodramatic double-downer, complete with explanatory speeches. Seriously tough in your face no-you-don't-get-your-happy-ending-too-stinking-bad choice. Bold. Very very bold.
But no. I didn't buy that as the choice that either of them would make, especially after the scenes with Mikey. Catharsis doesn't necessarily mean “happy ending” (I don't think), but it should at least be something like “well that was worth taking the trip”. Your ending sort of makes their character arcs read: “they were headed for the toilet...and after a great deal of struggle, they got there.” Your ending almost seems to be a purposeful poke in the eye of your readers, which, as I said, is bold. An unexpected twist, yes. But... unsatisfying.
Other than James and Laura's ultimately unsatisfying journey, we have a lot of interesting, almost scifi elements here – the rich are crazy enough to do anything (Westworld); do what we ask and you can have what you want (Seconds). But this largely consists of fantasy without content – we don't know anybody else's story (except the Ringmaster's, who might have done as well with a few sessions of therapy – he seems more pathetic than frightening). And there is a lot of “you're not ready for Level 3” talk, but the only substance behind it seems to be fat, rich voyeurs – ultimately also unsatisfying.
Some other things that did not work for me:
In the first 10 pages, I was completely befuddled. Intrigued, but befuddled. Opening with the Faux Noble Savages the way you did, I was expecting someone to peek out from behind the scenery during James and Laura's scene.
Then it takes a little too long for Lilith to get to the point.
I think you need to add some meat to some of your supporting characters: the Hunter in the woods talks to himself and it reeks of “device”; Webster seems to drool at first over his friends possible affair, then says “you need to talk to your wife”; Merrill seems to be there solely to fire James loudly.
The Gladiator scene – two things: 1) its been done to death (pun intended). TWO episodes of Star Trek and one full length Oscar-winning film, not to mention it was it's own genre back in the 50's. 2) the other “shows” seem to be some sort of cathartic fantasy game for some participant – this seemed staged only for the likes of Max. (??!!??)
Now, I haven't read any of your other scripts, but I can tell just from this you have some serious chops. You cut scenes short, and transition scenes more “cinematically” than just about anyone I've read on TS. Action lines are clear, concise and vivid. This is a clean, quick read and I never had to go back and catch something I missed. Characters (for the most part) each have their own voice and need.
As negative as much of what I wrote above might seem, I'm gonna score this “Good” across the board. I have to, because it is. I won't drop your score because you gave me a bummer ending -- it's your vision, and you carry it out well. But I do believe it needs a serious re-think in the areas I mentioned.
Good Luck with it. read -
A review of DRACULAby Shook on 01/08/2010WARNING: This review violates TS review protocol in that it contains things not directly addressing the SP in question; unless poetic jealousy can be considered pertinent and constructive, you must report this review to the Hall of Justice at once. But it's only a Free Will....SO BITE ME!! It has been a LONG time since I read Stoker's original, but I, too, have seen gobs... WARNING: This review violates TS review protocol in that it contains things not directly addressing the SP in question; unless poetic jealousy can be considered pertinent and constructive, you must report this review to the Hall of Justice at once. But it's only a Free Will....SO BITE ME!!
It has been a LONG time since I read Stoker's original, but I, too, have seen gobs of vampires. Well, the movies and books; the campy British '60's films, the romantic Langela Count, Coppola's Amazing Hairdo Count, The Three Stooges and their Count, The Great Bela, even Billy The Kid vs. Dracula (I have avoided the Twilight non-sex nonsense). I, too, have always come away thinking "yeah, but they missed it by THAT much!!"
I punched READ on this SP because I really liked LIBERTY and I had 10 min. to spare, so I would just peek at the first 10 pages....
Well, that didn't work out too good.
First, some notes as I read:
p.48.
This scene really slammed on the brakes for me. Mina being sooo sympathetic and also sooo revealing of private things (not exactly professional nor Victorian); Renfield is practically screaming "Plot Point!!" I realize this is an early draft and this scene is "mapped" and not fully developed, but what went before was so sure and confidently handled....
p.68 -- I like that Lucy's demise takes place off-screen, but it could be a tough scene to keep from being unintentionally funny with all the horror noises O.S.
p.75 -- The bet and the threat. Again, don't remember this from the original, or if its there I still say lose it. It just doesn't seem true to form, somehow. It made me go "huh?"
p.85+ -- Have to say I don't really care for Jimmy; new character so late in the game. He should be terrified, but he's cracking jokes. Should want to get outta there, almost giggled with delight to stay....
p.97 -- The first few lines of dialogue on this page -- I think you can do better. And I don't really get it: hate holding him together, hate destroyed him? And the audience is going "Hmmm...hate = sunlight?"
p.98+ -- "Never, ever say you're sorry to me again." WAAAYY to close to a very famous line from another genre (are you messing with us?). And from there to the end, the hospital and the church, I was looking around for my coat and hat and waiting for the credits to roll.
