• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

How are my first 5 pages?

It's for a screenplay I am writing and just wondering how my talent is so far, since it's only my third screenplay.

Please be brutally honest, I could use it, and wonder if it gives a good enough impression that it could be worth making.

I have showed it to a couple of professional consultants so far and they said that the structure is poor and the dialogue is too on the nose, but they didn't really give anything more since I did not hire anyone yet. I am wondering if there is any problems in my writing to concentrate on more specifically before doing so.

Let me know, and of course, let me know what you think of it in general. I did some rewriting so their may be some spelling errors after making recent changes, in which case I apologize for, but will correct them once I know what improvements should be made.

Thanks for your feedback.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Xsh5O2ZFssUFZsdWNzZ3VYYlE/view?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
Okay, here are my thoughts...

1. a police dispatcher is trained to keep radio communication to a specific set of dialogue standards. They would never say, "keep your eyes peeled," but instead would say, "be on the lookout..." and would proceed to give a description of the suspect(s).

2. "He sees a MAN near the edge of the mountain..." should be changed to, "At the base of the mountain, Tyler spots GANG MEMBER #3, Male, binoculars around his neck, looking in his direction. GANG MEMBER #3 shifts his gaze elsewhere immediately upon being noticed."

Tyler puts the nozzle back, and heads inside the station to pay, while looking at the man who then looks back --

3. More creative use of the English language. For instance, "Tyler replaces the nozzle, turns about and walks towards the gas station attendant to pay, never breaking eye contact with GANG MEMBER #3 who now looks back towards him. Upon noticing Tyler's persistent gaze, GANG MEMBER #3 averts his stare to the lodge building behind him."

4. You don't need '--' at the end of your paragraphs.

You lost my attention in the first scene. The writing is very, "so-and-so does this, so-and-so does that, and so-and-so moves here." Compel me with your writing!
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I kind of see what you mean. How can I write with it being described in a so and so way. I know you give examples, but a lot of my writing is like that unfortunately. I will try to write the rest of it that way.
 
Okay thanks. I kind of see what you mean. How can I write with it being described in a so and so way. I know you give examples, but a lot of my writing is like that unfortunately. I will try to write the rest of it that way.

Typically, being pushed to try harder by someone else, will make a huge difference. That's why I'm pushing you.

Best way to improve your writing, is to read professional works. In your case, if you want to write better scripts, read some pro scripts.

Here's a good one... http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Se7en.html
 
Okay thanks. I have already read a lot of pro scripts though, and tried to emulate the style. I also read the Seven script three times before, it's one of my favorites. This '--' is used a lot in scripts such as The Bourne Supremacy. Aside from the writing style though, what about the story and character introductions?

I took a look at the class at Lynda.com, but it's very identical to all the other sites that talk about screenwriting. Can the class really make a difference compared to everything else I read, plus the book I also read The Anatomy of Story? I reworded some of the first page with your example in it as well. Is this better or not really?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Xsh5O2ZFssVktMc1Uwb28yb28/view?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I have already read a lot of pro scripts though, and tried to emulate the style. I also read the Seven script three times before, it's one of my favorites. This '--' is used a lot in scripts such as The Bourne Supremacy. Aside from the writing style though, what about the story and character introductions?

I took a look at the class at Lynda.com, but it's very identical to all the other sites that talk about screenwriting. Can the class really make a difference compared to everything else I read, plus the book I also read The Anatomy of Story? I reworded some of the first page with your example in it as well. Is this better or not really?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-Xsh5O2ZFssVktMc1Uwb28yb28/view?usp=sharing

I think what was missing in your script for me to stay interested, was the lack of advanced writing and not the actual format. If you want to use '--' that's up to you. Not sure why to use it.

By "Advanced Writing," I mean that you're writing things like, "After talking to the man and getting disturbed, Jimmy walks to the car, he opens the door, sits down in the seat, and turns the key to the ignition." This works but is very boring and sophmore'ish.

Instead it would sound better to say, "Jimmy, shaken by his interraction with the man, heads for his car, head spinning. Slamming the car door shut and sliding into his seat, he puts his face in his hands and lets out an angst ridden scream. After a moment of silence, he drives off."

Do you understand what I mean now? It's not your script writing skills in terms of format so much... but your lack of creativity in the use of the language. Engage me and draw me in.
 
