How are my first 5 pages?

[harmonica44]

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

 

[mlesemann]

^^What Maz said.

 

[harmonica44]

Okay thanks. I will rewrite a lot of the opening, and have it make more sense. So in the opening I should identify through dialog, that it's her place, and that Manning is the new guy who has to prove his worth. Is their anything else I should identify, as oppose to the investigators explaining it later on, when they find out?

Also this isn't just a simple rape crime. They are making this video for a very specific purpose, and they want to all be in the video to create fear, in other characters who they plan on showing it too later. It's part of a bigger more specific crime, but you don't find that out till a few scenes later though, if that's okay. I cannot write it so they explain the crime to each other though, because they already know the plan so it would read as on the nose, wouldn't it? Perhaps I can write it so they argue about the plan so the audience gets an idea of what it is, if they must know right away. It's an odd initiation for the new gang member, but aside from wanting to get the new member in, they also want to commit this crime particularly for other purposes in the story. So the gang is killing two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I can also write it so that Henderson does not accuse Manning of setting him up with the police. I just thought that the audience might think it's suspicious and think it might be weird if Henderson overlooked the new member, when a cop decides to coincidentally show up, at the same time, that the new gang member had to commit a felony to prove his worth. Just so long as the audience does not think that the gang is too naive for not thinking of it.

Also, about the cop not calling for back up... What about movies like Celullar for example, where the cop does not call, and decides to have a look around himself? How do you write it that, way, in which it's believable that the cop does not call, for whatever reason it is? Seven (1995), and Point Break (1991), also had stories where cops did call for back up, once they spotted the villains in the commission of a crime, and decided to go after them and handle it by themselves. Seven when they go to John Doe's apartment. They have a reason for going there by themselves. But once Doe shoots at them, they decide to chase Doe by themselves, without calling for help for the whole chase. In Point Break, the two cop partners stake out a bank, themselves on a hunch that it might be robbed. No reason to call for back up, cause it's just a hunch, but once they spot the robbers, they go after them by themselves and still do not call for back up. Why?

 

[FantasySciFi]

I can also write it so that Henderson does not accuse Manning of setting him up with the police. I just thought that the audience might think it's suspicious and think it might be weird if Henderson overlooked the new member, when a cop decides to coincidentally show up, at the same time ...

How does he know Tyler's a cop? Could be boyfriend, co-worker, neighbor or landowner if she's renting. They can have a permit to carry a gun and use it for self-defense. You didn't say Tyler is dressed in his uniform. You as the writer know, but Henderson has no clue who or what Tyler is, just as Tyler has no clue who Henderson is.

Also, about the cop not calling for back up... What about movies like ... [blah, blah, blah].... once Doe shoots at them, they decide to chase Doe by themselves, without calling for help for the whole chase. In Point Break, the two cop partners stake out a bank, themselves on a hunch that it might be robbed. No reason to call for back up, cause it's just a hunch, but once they spot the robbers, they go after them by themselves and still do not call for back up. Why?

First -- Two is greater than one. With two, one is the lead and one is the back up. In both examples, you use they not he. Big difference. There is no reason an off duty cop would go lone wolf.

Two -- Buddy cops are on the clock. In the buddy cop genre, we expect them to do outrageous things. One cop is not two. That's math. 1 < 2.

Three -- You're ignoring the load of development that leads up to those scenes. Work you haven't put into your script at this point. And to be frank, this is only your third screenplay. You can't pick and choose from movies what you want to include. The development that led up to those events resulted in those decisions by the writers. It works for their stories, not yours because they did specific prior development.

Four -- I think you need to keep it simple. Your ideas are too unwieldy for your skills at this time. I'm not saying you can't learn but you're not there yet. If the story is focused on Tyler pursuing the gang, then the gang doesn't need an elaborate plan. Why do they need to kill two birds with one stone? Why does Manning need to be initiated? It sounds like you're continuing to complicate a situation by developing this elaborate rape/extortion scheme. These movies you quote are by writers with fifteen or more scripts under their belt. You don't write at their level.

As Maz and Mleseman point out, it comes across as offensive. I don't think later explanation will make it any less so. As you re-write, I'd re-assess more than just the dialogue.

 

[cheeseandachallenge]

A rape seems a particularly odd choice for a criminal initiation, as not every criminal is a rapist.

Just scanning the thread and kind of zoned out a little - but, at least where I live rape is fairly common for gang initiation. Typically the far more hardcore gangs do this kind of thing, and I think our gangs tend to be pretty different from American and European gangs, however.

 

[maz]

Just scanning the thread and kind of zoned out a little - but, at least where I live rape is fairly common for gang initiation. Typically the far more hardcore gangs do this kind of thing, and I think our gangs tend to be pretty different from American and European gangs, however.