So lemme go back to p.48. It was the first time I felt I MUST (no, not must, but it did occur to me) stop and make a note. And before I give you my "extra garlic on my pizza, please" comment, let me say this:
Wow.
47 pages just flew by.
Pacing, structure, presentation and clarity of characters, deft transitions and crisp, revealing dialogue -- all improved from LIBERTY. I say that without the least hesitation.
And there is a "playfulness" here I got only rare glimpses of in LIBERTY; a willingness (perverse need?) to splash a bit of humor in frightening or dread-filled scenes. I.e., Harker at the inn, or him just dining with the Count, or...
"SEWARD
I wonder if he needs a doctor as
well?
LUCY
(a royal largesse)
Take one of mine."
Now later in the SP, this playfulness gets the upper hand or comes across flat. Not always, of course, but from time to time. I think you are able to see the writing is better in the first half.
But for the most part you let that which is truly, iconicly frightening stay right there and be frightening; you let those scenes that aren't JUST that work on more than one level. No, you MAKE them work on more than one level. They don't lose focus or purpose, but they aren't only focus or purpose, either. You make/let them dance a bit.
I hate your stinking guts, you caveman putz. (Hey, I warned you!)
After all the high praise, I'm giving "average" to Characters and Dialogue, "good" in all other catagories. Sorry, the second half didn't get above it.
Now that I've cursed/praised you....
This will seem a little weird -- the problem with Dracula (and almost ALL vampire movies) is the same problem with almost all '30s westerns: the good guys wear white hats, and the bad guys wear black hats. Here's the problem with Dracula (always, but a little more so in your script): He's evil. That's it. Why does he do these things? Cause he's a vampire. Not really satisfying, somehow. Coppola tried to cure this by giving A LOT of time to Vlad's backstory, but that only came out as: "Why does he do these things? Cause his beloved wife died, so he's a vampire." And that wasn't really satisfying either. Langela's Count is more satisfying to me cause HE WANTS THE GIRL!! FRANK'S COUNT IS ALL ABOUT THE NOOKIE!! He has a personal need, not just "oh well, sunset, gotta get up and be sauve and evil...."
And there is always Renfield -- he does what he does cause he's a loony. Not very satisfying.
In short, I gotta problem with your bad guys. IF you stick to the traditional "that's how it is in the book" adaptation (and I don't quite see you as that kind of monk) then you have THAT problem. If not...then WHAT in Victorian England (the EMPIRE!) is Dracula "opposing", what is his NEED? WHAT, of that titanic struggle, can we profit from today?
The Western, like jazz, is an American invention. And like jazz, it has undergone re-invention time and again, and had new and important things to say to new generations. IF you're gonna do this, you HAVE to re-invent, at least for yourself, the vampire movie.
read
Write a Comment
Submissions by Shook
-
a screenplay by ShookGenres: drama, sci-fi/fantasyA group of scientists must decode an alien message before the authors arrive.
Reviews by Shook 127
-
A review of THE RIGGS TRANSLATIONby Shook on 04/04/2011Once again, Fuzzy Face, you've cranked out a brisk read with sharp characters. And once again, I've got some notes. First off - can't say I'm in love with the title. I don't have a suggestion for you, I just don't like it. I think we see more of Tip-of-the-Horn than Eagle Help. And is this HIS story? Sarah's? What's the through-line? Indian converts and then reverts... Once again, Fuzzy Face, you've cranked out a brisk read with sharp characters. And once again, I've got some notes.
First off - can't say I'm in love with the title. I don't have a suggestion for you, I just don't like it. I think we see more of Tip-of-the-Horn than Eagle Help. And is this HIS story? Sarah's? What's the through-line? Indian converts and then reverts to old ways? Missionary learns to question the value of her work?
Over all, the relationship between the missionary and his wife seems a little "modern" to me, especially early on. This shows up in their speech and how they deal with each other. There is, at times, a playfulness there.... Now this is not a bad thing, necessarily (another example might be p.103, this time between Indians), but it does not seem consistent. It is something that I just noticed more than was bothered by, but it makes the tone sort of drift in and out of "modern" Western (i.e., Butch & Sundance or Little Big Man) and "retro" Western (i.e., Dances With Wolves).
Some page notes:
P. 42 -- Sarah's VO was a little jarring to me, and do we need the little explanatory scene after? (Also, throughout the VOs seem unnecessary for the most part, and we get more than one person doing it, which, unless you're doing a Rashomon, can be distracting.)