Last edited:
Lots of spelling, grammar and formatting errors. The characters don't feel real or believable. The situation is odd and unbelievable. I have to say the dialogue was rather on the nose. Lots of little things stand out.
Code:
EXT. HIGHWAY GAS STATION -- OUTSIDE VANCOUVER, CANADA -- DAY

CONSTABLE TYLER LAMONT, 30, of the Vancouver police force,
is a handsome young man of average build.

He's off duty, and filling up his civilian car, leaning
against it, in wait... He hears a dispatcher make an
announcement, from the radio, on his car seat, through the
open window.
Is he in his police uniform? How would the viewer know he's on the Vancouver police force if he's off duty? You don't need to say 'young man' since you gave his age. You need to describe what the audience sees. If he's a police officer you need to introduce that fact. He could be a citizen who listens to the police band. So it would be better to write what the audience sees:
Code:
EXT.  HIGHWAY GAS STATION (VANCOUVER, CAN.) - DAY

TYLER LAMONT (30s), handsome and average build in casual
attire leans against his car as the tank fills.  The chatter of the 
police dispatcher comes from the radio lying on the front seat. 
 
As the gallons tick by, Tyler makes frequent glances at the 
lodge on the mountain where he sees a man patrolling.
If you want to emphasize he's an off duty officer, you could have some uniform or police paraphernalia lying beside the radio. When you change perspective, you need a new slugline to indicate a change of location. So when you switch to GANG #3 patrolling at the lodge, that becomes a new slugline, "EXT. LODGE - DAY".

Lots of newbie problems follow:
Code:
INT. LIVING ROOM -- LODGE -- CONTINUOUS

MANNING, 25, is sitting in a chair, leaning forward with his
hands folded... 

LEO HENDERSON, 55, is sitting walking in circles behind him,
waiting...

They are both dressed in all black, while wearing ski masks,
rolled up above their faces. Manning's nervous and feels
just wrong being there.
Unlearn whatever you learned about double dashes. Just use one dash. Also, only use continuous when moving between rooms and indicate when that happens. In this instance, it would be better just to start off in the bedroom or if this is a one room lodge, just use that. You always need a time indicator. Continuous is for space, not time. Best to place your descriptive stuff after the slugline, who is in the scene and scene description. Personal descriptions you can lump with your characters.
Better:
Code:
INT.  LODGE, LIVING ROOM - DAY

Two men dressed in all black wear ski masks rolled just above 
their faces. A woman's muffled screams are heard from the
back room.

MANNING (25) sits in a chair, leaning forward with his hands 
folded.  He rocks and makes it obvious he would rather be
any place but here.

LEO HENDERSON (55) walks in circles behind him.
If this is a single room lodge, just state "LODGE". In this case, I'd also include information about the camera equipment and the other men in the room.

However, this is where the story begins to go askew. Now you introduce a rape scene. Why is the clock ticking? She's tied to the bed and not going anywhere. There are four guys in masks standing around waiting on Manning. They want to videotape it. This doesn't make sense. The guys are making a bad porn video? Is one of them going to be holding the boom?

What was the purpose of the conversation in the gas station? It revealed nothing.
Code:
INT. GAS STATION -- DAY

Tyler is next in line at the counter --

               CASHIER
      How goes it?

               TYLER
     Good, you?

               CASHIER
     Good.

               TYLER
           (shows his badge)
     Look, you see that lodge on the
     mountain today, with the parked cars
     over there? Do you know if there
     was a man out before?

               CASHIER
     No, I didn't really look on my way
     in.

              TYLER
    Yeah, that's understandable. I was
    just wondering.
           (hands him his credit card)
    Thanks.
Don't use parentheticals to show major actions, use action lines. Don't use dialogue to just small talk. Dialogue must be purposeful and advance the story. If this were cut, nothing would be different. You need to make it meaningful.
Code:
INT. GAS STATION -- DAY

Tyler checks out at the counter.  He returns the cashier's smile 
as he sets a bottle of soda on the counter.

               CASHIER
      How goes it?  That'll be $27.83.

Tyler nods and reaches back for his wallet.

               TYLER
     Lotta cars at the lodge today.

Cashier glances about and leans in.

               CASHIER
      Stag party.  One of the guys came
      in and bought beer and condoms.

He winks and nods.  Tyler hands him his credit card which
the cashier takes and runs.  

