For Those That Can Spare a Few

[Tankdaddy]

Hello. I was just wondering if anyone would like to read my first script and give tips or if you notice any aspects I need to work on to let me know. I already know it's bad and already trying to rethink the climax/execution of it. I just wanted an opinion from a fellow person who isn't just saying what I want to hear for fear of my reaction.

It may lack some description on the area or surroundings at times, but that's mainly because it's based off the place I'm filming it at.

If the format is messed up, let me know. It's right on my computer, but I don't know how uploading it on google doc effected it since it's my first time using it lol.

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1ltZw40Quh8ErtQ6m1Woh5bqL9klRynTW2cpoIPRZWjc

Really appreciate any time spent reading this post. Even if you just read my op and not the script

*EDIT*
Forgot something important haha.

It's short mainly because I'm using it like a pilot. I have a lot of other ideas that I have for future "episodes" or other stories in the universe (which ALL my stories will end up being in a la Tarintino/Stephen King), but I may be changing the climax part to something else due to it being over used a lot as of late.

 

[JohnJohnson]

The story was kind of interesting (I did manage to read all the way through), but definitely needs some work. I think the main issue is that you rely on dialogue when action would be more effective. What makes screenwriting different than playwriting is that the screen is the canvas rather than the player or actor. Film should tells stories visually first, and dialogue should only support the action.

One example, you have the psychiatrist actually mention that he killed his friend. This feels out of place in the conversation because they would obviously both know why he is there. It also takes out the suspense of the story since we pretty much have been told what will happen. You then go on to show what happened, which left me wondering why you needed to spell it out for us in the dialogue to begin with.

Another example is when Rob is dying. Ryan asks "What? Why would he do this? He is our friend." The audience already knows they are friends because it was established with the action. It feels unnatural for him to point it out in such an obtrusive way. Then Rob can barely talk when all of a sudden he gets out a paragraph, "I tried to give him his meds and then he attacked me. He looked dead. Something must've happened." The audience should gather this information from the action rather than exposition. He went to give Quentin medicine, now he is dying from an attack, we soon see Quentin come out to attack Rob. If Rob could not speak at all after being attacked, we should still be able to gather all of the information because of the action.

 

[Tankdaddy]

The story was kind of interesting (I did manage to read all the way through), but definitely needs some work. I think the main issue is that you rely on dialogue when action would be more effective. What makes screenwriting different than playwriting is that the screen is the canvas rather than the player or actor. Film should tells stories visually first, and dialogue should only support the action.

I appreciate the time you took to read it =)

I definitely see what you mean. My favorite types of movies are usually the good and heavy dialogue movies (if that makes sense?) and I probably shouldn't have tried doing that in my first script haha =P

One example, you have the psychiatrist actually mention that he killed his friend. This feels out of place in the conversation because they would obviously both know why he is there. It also takes out the suspense of the story since we pretty much have been told what will happen. You then go on to show what happened, which left me wondering why you needed to spell it out for us in the dialogue to begin with.

Well, the following episode or so was going to focus more on Ethan (the psychiatrist) to explain that there had been other "spottings" of such things as Ryan's story told. Which is why he would be there, despite knowing, to test the validity and to find consistencies with the other spottings hence his notepad and questioning of certain things.

With the way the story is formatted (the telling, then retelling) I was trying to pay tribute to my favorite movie "The Usual Suspects". But, totally understand what ya mean. I will begin to redo it asap.

Another example is when Rob is dying. Ryan asks "What? Why would he do this? He is our friend." The audience already knows they are friends because it was established with the action. It feels unnatural for him to point it out in such an obtrusive way. Then Rob can barely talk when all of a sudden he gets out a paragraph, "I tried to give him his meds and then he attacked me. He looked dead. Something must've happened." The audience should gather this information from the action rather than exposition. He went to give Quentin medicine, now he is dying from an attack, we soon see Quentin come out to attack Rob. If Rob could not speak at all after being attacked, we should still be able to gather all of the information because of the action.

Touche on both accounts. Again, thanks for taking the time to read it. Don't know how much I appreciate. Especially with the added time of giving good criticism.

 

[TheNoob]

Ryan's informal in the beginning, but then his language becomes more formal like Ethans. Strange.

I didn't like the transition from present to past. (It all started ..., once upon a time, etc..)

I don't like the way you introduce important details (It's 'aight). When Ryan cuts off Quentin. When we are made aware that he murder someone. Not very subtle.

And Black substance? I think you can come up with something better.

Again Ethan, and Ryan become informal, but they where formal a few pages ago. Too inconsistent.

I don't like the line: What kind of sick?

Cheesy line: Beginning of the end.

Ryan talking to himself in the shed seems weird.

I don't like the dialogue between Ryan and Rob when he gets bitten, could be shorter, with less or no questions.

There was really no change from beginning to end in Ethan. He still didn't believe him (Ryan).

EDIT: Story would benefit from some scenes being told visually.

EDIT 2:I just read Johns post. I agree with him. We seem to have the same issues with the story.

EDIT 3: On a side note, I'm not a good writer, this is probably better than all of my scripts, but criticizing a script is easy.

 

[Tankdaddy]

Ryan's informal in the beginning, but then his language becomes more formal like Ethans. Strange.

I didn't like the transition from present to past. (It all started ..., once upon a time, etc..)

I don't like the way you introduce important details (It's 'aight). When Ryan cuts off Quentin. When we are made aware that he murder someone. Not very subtle.

And Black substance? I think you can come up with something better.

Again Ethan, and Ryan become informal, but they where formal a few pages ago. Too inconsistent.

I don't like the line: What kind of sick?

Cheesy line: Beginning of the end.

Ryan talking to himself in the shed seems weird.

I don't like the dialogue between Ryan and Rob when he gets bitten, could be shorter, with less or no questions.

There was really no change from beginning to end in Ethan. He still didn't believe him (Ryan).

EDIT: Story would benefit from some scenes being told visually.

EDIT 2:I just read Johns post. I agree with him. We seem to have the same issues with the story.

EDIT 3: On a side note, I'm not a good writer, this is probably better than all of my scripts, but criticizing a script is easy.

I agree and see all your points. I'm probably going to set this story aside until I can figure out a better way to do it. Your time for doing your criticisms and reading will not be wasted, just going to focus on one of my other two ideas. Thanks for doing this though.