P. 51 -- "Boschean panorama of horrors" Wow. You just took me from the northern plains to the MOMA and back in 4 words. Don't. Please.
p. 52 -- I wrote a note: "subtitles not necessary here", but I don't know. Might want to keep them consistent.
p. 53 -- I'm sure your research is better than my instincts, but I always thought of scalping as a trophy taken in battle. Anyway, my thought was "they scalp the women too?"
p. 56 -- Sarah's Day montage. Just been there, just done that. Show it again and all she's been thru actually loses its power.
p. 61 -- "I heard you the first time." So did we.
p. 72 -- Whittle ammo?!?! Even if you come back with research that shows it was done, I gotta say NO! Exceptional lapse in logic.
p. 78 -- the church ladies talk. It seemed petty and unlikely, considering what they have all been thru together, and it just doesn't seem to go anywhere, even with the deposition later.
p. 83 -- I've got a note here, "what about her hand?" Been a long time and it hasn't even been mentioned. Kinda big deal, then just dropped.
I don't have the pp.# for it, but the Eagle Help dream sequence just didn't do it for me (but then you know my standard objections to flashbacks, especially late in the script, and in this case its a flashback to a dream!!!).
I don't think ending with the dream quite works, but the added scene seems to need a little "more" to it. Best line is t-o-t-h's line about teaching white people, but you don't want to end on that either. (But keep the line!)
Really did enjoy this, and never once had to push myself to keep reading. Good luck with it.
read -
A review of Unmasked (Alternate Ending)by Shook on 04/18/2010Well, I have to hand it to ya. That ending is not a mistake or an accident – you went for the melodramatic double-downer, complete with explanatory speeches. Seriously tough in your face no-you-don't-get-your-happy-ending-too-stinking-bad choice. Bold. Very very bold. But no. I didn't buy that as the choice that either of them would make, especially after the scenes... Well, I have to hand it to ya. That ending is not a mistake or an accident – you went for the melodramatic double-downer, complete with explanatory speeches. Seriously tough in your face no-you-don't-get-your-happy-ending-too-stinking-bad choice. Bold. Very very bold.
But no. I didn't buy that as the choice that either of them would make, especially after the scenes with Mikey. Catharsis doesn't necessarily mean “happy ending” (I don't think), but it should at least be something like “well that was worth taking the trip”. Your ending sort of makes their character arcs read: “they were headed for the toilet...and after a great deal of struggle, they got there.” Your ending almost seems to be a purposeful poke in the eye of your readers, which, as I said, is bold. An unexpected twist, yes. But... unsatisfying.
Other than James and Laura's ultimately unsatisfying journey, we have a lot of interesting, almost scifi elements here – the rich are crazy enough to do anything (Westworld); do what we ask and you can have what you want (Seconds). But this largely consists of fantasy without content – we don't know anybody else's story (except the Ringmaster's, who might have done as well with a few sessions of therapy – he seems more pathetic than frightening). And there is a lot of “you're not ready for Level 3” talk, but the only substance behind it seems to be fat, rich voyeurs – ultimately also unsatisfying.
Some other things that did not work for me:
In the first 10 pages, I was completely befuddled. Intrigued, but befuddled. Opening with the Faux Noble Savages the way you did, I was expecting someone to peek out from behind the scenery during James and Laura's scene.
Then it takes a little too long for Lilith to get to the point.
I think you need to add some meat to some of your supporting characters: the Hunter in the woods talks to himself and it reeks of “device”; Webster seems to drool at first over his friends possible affair, then says “you need to talk to your wife”; Merrill seems to be there solely to fire James loudly.
The Gladiator scene – two things: 1) its been done to death (pun intended). TWO episodes of Star Trek and one full length Oscar-winning film, not to mention it was it's own genre back in the 50's. 2) the other “shows” seem to be some sort of cathartic fantasy game for some participant – this seemed staged only for the likes of Max. (??!!??)
Now, I haven't read any of your other scripts, but I can tell just from this you have some serious chops. You cut scenes short, and transition scenes more “cinematically” than just about anyone I've read on TS. Action lines are clear, concise and vivid. This is a clean, quick read and I never had to go back and catch something I missed. Characters (for the most part) each have their own voice and need.
As negative as much of what I wrote above might seem, I'm gonna score this “Good” across the board. I have to, because it is. I won't drop your score because you gave me a bummer ending -- it's your vision, and you carry it out well. But I do believe it needs a serious re-think in the areas I mentioned.
Good Luck with it. read -
A review of DRACULAby Shook on 01/08/2010WARNING: This review violates TS review protocol in that it contains things not directly addressing the SP in question; unless poetic jealousy can be considered pertinent and constructive, you must report this review to the Hall of Justice at once. But it's only a Free Will....SO BITE ME!! It has been a LONG time since I read Stoker's original, but I, too, have seen gobs... WARNING: This review violates TS review protocol in that it contains things not directly addressing the SP in question; unless poetic jealousy can be considered pertinent and constructive, you must report this review to the Hall of Justice at once. But it's only a Free Will....SO BITE ME!!
It has been a LONG time since I read Stoker's original, but I, too, have seen gobs of vampires. Well, the movies and books; the campy British '60's films, the romantic Langela Count, Coppola's Amazing Hairdo Count, The Three Stooges and their Count, The Great Bela, even Billy The Kid vs. Dracula (I have avoided the Twilight non-sex nonsense). I, too, have always come away thinking "yeah, but they missed it by THAT much!!"