Tyler glances up at a surveillance camera then through the 
window towards the mountain.
This is more meaningful because information is exchanged. If one of the guys came in, now Tyler knows that one of the guys may be on surveillance footage. No flashing of badges needed. Dialogue is brief and relevant.

Unfortunately, after that the rest of the story just gets goofy. It's still not clear what's happening. It feels rather unbelievable. Starting page three, it just starts to unravel. Splashing bleach around doesn't help. At this point they've left so much forensic evidence that running off will not help. Used condoms can be recovered. They probably leaked when removed. There is hair evidence. There will be fingerprint evidence. There will be shoe prints, tire tracks, etc. Who rented/owns the lodge? What about the camera equipment? It's not clear why they would suspect Manning just because he can't get an erection.

Then they get quiet when Tyler knocks on the door though they have all their cars out front. Let's act guilty of something. If Henderson had answered the door, this situation would be more interesting. Why, if they were winning, didn't they just knock out Tyler and tie him up too? Then they could clean up and make their escape. Why leave Sheila? Nobody thought to take his gun? How was she tied to the bed that she can be moved so easily? Why isn't she flailing and trying to escape once freed? Why didn't Tyler, when he first drove up, record all the license plates so he could call them in? Why didn't he let the air out of their tires? Why didn't he first case the lodge for unobserved entry? Why not call for back up? Why did the goon who was supposed to be the sentry abandon his position instead of doing his job? Lots of wasted opportunities and poor decisions. I mean they don't even lock the effin front door?! I mean, he's down. They got his gun. It's one guy. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this translates to the gang being mentally incompetent as much as poor writing from the audience's perspective.

And then back to formatting, the action sequence on pages 4 & 5 are wrong. LOSE the CONTINUOUS. You are using it incorrectly. Lose the double dashes. Again, incorrect. The dialogue is so cliche--"We gotta get outta here" and "Get to your cars." The first five pages did not capture my interest as a viewer. The story feels very unbelievable as I said. Because of the rather superficial way you handle the characters and dialogue, there is little interest in following them.

Tyler does the actions but without any real personality. Being young, handsome and an off-duty police officer is not enough to like him. Since he's going into a potentially dangerous situation, he'd want to take precautions. Second, the criminals seem lame and very, well, unbelievable--"It's okay, son, you can rape her. She deserves it." What a stupid 'pep talk'! This is a challenging beginning that will get all sorts of outrage from audiences. You need to create a compelling reason why they're doing this to her.

As it is written, this would not fly by any professional readers. Storywise, the first five pages are not interesting and, worse, are insulting to the audience. A cardboard incompetent cop with cardboard incompetent villains. A rather offensive attempted rape. To proceed as you've suggested in your other threads, would be absurd.

This is a cut-and-dry case. You've dumped a living victim with enough physical evidence to convict them of physical and sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. In the United States, the prosecution does not require a victim's consent to press charges in many violent crimes. Assuming that in your next sequence they are arrested but found not guilty, I think you'll have a hard time getting back your audience. It feels too contrived, hence unbelievable.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. I thought the flash of badge, may be needed because people talk to officers differently than they talk to strangers who ask them questions, don't they?

Why would the gas station attendant wink at him? Is he trying to imply some secret information? Why not just say it, since a wink can be interpreted different ways? I can see what you mean about the attendant having no information but I thought Tyler would at least ask. I could write it so he does not ask and just keeps thinking as he pays. Or he could ask and the attendant actually reveals something suspicious he saw.

Another thing is, is that I find that if the gang were going to commit this crime, they would not stop by a gas station near by, because that would create a witness, who was near by enough that it could become a problem. They would buy condoms and things like that at a previous time somewhere else logically I feel.

Also for Tyler to let the air out of their tires does not make a lot of sense to me, because Tyler has not established any sort of reason to do that yet. He does not know if the people in the lodge or up to no good yet, for sure, so shouldn't he establish that first, before letting the air out of possibly innocent people's tires? When you watch reality shows like Cops and the cops go to people's houses to question them about suspicious activity or when they pull people over, I've never seen them let the air out of their tires as a precaution.

Sheila rents the lodge, so it cannot be tied back to the kidnappers, since it's her place.

They don't suspect Manning of setting them up just because he cannot get an erection. They suspect him of setting themup because of the odd coincidental timing of events. Manning is the new guy in the group, who has to commit a felony to get in and prove his worth. But on the exact day he does that, a person gets suspicious and drives up to their doorstep. They get scared and think that Manning is setting them up, because of the coincidental timing, not because of his lack of erection. How can I write it so that the reader will think that this is the reason?