I stand corrected, and somewhat shocked at the things these hobbits get up to

It does seem like it would only work with a gang of sociopaths who only want to initiate other sociopaths - and not all criminals are sociopaths. From my little bit of research just now, it seems that rape is used far more often as a weapon against other gangs, or (bizarrely) as an initiation for females.

 

[harmonica44]

How does he know Tyler's a cop? Could be boyfriend, co-worker, neighbor or landowner if she's renting. They can have a permit to carry a gun and use it for self-defense. You didn't say Tyler is dressed in his uniform. You as the writer know, but Henderson has no clue who or what Tyler is, just as Tyler has no clue who Henderson is.


First -- Two is greater than one. With two, one is the lead and one is the back up. In both examples, you use they not he. Big difference. There is no reason an off duty cop would go lone wolf.

Two -- Buddy cops are on the clock. In the buddy cop genre, we expect them to do outrageous things. One cop is not two. That's math. 1 < 2.

Three -- You're ignoring the load of development that leads up to those scenes. Work you haven't put into your script at this point. And to be frank, this is only your third screenplay. You can't pick and choose from movies what you want to include. The development that led up to those events resulted in those decisions by the writers. It works for their stories, not yours because they did specific prior development.

Four -- I think you need to keep it simple. Your ideas are too unwieldy for your skills at this time. I'm not saying you can't learn but you're not there yet. If the story is focused on Tyler pursuing the gang, then the gang doesn't need an elaborate plan. Why do they need to kill two birds with one stone? Why does Manning need to be initiated? It sounds like you're continuing to complicate a situation by developing this elaborate rape/extortion scheme. These movies you quote are by writers with fifteen or more scripts under their belt. You don't write at their level.

As Maz and Mleseman point out, it comes across as offensive. I don't think later explanation will make it any less so. As you re-write, I'd re-assess more than just the dialogue.

Okay thanks. They don't HAVE to kill two birds with one stone, but they figure why not, because they can and it's convenient. It also kills two birds with one stone for the script. I introduce the opening hook, and Manning's moral character flaw, in the same sequence, so I thought it was okay to do it that, in the hook. They story is not focused on Tyler pursuing the gang, but rather than gang's plan. They need an elaborate plan cause the plan is most of the story. However, the reason why I have Tyler catch onto their plan in the opening, is because if the cop's do not catch onto it, the crooks will have no one to conflict with them, and they will win without a challenge.

Since the cop in Cellular went in alone without back up, I need Tyler to go in for the same reason. What exactly was William H. Macy's character's reason for not calling for back up? Even though he was involved in the case for half a movie before he went in, what was the actual reason? I must have missed it, but if I understand that, it will help me in rewriting the scenario.

The reason why Manning needs to be initiated is because it's part of the origin of his character development, and that's what gets him going for the rest of the story. Without the origin of the character's need, their is no story to build on that, and you have no movie.

 

[maz]

You still haven't addressed the issue of how they know Tyler is a cop; or indeed why Tyler goes to investigate.

 

[harmonica44]

I will write it so that they don't suspect Tyler of being a cop, but still see him coming and have to take action somehow to keep him from seeing their crime in any way.

In order for me to come up with a situation where Tyler feels he needs to investigate, I need to come up with a reason as to why he decides to do it alone, without calling back up. Once I come up with some reasons why a cop would do that, that will help me develop a reason for him to investigate that would make sense not to call.

 

[maz]

I will write it so that they don't suspect Tyler of being a cop, but still see him coming and have to take action somehow to keep him from seeing their crime in any way.

Most doors have locks. There really is nothing else they need to do to "keep him from seeing their crime in any way" but to lock the door. That's it. Well, maybe close the curtains.

And I can guarantee that will be the first reaction of any audience; if there is a simple solution that isn't taken, there has to be a very good reason for that.

 

[harmonica44]

For sure thanks. I will rewrite it so it makes more sense, I just have to come up with a reason for a cop not to call back up first, so I can build the scenario and reason around that.

 

[FantasySciFi]

... They story is not focused on Tyler pursuing the gang, but rather than gang's plan. They need an elaborate plan cause the plan is most of the story. However, the reason why I have Tyler catch onto their plan in the opening, is because if the cop's do not catch onto it, the crooks will have no one to conflict with them, and they will win without a challenge. ...

You need to be careful. You said in previous threads that this was a story about the cop, not the gang. This clearly says the opposite. It sounds like you still haven't decided what your story is really about.

Are you pursuing a story about a gang's elaborate scheme ("heist type film")

-OR-

A story about a good cop who goes bad ("anti-hero's journey") ?
​

You have to decide which you want to tell because it determines who is your protagonist. You CANNOT HAVE two competing protagonists. One HAS TO BE the antagonist. Choose wisely.