I punched READ on this SP because I really liked LIBERTY and I had 10 min. to spare, so I would just peek at the first 10 pages....
Well, that didn't work out too good.
First, some notes as I read:
p.48.
This scene really slammed on the brakes for me. Mina being sooo sympathetic and also sooo revealing of private things (not exactly professional nor Victorian); Renfield is practically screaming "Plot Point!!" I realize this is an early draft and this scene is "mapped" and not fully developed, but what went before was so sure and confidently handled....
p.68 -- I like that Lucy's demise takes place off-screen, but it could be a tough scene to keep from being unintentionally funny with all the horror noises O.S.
p.75 -- The bet and the threat. Again, don't remember this from the original, or if its there I still say lose it. It just doesn't seem true to form, somehow. It made me go "huh?"
p.85+ -- Have to say I don't really care for Jimmy; new character so late in the game. He should be terrified, but he's cracking jokes. Should want to get outta there, almost giggled with delight to stay....
p.97 -- The first few lines of dialogue on this page -- I think you can do better. And I don't really get it: hate holding him together, hate destroyed him? And the audience is going "Hmmm...hate = sunlight?"
p.98+ -- "Never, ever say you're sorry to me again." WAAAYY to close to a very famous line from another genre (are you messing with us?). And from there to the end, the hospital and the church, I was looking around for my coat and hat and waiting for the credits to roll.
So lemme go back to p.48. It was the first time I felt I MUST (no, not must, but it did occur to me) stop and make a note. And before I give you my "extra garlic on my pizza, please" comment, let me say this:
Wow.
47 pages just flew by.
Pacing, structure, presentation and clarity of characters, deft transitions and crisp, revealing dialogue -- all improved from LIBERTY. I say that without the least hesitation.
And there is a "playfulness" here I got only rare glimpses of in LIBERTY; a willingness (perverse need?) to splash a bit of humor in frightening or dread-filled scenes. I.e., Harker at the inn, or him just dining with the Count, or...
"SEWARD
I wonder if he needs a doctor as
well?
LUCY
(a royal largesse)
Take one of mine."
Now later in the SP, this playfulness gets the upper hand or comes across flat. Not always, of course, but from time to time. I think you are able to see the writing is better in the first half.
But for the most part you let that which is truly, iconicly frightening stay right there and be frightening; you let those scenes that aren't JUST that work on more than one level. No, you MAKE them work on more than one level. They don't lose focus or purpose, but they aren't only focus or purpose, either. You make/let them dance a bit.
I hate your stinking guts, you caveman putz. (Hey, I warned you!)
After all the high praise, I'm giving "average" to Characters and Dialogue, "good" in all other catagories. Sorry, the second half didn't get above it.
Now that I've cursed/praised you....
This will seem a little weird -- the problem with Dracula (and almost ALL vampire movies) is the same problem with almost all '30s westerns: the good guys wear white hats, and the bad guys wear black hats. Here's the problem with Dracula (always, but a little more so in your script): He's evil. That's it. Why does he do these things? Cause he's a vampire. Not really satisfying, somehow. Coppola tried to cure this by giving A LOT of time to Vlad's backstory, but that only came out as: "Why does he do these things? Cause his beloved wife died, so he's a vampire." And that wasn't really satisfying either. Langela's Count is more satisfying to me cause HE WANTS THE GIRL!! FRANK'S COUNT IS ALL ABOUT THE NOOKIE!! He has a personal need, not just "oh well, sunset, gotta get up and be sauve and evil...."
And there is always Renfield -- he does what he does cause he's a loony. Not very satisfying.
In short, I gotta problem with your bad guys. IF you stick to the traditional "that's how it is in the book" adaptation (and I don't quite see you as that kind of monk) then you have THAT problem. If not...then WHAT in Victorian England (the EMPIRE!) is Dracula "opposing", what is his NEED? WHAT, of that titanic struggle, can we profit from today?
The Western, like jazz, is an American invention. And like jazz, it has undergone re-invention time and again, and had new and important things to say to new generations. IF you're gonna do this, you HAVE to re-invent, at least for yourself, the vampire movie.
read -
A review of Wake Up, Maggie (SCSS)by Shook on 10/10/2009Some of what I say I may have said before, and some of the things I talk about may not have changed from a previous version, but I am just noting them now. A few things: The shower bit? You have to show us he's afraid of the dog; it doesn't come off the page. The initial dislike between them is SOOOO much better. BUT this time they seem very at ease with each other... Some of what I say I may have said before, and some of the things I talk about may not have changed from a previous version, but I am just noting them now.
A few things:
The shower bit? You have to show us he's afraid of the dog; it doesn't come off the page.