The reason why they don't take Tyler's gun is because Tyler needs it for a few pages later, but there lots of movies where the villains knock down the hero and do not take his gun. However, I see how that comes across and will rewrite it.

As for splashing bleach around, I still do not understand what that won't work. I mean it worked in The Town (2010), and audiences bought it. There is no fingerprint evidence because the crooks never take off their gloves at anytime. Even if their are hairs around, if the hairs are covered in bleach, there would be no DNA trace in them so the hairs would be useless, wouldn't they? They also ditch their shoes after escaping and only bought them for that one crime they commit. The cars are also stolen from a while ago, and after they escape they burn the cars. The camera equipment is taken with them when they leave and they escape with it. They also do not leave around used condoms, and did not have time to use any before being Tyler comes. They didn't rape Sheila previously. This is established later in the script when the cops are investigating. Is the audience able to wait till the investigation comes in later pages, or is this a problem and they are going to assume that the characters are stupid from the beginning and not going to want to read further to get to the investigation?

They left Sheila there because Tyler was coming after them, and he has a gun. However, I can see how this should be written differently. The plot requires Sheila to be left but I need to make it so it seems like they had no other choice to leave her, and perhaps it still feels like they still have a choice right? Sheila is flaying and trying to escape as well, but I guess I just didn't describe it enough to the reader. I thought the reader would automatically assume she would be, but I can put that in. Thanks.

When Tyler approaches the building, the reason why the lookout man leaves his position is to tell the others that someone suspicious is coming. The reason Tyler does not call for back up yet, is because he is not sure if the guys inside are guilty of any crime, so he has to check first, before wasting back up's time. If this does not make sense though, and he would just call for back up anyway, I could write it so that he does and back up is not available, like in Robocop (1987) for example. But the back up being not available just feels kind of cliche and contrived. Basically I need Tyler to do it alone, cause I do not have the budget, to have five men escape a whole back up team of cops, as this would require a lot more money to pull off. But there are many movies where cops go in alone, and the audience does not seem to have a problem. In Cellular (2004), the cop played by William H. Macy, went to check out the house alone, without calling for back up. How did that make more logical sense?

The reason why the door is unlocked is because I need Tyler to get in, and he does not feel like breaking in, because since he does not have probable cause, it looks more bad, legal wise, to break through a door, than it does to simply just walk in and have a small look around. However, I could write it so that Henderson answers the door, but is that logical? I mean if the door was locked, the gang would just be hoping that Tyler would think people are not home right now, and would just hopefully walk away, no? Also Henderson would have to remove his mask and show his face when he answered to appear more normal, in which case, Tyler has no seen his face, so it wouldn't be the wisest move on Henderson's part. What if I wrote it so that the door was locked but when Tyler approaches they unlock it on purpose, to let him in so they can ambush him? Would this make sense or no?

Thanks for your help. I can see you are pointing out logical errors. I will rewrite so that they do not just leave Tyler sticking around. I can write it so that he gets away, and they villains have no choice but to leave him there, because if he possibly called for back up they do not want to wait around. I can write so that they have more of a reason to leave Sheila behind. If Tyler coming after them with a pistol is not enough to drop Sheila so they can loose weight and get in their cars and drive away faster, than I will think of something else. Plus Sheila trying to fight them off, will also make it more difficult for them to carry her.

This is the problem I have when it comes to writing characters logically. If I decide that I want a cop who does not want to call for back up, and let the air out of people's tires, only to find out that no crime has been committed, and he is now in trouble and embarrassed, than that just seems logical for me for that character, like the cop in Cellular. Do my reasons for their behavior make sense similarly or not really?

When Henderson tells Manning the clock is ticking, he is only saying that cause everyone has lives and they want to rap it up and get out of there, but I will cut out the ticking line, if that's bad. As for audiences being possibly offended by the opening, that is not my intention. I want to handle the crime with depth and necessity to a story, not be distasteful or exploitative, just for the sake of it. So is there a way I can get the audience to hold on to wait to see what happens, as oppose to just assuming it's distasteful garbage and putting the script down?
 
Last edited:
Okay. You're justifying your writing. Everything you mentioned is what your audience should be seeing in real time. If they don't get it, if you lose them in the first five minutes, most tune out. Whatever happens down the road is irrelevant. To hit your points briefly:

1. I thought the flash of badge, may be needed because people talk to officers differently than they talk to strangers who ask them questions, don't they? ... Tyler has not established any sort of reason to do that yet. He does not know if the people in the lodge or up to no good yet

He's off the clock. If there's no reason to suspect a crime, why ask? Why even go up to investigate. The guy on lookout may be a birdwatcher. Making Tyler, an off duty cop, go up to a lodge to investigate without a reason seems farfetched.

2. Another thing is, is that I find that if the gang were going to commit this crime, ... they would buy condoms and things like that at a previous time somewhere else logically I feel.

Perhaps. However, you need something to spur Tyler to investigate. If I'm coming home, my last thought is "Oh, maybe I should go see why a guy near a lodge is looking out. Must be criminal activity." Too farfetched.

3. So shouldn't he establish that first, before letting the air out of possibly innocent people's tires? When you watch reality shows like Cops and the cops go to people's houses to question them about suspicious activity or when they pull people over, I've never seen them let the air out of their tires as a precaution.

Uh, shouldn't he not draw his gun then? Why go into a house without a warrant? Why did he even go up there? Why didn't he call for backup? Why didn't he first case the area? If nothing else, I'd record the license plates. If it were me, I'd want all the cards stacked in my favor if I have to make a fast getaway. And with "Cops", they're on the clock and they're not alone entering a house filled with multiple criminals.

4. Sheila rents the lodge, so it cannot be tied back to the kidnappers, since it's her place.

Oh, so where does it say that in the first few pages? You could have one of the goons mention it in passing. "Someone's driving up to her place." Why are they invading her home?

5. Manning is the new guy in the group, who has to commit a felony to get in and prove his worth.

Then you need to make that clear in the script that this is an initiation. "She deserves it" doesn't suggest that. And there are lots of ways he can do that without rape. He could have held up the gas station for example.

6. How can I write it so that the reader will think that this is the reason?

That's up to you as the writer. Are you offering to pay me?

7. The reason why they don't take Tyler's gun is because Tyler needs it for a few pages later, ... The reason why the door is unlocked is because I need Tyler to get in

Bad script (and novel) writing 101 mistake. You NEVER contrive a scene to make it easier for a character. The suspense and thrill comes from overcoming the challenge. However, once he's overpowered, they can still tie him up. He might escape as they are finalizing their departure.

8. As for splashing bleach around, I still do not understand what that won't work. ... Even if their are hairs around, if the hairs are covered in bleach, there would be no DNA trace in them so the hairs would be useless, wouldn't they?

Uh, yeah, movie science isn't always the most accurate. Cleaning with bleach is different than splattering with bleach. Different materials wick at different rates. Are they splashing all the sides of the bed? The sofa & chairs? No, bleach doesn't destroy all the DNA on contact. People bleach their hair all the time and the DNA is intact. Chances are, if Manning is stroking off, he's dropping pubic hairs all around. Slipping those masks on and off are shedding head hairs all around. Their pants carry lint and hairs. I can't see someone acting in a hurry doing a thorough job.

9. There is no fingerprint evidence because the crooks never take off their gloves at anytime.

Have you ever tried to operate a camera with gloves on? DSLRs and touchscreen cameras are hard to set up. So I'm guessing at some point, one of them took off their gloves. Have you tried to open a condom package wearing gloves and slip on a condom? This is a case where I think your practical sense is misled by your story. Writers need touch-intelligence which is one of the benefits of actor training.

10. They also ditch their shoes after escaping and only bought them for that one crime they commit. The cars are also stolen from a while ago, and after they escape they burn the cars.

Pacing in circles is tracking mud. Probably from the lodge into their cars as well. So how is the audience to know that they're stolen? Again, I'm not convince an off duty cop would put himself in peril without calling for back up.

11. ... Is the audience able to wait till the investigation comes in later pages, or is this a problem and they are going to assume that the characters are stupid from the beginning and not going to want to read further to get to the investigation?

Bingo. The audience is watching real time. If Henderson tells one of the other guys to go for it when Manning can't, there's no reason to assume, given the set up, this hasn't happened before. Unless you make that clear to the audience, they have no way of knowing.

12. ... I guess I just didn't describe it enough to the reader. I thought the reader would automatically assume she would be, but I can put that in. Thanks.