The initial dislike between them is SOOOO much better. BUT this time they seem very at ease with each other a few pages post-storm. Not sure how to describe it and I don't want you to "invent" a conflict, but it dragged a bit for a few pages while they got along so well (like being on a double date and watching the other couple have a good time?). BUT overall, the interaction between your leads is great now.
P.74 Pete. Still not comfortable with him doing this.
p.75 The break-in works now (but the paparazzo is still silent)!?!? But structurally, I like it. If this is the section you were tearing your hair out over, relax. It works! She can't express it, but then its a "real thing" that gels her fears. (Good Writing!)
p.86-88 Lucy "goes off" a little quickly seems to me (again, an actress would know how to play this scene) and the speech is GREAT, but it could still use a bit of a trim.
Pete. You've kept the trip and Pete waiting for a call, and I have to say it doesn't really work for me. Maggie's choice is NOT between Pete and Gerry, and you can't fool us into thinking that it is at the end. And then we see Pete "waiting for a message" that never comes (an Irishman wrote a play about that, you know), and as it is part of the montage, you might get away with it. I'll put it this way -- not your strongest writing.
p.98 Nice touch with the sign!!
And you don't need the "months later"; we get it, we're the audience, we're clever -- we knew what was going to happen when we bought the ticket!!
No, I don't think you're done. And when a director and producer and you're two star leads get their hands on this, they will tell you how very far from done you are. But this reads great, and its VERY CLOSE to being "finished" in that you've got about one more pass to make some changes and then you don't touch it again until they SHOW YOU THE MONEY!!
read -
A review of Young Old Manby Shook on 09/22/2009This was a very easy read, for the most part. Your description is good, but a little too much. Remember -- only what we can see. Often you are telling us what characters think. You've got the makings of a good script here, but it is in need of a full re-write. It's a very long time till we get to the heart of the story, and only one of your protagonists seems to have... This was a very easy read, for the most part. Your description is good, but a little too much. Remember -- only what we can see. Often you are telling us what characters think.
You've got the makings of a good script here, but it is in need of a full re-write. It's a very long time till we get to the heart of the story, and only one of your protagonists seems to have a good reason for doing what they are doing.
The basic "life-switch" trick of this script has been done and done, and that's both good and bad. It sells, people want to see it, but people have seen other things like it. The "how" is very important here, and all you give us is "it just happened". And then no one goes back to poor JC to check on him OR to ask questions??
Lee and Graham have distinctive voices, until they switch bodies. Then they both sound like Lee. This leads to some real confusion, especially pp.60-88.
Some of your supporting characters are developed well and some are not. Juan Carlos is not nearly as developed as he needs to be -- he does his thing, then only gets a mention at the end. The twist with Nikki is a new spin, but you don't make much of it for far too long. Caldwell seems a bit under written. And others -- Smark and Street -- BOTH have speeches about wanting to help Lee. (Pick one, make the other a subplot character who wants to take advantage of him and in the end is thwarted.) The office gang gets a lot of development and then we never see them again.
Some reading notes:
p.2 We don't know WHERE in NYC we are. Makes a big difference.
p.20 (generally speaking) something should have happened by now. We are getting alot about these guys situations, and they are mostly TELLING us what is going on in their lives, especially Lee.
p.29 The club thing kinda blows what you've built about Lee so far. He's not on the outside looking to get in, he's on the inside and no one knows it. He just doesn't seem to be someone who at all wants to "give up his life".
p.37 The hospital room "miracle" is not set up, and seems way too easy. The old man wanting to be younger, sure. But Lee wanting to be old? I don't buy it at all. And JC is now an angel or something??
p.68 You lost me. Is the Dr. talking to Lee as Graham? (In fact you seem to switch the names from this point. Very confusing.) You have him as Graham!! And the "let's do an operation" -- I don't buy it. Again, too easy.
p.68+ It is now near impossible for me to tell what is going on as the characters who switched lives seem to have switched names again. Things they are saying to the doctor and to Nikki....hard to get hold of the context. I think it would be best to leave it as "LEE AS GRAHAM and GRAHAM AS LEE".
p.80 I don't get the thing with the candy.
p.88 Nikki just showing up, and then running off, and then staying in the waiting room -- too weird.
p.90-92 This is a LOT of explanation right at the end of your movie.
p.94-96 No Turnaround Miracle??? read -
A review of Forsaken (rev.)by Shook on 09/06/2009The hero shoots a snake in the first seconds of the script, then again on p.11, and talks about shooting snakes (i.e. "bad men") several times throughout the script, often right after he's done it. That would be my visual metaphor for a review -- we are more or less given all the elements we expect. You certainly have a grasp on the genre -- the good guys are good, the bad... The hero shoots a snake in the first seconds of the script, then again on p.11, and talks about shooting snakes (i.e. "bad men") several times throughout the script, often right after he's done it. That would be my visual metaphor for a review -- we are more or less given all the elements we expect. You certainly have a grasp on the genre -- the good guys are good, the bad guys are bad, the women are either saintly mothers or whores. This was an easy read. Action lines are clear without being distracting. Pace is good; we never get bogged down anywhere. But it never really rises above things we've seen before.