Never assume that the audience will automatically read your mind. The audience views what you show and tell them. She could be drugged, exhausted from non-stop abuse, etc. "SHEILA FOLEY, 35, who is on bed, tied up, blindfolded, and gagged. She coughs and breathes hard in fear -- She has ACOUSTIC
EARMUFFS, tied around her head so she cannot work them off, and cannot hear what they are saying." That doesn't say struggling, fighting for her life.

13. When Tyler approaches the building, the reason why the lookout man leaves his position is to tell the others that someone suspicious is coming.

Then the lookout guy goes back out and takes a secure position to ward him off. That's his role.

14. The reason Tyler does not call for back up yet, is because he is not sure if the guys inside are guilty of any crime ...How did that make more logical sense?

Macy was on the clock and has reasonable suspicion. Tyler is off duty. He has NO REASON to investigate. As you said, no crime was committed. You're having an off duty officer investigate an imaginary crime based on no evidence. Sounds a bit farfetched, doesn't it?

15. he does not feel like breaking in, because since he does not have probable cause, it looks more bad, legal wise, to break through a door, than it does to simply just walk in and have a small look around. ... Also Henderson would have to remove his mask and show his face when he answered ... However, I could write it so that Henderson answers the door, but is that logical?

Uh, investigating without a warrant would invalidate the evidence. As far as Tyler knows, no crime has been committed. Walking in a house without permission is trespassing. Many people lock their door even when in their home. If Henderson answers the door and denies Tyler entrance, there's nothing more he can do. Again, Tyler has no proof of a crime. He has no reason to suspect Henderson who may be the owner as far as Tyler and the audience knows.

16. This is the problem I have when it comes to writing characters logically.

You have to write characters from a first person point of view. If I were Tyler and off duty, what would make me suspicious enough to want to pursue this? What would I do to be safe? What if Tyler had NOT come along? What was their full plan? Good writers, like actors, learn to morph into their characters. It's not about writing them logically but with depth and authenticity. That's the only way for the audience to bond with the character.

17. As for audiences being possibly offended by the opening, that is not my intention. I want to handle the crime with depth and necessity to a story, not be distasteful or exploitative, just for the sake of it. So is there a way I can get the audience to hold on to wait to see what happens, as oppose to just assuming it's distasteful garbage and putting the script down?

Rape is one of those crimes that will instantly polarize an audience against the aggressor. If that's your intention, it's fine. I'm not qualified to say what everyone finds distasteful. What I want to emphasize is that the scene should be purposeful and vital to the script. I would give it more development. Though I'm not convinced it's necessary to have it written as a rape scene if it's just to emphasize the initiation.
 
You seem to be basing everything in your script on observations cannibalised from other films rather than on real people in real life and how real people really act. Now obviously you are allowed to take some artistic licence in movies, and most films do, but if you're basing your understanding of human nature on an already stilted version taken from X number of different movies in X different genres, and then add your own artistic liberties, it just gets more and more detached from what viewers/readers will accept.

Remember that scene in Fight Club, about how everything in the Narrator's life feels inauthentic - "a copy of a copy of a copy"? That's the impression I get here.
 
Last edited:
Okay thanks. This helps a lot. I will rewrite it so that Tyler has a reason to be suspicious. Basically I want the evidence to be unusable later. I wanted to write it so that Tyler entered without probable cause, and so the judge does not allow a good portion of the evidence to be used. So I need to write it in a way in which he becomes suspicious enough to enter the house, but at the same time, I need to write it so that legally he has no probable cause for later.

Now as far as explaining things like how it's Sheila's house, do I have to explain it in the opening? The cops mention it later when they are investigating so is that not enough? Why do the crooks have to mention these things as they are comitting the crime? If you watch a movie like High and Low for example (1963), the kidnapper has reasons for doing all sort of things the kidnapper does during the crime, that are not explained, but then in the last half, as the police are investigating it, they then explain why the villain did a lot of what he did.

For example, the villain asked for the money to be placed in briefcases that are no wider than 2.5 inches in width. But you do not find out till later, why he asked for that size. The audience is put on hold for an explanation. So how can I put the audience on hold till later when the cops explain it while investigating? Why does all the information have to fed to them right away. I feel that if I do this there will be little element for surprise or reveal later.

Also the cops find out later than Manning was the new guy in the group and that he was being tested. This is a surprise for later. If I reveal it in the beginnging, there is no element of surprise later. If I must reveal it right away, in real time, how do I do it without the dialogue coming off as too on the nose? If Henderson says something like "You are the new guy in the group You have to prove yourself", doesn't that come off as spoon feeding an explanation since Henderson and Manning already know that?

What about Lethal Weapon 2 for example? In that movie, it opens with a car chase but there is no explanation as to who the cops are chasing or why. We know it's just someone who is guilty of some crime. But it's not until later, that we get the explanation as to who those people are, and get an idea of how the chase started. So how do you write it like in that style, the right way, where it's okay to put the audience on hold, till later, when you want to reveal what's really going on, under the surface?
 
Last edited:
Wait, so is evidence going to be inadmissible because a cop goes into a victim's house without a warrant? I'm no law-speaking-guy, but that doesn't seem right to me. If it's a perp's house, then it makes sense for this to hold, but the victim's house? Surely the only person to complain about illegal entry/search would be the victim who the cop has just saved from a much worse ordeal?

Genuine question by the way. I can understand that people have the right to privacy in their own homes, but criminals also have that protection in someone else's home?
 
Okay thanks. Well if you look up probable cause in the law books, it does not say that it does not count if it's the victims home. Probable cause is still probable cause in the eyes of the law, at least that's what I was told while researching it. The perp's lawyer will still bring it up.

I want to write it how FantasySciFi said though and explain everything in real time. But in order to do that, I need to understand why I have to do it for the reader to understand when other movies put explanations on hold until later. Die Hard is another example. In that movie, we have brook of men who take a building hostage. But we don't know why they take the building hostage, till about 10 minutes later.

In Speed, a security guard is killed the opening scene. But we do not know why the villain killed him. We find out later. I do not see how I have broken any screenwriting rules, since other movies do this. If I knew what I was doing differently, than I would know when to hold back on info and when to reveal it in real time without putting the viewer on hold at all.
 
But surely probable cause and the need for search warrants etc. are because of a suspects 4th amendment rights to privacy in their own home? How could a perp have expectation of privacy in the home of someone else? The victim (and householder) could, for sure, if she complained that this nasty cop violated her privacy by interrupting the violent gang rape she was so looking forward to. But I think it's unrealistic that she'd make such a complaint.

I'm no expert on US law, so I'd be intrigued to know the answer to this.

With regard to the other movies you relate that show the crime without an explanation and motive - they are pretty standard crimes. The detective genre is built on seeing a crime (or the after-effects of a crime) and then having to work out the motives for it.

The crime you describe is very atypical - breaking and entering, forced imprisonment, and filming a gang rape for initiation purposes? As a reader I had no idea what was going on until you explained it in this thread. I had no idea that the victim's home had been invaded - and reading his comments, neither did FSF, who assumed it was a rental property.

You don't have to show the why of the crime, but giving a decent handle on the what of the crime would help a lot.
 
Last edited:
Wait, so is evidence going to be inadmissible because a cop goes into a victim's house without a warrant? I'm no law-speaking-guy, but that doesn't seem right to me. If it's a perp's house, then it makes sense for this to hold, but the victim's house? Surely the only person to complain about illegal entry/search would be the victim who the cop has just saved from a much worse ordeal?

Genuine question by the way. I can understand that people have the right to privacy in their own homes, but criminals also have that protection in someone else's home?

It's the 4th amendment. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.

Code:
When the Fourth Amendment Doesn't Protect You

The Fourth Amendment applies to a search only if a person has a "legitimate expectation of privacy" in the place or thing searched. If not, the amendment offers no protection because there are, by definition, no privacy issues.

Courts generally use a two-part test (fashioned by the U.S. Supreme Court) to determine whether, at the time of the search, a defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place or things searched:

    Did the person actually expect some degree of privacy?
    Is the person's expectation objectively reasonable—that is, one that society is willing to recognize?

It may still come down to interpretation, though I believe that you'll find that Maz is correct. I don't believe you'll find criminals have an expectation of privacy in a perps house.

This only matters if you want your story to hold water. You're the writer. You can choose to throw out what you want. Hell, you can make cops immune to bullets too. You create your own world. If you want to use the real world, then I suggest you keep within the confines of what normal people live in, otherwise, once again, you chance losing the suspension of disbelief.

Probable cause is still probable cause in the eyes of the law

Just like a car is a car in the eyes of the law? and...?

it does not say that it does not count if it's the victims home

You expect it to list every occurrence where it does and doesn't happen?