I was confused by the "duel opening", cutting back and forth between the fight in town and the boys on the farm. Why? I almost thought maybe this was a flashback; the bounty hunter's past. It's disorienting rather than informative.
I guess I want to ask: why tell this story? why should we go to this movie? You have a better since of craft than most, there is a clarity to your writing that comes across in the characters and the dialogue, and the way you just give us enough per scene to move the story along and not wear us out. I just get the sense that you wanted to write a western, and did. Your writing is, I think, better than your storytelling this time. read -
A review of Butterfly Sting (rev.)by Shook on 09/04/2009There is a strong mix of supporting characters here, each pulling on Angel and having their influence -- the family, the "friends", the girl, the trainer. For the most part, they are well drawn and individual. But over the course of the SP, they don't really seem like anything we haven't seen before. I think this has more to do with Angel -- the supporting characters don't... There is a strong mix of supporting characters here, each pulling on Angel and having their influence -- the family, the "friends", the girl, the trainer. For the most part, they are well drawn and individual. But over the course of the SP, they don't really seem like anything we haven't seen before. I think this has more to do with Angel -- the supporting characters don't really stand out clearly from things we've seen before because our hero, especially in the first half of the script, doesn't really know what he wants. That is a weak force to work against, so nothing opposing it can come to clarity.
The first half of Act II was a problem for me, too. The moody at-risk young man in the hood not sure how to, or if to, stand up to his friends and get what he wants cause he doesn't know what he wants and then it all goes soooo bad.... We have all seen it.
Act III has some major lapses in storytelling logic that really let the air outta the tires for me (noted below).
Action lines are good, and you've got some prose chops, but they won't ever be appreciated in an SP -- cut them down to just what we SEE (description of gym and training room in first 10 pp. comes to mind -- those were good).
Still, I was on Angel's side throughout, cheering for him. This is well worth a re-write.
Some notes while reading:
pp.1-10 I always wondered how the fight sequences looked in the Rocky SPs; now I know.
p.18 We already know there is a brother in Chesher, so what does this scene do? Nada.
p.51 The meet-up w/Sarah -- I just don't buy it. Mrs. Logan did this? WAAAAY outta the blue!
p.61-89 I really like the PR sequence. It is a set piece/training sequence and even expected in a sports film. Its an ace you can pull, but you play it well.
p.94-95 We spent almost 60 pp. (an hour of screen time!!) down in the PR getting our boy to man up, and in 3 pages he's right back to stupid!!!
p.99 Your SP is strong enough and has characters we can care for -- PLEASE don't do this lame government agent conspiracy number. (Besides: she says "he knows everything" and then the next thing she says is "he thinks you're still in PR". Which is it??!!??)
p. 102-108 This is Olympic training!! No way they don't notice the hand on day one!!
p.109-110 This is becoming a cartoon. I don't believe the sequence with Carlos AT ALL. (I'm glad he hit him, but I don't believe it.) Let him beat him in the ring, or just let Angel go win the title. And its p.110 and Raymond is just learning of the injury?? read -
A review of Harriet Sally, Sally Harriet (3rd Draft)by Shook on 09/03/2009I really enjoyed this! It really surprised me with twists and turns every time I thought I had it figured out. They weren't always logical, but none of them completely stopped me reading or ever completely "violated" the logic of the universe you'd built. I'm giving this high marks. I came to care about these characters (who were, by and large, vivid and individual), which,... I really enjoyed this! It really surprised me with twists and turns every time I thought I had it figured out. They weren't always logical, but none of them completely stopped me reading or ever completely "violated" the logic of the universe you'd built. I'm giving this high marks. I came to care about these characters (who were, by and large, vivid and individual), which, the more I do reviews, is the acid test of a SP for me. And some of your characters are so large they could have become cliches or cartoons, but you kept them human and touching and funny. That's a real accomplishment!!
As per a re-write: dunno what other reviewers have offered, but there are some "logic gaps" (I noted a couple I think) that could be fixed. And this; H keeps going back to that support group, which is weird. It works as a device (and Blake is a real surprise!), but maybe something about having a "commitment" to the group for 10 sessions or something? I dunno, but she is very "not single" after Act I.
Again, this was an unexpected treat, and I wish you well with it!! Thank you.