It probably doesn't say if it includes within your fridge at home. What about inside the ice cube tray? What about in your desk draw at work? Does it say if it includes a public road? What about a private pool within sight of a private road? What about on a horses tail? What about in toilet in a plane that is landing at the airport? Is that included in the law too?

Sometimes I wish you would turn your brain on when you do this so called "Research".
 
Okay thanks. Well if you look up probable cause in the law books, it does not say that it does not count if it's the victims home. Probable cause is still probable cause in the eyes of the law, at least that's what I was told while researching it. The perp's lawyer will still bring it up.
The criminals could not use it as a defense. As the officer was acting to stop a crime in progress. You cannot collect evidence off the individual (hair, blood, saliva) or the criminal's personal property without a warrant UNLESS there is probable cause. If an officer in the course of a routine stop sees drugs in your car or finds a weapon on your person, they are within their rights to confiscate and prosecute.

The provision is to stop searches and seizures where there is no cause. If a crime IS occuring, that provision is not a legal defense. Again, calling for back up which even a rookie would do would make that a non-issue. As Maz pointed out, this is Sheila's residence, not theirs. That protection doesn't extend to them. Only their physical body IF they hadn't been involved in an active crime. However, there's enough criminal activity that once arrested for, say, breaking and entering, kidnapping, assault, they can be freely have their hair, blood and saliva collected while in custody.

I want to write it how FantasySciFi said though and explain everything in real time. But in order to do that, I need to understand why I have to do it for the reader to understand when other movies put explanations on hold until later. ... I do not see how I have broken any screenwriting rules, since other movies do this. If I knew what I was doing differently, than I would know when to hold back on info and when to reveal it in real time without putting the viewer on hold at all.
I want to be clear, we are not talking about 'screenwriting rules'. Formatting has fairly strict guidelines, storytelling is very open artistically. What I want to emphasize is that viewers will suspend belief if
a. the characters are believable, interesting, AND relatable
b. the actions are believable within the established 'movie reality', and
c. they aren't constantly being tricked.
As I said in my last post, I would put more development into the crime. This could be a group of guys shooting a porn film. She's not struggling. There's camera equipment. Yeah, maybe they're nervous. Or maybe it's a stag/fraternal lodge party that's gone over the line. There is nothing that reads to the audience that this was PLANNED AS A CRIME immediately. It's so out there most viewers have nothing to relate to it. It certainly doesn't feel like a gang initiation, even AFTER your explanation.

A lot of people have had exposure to gangs through media or real life. This 'rape scenario' doesn't read as a 'gang initiation'. So what was their full plan if there were no Tyler? Why did they target Sheila? Why so many? I mean, a lone rapist can do the same thing. If this is an initiation, why not have Manning have to do it all by himself? He goes in with a gun, ties her up, sets up the camera, records the rape and leaves. Does it really take five bumbling crooks? You lost credibility there. Secondly, if this is an initiation, it's up to Manning to prove he should be accepted. That Henderson dismisses it is so un-gang like. Not to be crude, but if this were a real gang, they'd all rape her, perhaps kill her and bury the body behind the lodge. They may torch the lodge as 'clean up'. Using bleach is a more professional type job, not an initiation. With gangs it's about inspiring fear and earning street creds. Your scenario just reads very un-gang like. Again, less credibility.

You dedicate 1.5 pages to the crime, the rest is about Tyler and the escape. In the other films you mentioned, because the crime is so integral, considerably more time is given to describe how it unfolds. Many new writers think, let's rush through the set-up and we'll do the explanations in the next section because that's where they THINK they need to spend more time. In reality, if you put more time into developing the crime, less is time is needed in the explanation portion. The viewer has been following along and little pieces start to fall into place without having to directly describe it. I know you think the explanation is the interesting part but without proper set-up, you lose the audience before you get to that point. For the WHY to make sense later, you need to give adequate attention to the WHAT that precedes it. Good luck!
 
A rape seems a particularly odd choice for a criminal initiation, as not every criminal is a rapist. There would be any number of reasons beyond "it's a felony" why raping anyone would be abhorrent to an individual, even if that individual is violent and active in other aspects of criminality. As such, failure in the initiation doesn't really say anything about the guy's loyalty, courage or criminality.

The whole scene just reads a bit tawdry and exploitative.
 
Back
Top