"While I read notes": impressions straight (no pun intended) off the page:
pp. 1-10 I like your opening: she goes from a "support group" to HER support group!
p. 10 You almost lost me: I am allergic to flashbacks. BUT you turn the flashback on its head! "Into camera: do you wanna hear this?" (This seems much more high school than college, tho.)
p.19 Yes, I think we can call that introducing a character.
p.26+ Cut ONE of the dream sequences from the restaurant, then H makes her speech. Goes on one joke too long.
p.45-48 I love the scene w/William. It is tight, clear, surprising and perfectly in keeping w/ everything that has gone before.
p. 55 I had to go back and check, but the set up for this whole chase and the argument is weak.
p.58 The in-love montage doesn't work for me.
p. 64 Star Trek reference. Ugh.
p.72 H's reaction to Jake and Ginger -- sorta outta left field, ain't it? (But again, it works with the whole universe by the end!)
p.82 Not logical, but a nice twist.
p.94-95 Tommy has his day!!! read -
A review of Jonah and the Shark (v2)by Shook on 08/29/2009This is a very effective little tale. A very lean, clean little story with no car chases or serial killers or explosions; just a little story about some humans and what they go through. There is a line that comes to mind, from one of those Tracy/Hepburn classics (I forget which): "Not much meat on her, but what there is, is CHOICE!" Not sure what to say by way of criticism... This is a very effective little tale. A very lean, clean little story with no car chases or serial killers or explosions; just a little story about some humans and what they go through. There is a line that comes to mind, from one of those Tracy/Hepburn classics (I forget which): "Not much meat on her, but what there is, is CHOICE!"
Not sure what to say by way of criticism. This is almost "slice-of-life" in its clarity. The "girlfriend" sub-plot is just sort of there, but at their age to expect more would be lurid. The other "guys on the pier" could have been developed more, but in truth they DO work. I am almost fumbling trying to say something "constructive". Maybe it should be this: what I said above, and also the family drama - siblings and Mom to Dad - these could be fleshed out more, yes. But they could also be SHOT better (i.e., a good director will take what you've given him and with a few shots say the "more" I am saying is not in the script.) In other words, like good music or good poetry, you have carefully left blank spots, and we as readers, or the director and actors as artists, can fill them in. That is very, very rare, especially in this craft.
I hope this finds its way in the world, but it might be like that 12 ft. Tiger.... read -
A review of Fire Heartby Shook on 08/29/2009What, no title page? The dialogue throughout is pretty "on the nose" meaning that characters say just what they are thinking or what they "believe", so there is very little subtext or depth to the characters. There seems to be almost no character arcs -- though people change (some almost inexplicably) they don't seem to learn or grow in any way. Some reading notes:... What, no title page?
The dialogue throughout is pretty "on the nose" meaning that characters say just what they are thinking or what they "believe", so there is very little subtext or depth to the characters.
There seems to be almost no character arcs -- though people change (some almost inexplicably) they don't seem to learn or grow in any way.
Some reading notes:
p.4 Fierra sitting in the tree playing a cello. Perhaps this is possible, but it completely took me outta the story to think about it.
This is a very common complaint but, you need to cut down on your description.
p. 12 Uh, the sexual assault thing, and then she says "you're just a friend." Just weird and disturbing. I think you could have made your point with less. Once there is actual sexual assault, we need more of a response than "you're just a friend."
You always seem to write "gorna", as in "going to" or "gonna". Never seen it done that way before and it always makes me do a double-take while reading.
p.13 "Debbie Harry"?? Check your dates. She doesn't show up in this conversation unless your script is about time travel!!
p.14 The "no sex till you're married" -- doesn't really play; like a joke that falls flat.
p.22-30 The orgy and food fight scene and then let's get naked and do drugs and play in the mud .... We're a half hour into your movie now. Is there some REASON for these actions other than to say "its a commune"?
You've made an illogical universe here: a neighbor gets stabbed, and there seem to be no real consequences for it, no one even seems to mention it again?!?
p.45-46 Where does this happen?? All you have is EXT. -- DARK ????
p.64-71 The scene in the tent is extremely long and filled with "you made me feel like this; well, you made me feel like that". I would say you should edit it, but I can't tell what you are trying to do with the scene at all -- is there a point to all this "back then you didn't make me happy" talk???
p.72-73 He was setting a timing device, now he's lighting a fuse?
Sorry to say I didn't care for this. Fierra herself is so negative, to borrow a term of the time -- she's such a "downer" -- that its hard to care about her. It's not until Act III that she seems to care about something and want something herself. And the sudden transformation to Earth Warrior is just too jarring and without much foundation.
read
Comments About Shook 50
-
Vincent Tuckwood on 10/19/2011
Shook - you're more than welcome and thanks for taking the review of 7 Days in the spirit it was intended. I'm a great fan of constructive disagreement, so if you do want to DM me to discuss further, feel free - I'm a commitment to artists delivering their best work. -
Gary Wright on 07/24/2011
Shook wrote:Hey, Fuzzy Face.
I am sensing a theme. With the new Labs layout, a new face - first The Bard (both literate AND fuzzy), and now....Grand Daddy Geico? Is this "Avatar of the Day" thing something you do with your morning coffee?
Anyway, I like it!
Best,
S
Hey Scott,
Sorry I didn't get right back to you - I meant to, but then I kinda forgot.
I was just playing around with some images I like, trying to get a feel for how TS Labs works. We australopithecines hate change, you know. The current avatar is actually inspired by my current gig - I'm doing a first-draft take on some guy's bigfoot idea. So the similarity to previous avatars is pure coincidence.
Unless, of course, it isn't?
G
-
DebraSwan on 06/15/2011
It's up! Thanks for motivating me to take this next step.
Cheers,
Debra -
Gary Wright on 05/02/2011
Thanks buddy. Yeah, it was all about her for 14 years, so it's been a hard jolt for my wife and me. -
Gary Wright on 04/04/2011
Shook wrote:
You are so Old School!
S
That's why I do all these period pieces. I would flunk out of the New School. -
Gary Wright on 04/04/2011
Thank you! And I'm glad you mentioned the tone thing again - I didn't put that comment in a note because it didn't have a specific page number, but I am concerned about it. I will stick a note on page one and do a pass with it in mind.
peace,
Gar
p.s. Good luck with the aliens et al. I suppose they could out-drink the cop, or out-greed the corporations, or they could do what aliens do every night, Pinky: Try To Take Over The World! -
Gary Wright on 04/04/2011
Oh, and I like Boschean. So there :P -
Gary Wright on 04/04/2011
I love the "Script Notes" feature in Final Draft. Just went through and stuck most of your notes in, to address before I send it anywhere.
Couple things:
Yeah, I have reservations about the title too. The eponymous character is based on an actual guy with that name, but I suppose I could change that character's name to something that would make a better title (actually, come to think of it, he did have a different name in my first version). I have long lists of Dakota names in one of my books, so I'm sure I could find a name that has more power to conjure with. My original title when I wrote this 5 yrs ago was The Riggs Translation, which could still work, I guess, but I'm not excited about it anymore.. I like using the holy man's name as the title, because although Sarah's the protagonist, he's the one driving her inner conflict, and some of the outer, as well. But you're so right, the weak consonant sounds and images evoked by the words don't make for a compelling title.
Scalps were taken from men, women, and children, by both sides. Nous sommes tous sauvages.
That mix-up with the ammunition caliber actually happened to those guys at Birch Coulee, and that's how they addressed the problem - cut the lead down to size with knives or whatever they had. I kinda wanted to make more of that - show them frantically cutting down the rifle balls (and their fingers) while expecting an attack at any moment. But... uh... I probably got distracted by lunch, or something.
Finally, and most importantly, THANK YOU for your excellent notes, amigo! And let me know when you have something for me to read.
Be well,
Gary -
Gary Wright on 02/24/2011
Hey, a Free Wilbur from my old pal Shook - what a nice surprise!
I am working on the "why" because, as you say, it ain't in there yet. Or rather, some passages are written with one "why" in mind, others with a different "why", others with no "why" at all, and still others with the worst "why" there is - because we found it in our research. Lame.
Your note about the Amish world not being separate enough is spot on, and I didn't realize it until I read your review - thank you!!! It exposes a flaw in how I've approached this. I've done a lot of reading on the Amish, of course, but I'm so steeped in the ways in which they rebel, or buck the system - and in such a hurry to get the adventure started - that I've really given short shrift to the protag's Ordinary World.
And of course you're right on the flashbacks. I should know better. Again, they're a symptom of wanting to bypass Ordinary World and jump into things asap. My partner and I have talked about it, and we have a plan to eliminate them from the next draft. He's working on it now.
Anyway, thank you so much - I really appreciate you giving so much time and thought to it. Best to you too, and, as my people say... Ug !
Gar -
Gary Wright on 12/18/2010
What, this old thing? I only wear it when I don't care how I look.
Write a Comment
Browse:
Copyright © 2001-2013 Trigger Street Labs. All Rights Reserved.
Comments About Shook 50
-
Quote
Shook - you're more than welcome and thanks for taking the review of 7 Days in the spirit it was intended. I'm a great fan of constructive disagreement, so if you do want to DM me to discuss further, feel free - I'm a commitment to artists delivering their best work.
-
Quote
Shook wrote:
Hey, Fuzzy Face.
-
Quote
It's up! Thanks for motivating me to take this next step.
+ more commentsVincent Tuckwood on 10/19/2011
Gary Wright on 07/24/2011
I am sensing a theme. With the new Labs layout, a new face - first The Bard (both literate AND fuzzy), and now....Grand Daddy Geico? Is this "Avatar of the Day" thing something you do with your morning coffee?
Anyway, I like it!
Best,
S
Hey Scott,
Sorry I didn't get right back to you - I meant to, but then I kinda forgot.
I was just playing around with some images I like, trying to get a feel for how TS Labs works. We australopithecines hate change, you know. The current avatar is actually inspired by my current gig - I'm doing a first-draft take on some guy's bigfoot idea. So the similarity to previous avatars is pure coincidence.
Unless, of course, it isn't?
G
DebraSwan on 06/15/2011
Cheers,
Debra