Who is Manning in relation to the story? He comes across as a minor background character. No one cares about Manning or his moral flaw. It comes across more as fear than moral uncertainty btw. Tyler comes across as the principal lead. If so, he's the one you need to focus on developing. Or if you go the heist route, you need to really amp up the gang development and bring Tyler in later. If Manning is the person you want the audience to follow, you've done very poor set up. You need to highlight his role with more development before introducing Tyler.

Even though [Macy] was involved in the case for half a movie before he went in, ...

Development. The audience knows the character and is emotionally invested in his taking action. Yours is off duty and starting at page one. No development, no emotional investment. Your situation is nowhere close to that one. It's not even clear Tyler is a cop. He could be a security guard (on or off duty) who is a wannabe cop so he listens to the police band.

At present, the audience sees a wannabe cop Tyler who sees a guy on a mountain by a lodge, puts his life in danger out of curiosity and happens to foil a kidnapping and potential rape/attempted murder by a stupid group of criminals.

-- there is no sense that the gang has a plan or is capable of an elaborate plan
-- there is no sense that Manning is important
-- there is no sense why Tyler does what he does or who he is

Admittedly the first 20 or so pages develops the sense of the story, but your first five pages are not enough to hook me at present. Storywise, you need to be clear who is the protagonist and antagonist. If this is about the gang and their plan, they are the protagonists. If this is about Tyler, then they are the antagonists. Whoever is your protagonist is the one who needs the "moral flaw". If it's Manning, then you need to seriously re-write the intro so he's obviously the protagonist.

I just have to come up with a reason for ...

This is where you often get into trouble. Remember keep it simple and realistic to your character. Don't make them act contrary to common sense.

 

[harmonica44]

You need to be careful. You said in previous threads that this was a story about the cop, not the gang. This clearly says the opposite. It sounds like you still haven't decided what your story is really about.

Are you pursuing a story about a gang's elaborate scheme ("heist type film")

-OR-

A story about a good cop who goes bad ("anti-hero's journey") ?
​

You have to decide which you want to tell because it determines who is your protagonist. You CANNOT HAVE two competing protagonists. One HAS TO BE the antagonist. Choose wisely.

Who is Manning in relation to the story? He comes across as a minor background character. No one cares about Manning or his moral flaw. It comes across more as fear than moral uncertainty btw. Tyler comes across as the principal lead. If so, he's the one you need to focus on developing. Or if you go the heist route, you need to really amp up the gang development and bring Tyler in later. If Manning is the person you want the audience to follow, you've done very poor set up. You need to highlight his role with more development before introducing Tyler.


Development. The audience knows the character and is emotionally invested in his taking action. Yours is off duty and starting at page one. No development, no emotional investment. Your situation is nowhere close to that one. It's not even clear Tyler is a cop. He could be a security guard (on or off duty) who is a wannabe cop so he listens to the police band.

At present, the audience sees a wannabe cop Tyler who sees a guy on a mountain by a lodge, puts his life in danger out of curiosity and happens to foil a kidnapping and potential rape/attempted murder by a stupid group of criminals.

-- there is no sense that the gang has a plan or is capable of an elaborate plan
-- there is no sense that Manning is important
-- there is no sense why Tyler does what he does or who he is

Admittedly the first 20 or so pages develops the sense of the story, but your first five pages are not enough to hook me at present. Storywise, you need to be clear who is the protagonist and antagonist. If this is about the gang and their plan, they are the protagonists. If this is about Tyler, then they are the antagonists. Whoever is your protagonist is the one who needs the "moral flaw". If it's Manning, then you need to seriously re-write the intro so he's obviously the protagonist.


This is where you often get into trouble. Remember keep it simple and realistic to your character. Don't make them act contrary to common sense.

Okay thanks. Yes Tyler is the main character, and it's an antihero type journey. Even though most of the story is told from Tyler's point of view however, the antagonist's plan is important. It sets up how Tyler becomes the way he is. Sorry if I mis-explained before. What I meant is, is that Tyler is the main character, but the antagonists plan is important cause it has a great impact on Tyler's development and goals.

It's kind like how in a movie like Seven, it's told from the two cops' point of view, but the plan is still an elaborate and big plan. In the movie Oldboy, it's told from a protagonist's view, but the villain still has an elaborate plan. The plan is still a huge part of the story even though most of the story is told from the protagonists point of view.

Now Manning is not the protagonist but he is around the 4th or 5th main character, and his moral flaw (although not all established yet in the first few pages), is a necessary in the story, cause it creates his motive to make a certain chain event of decisions which bring the story to a certain destination later. His role is required, but he also needs to have motive for it make sense as well. I can still develop Manning as a 4th main character, can I not? There are lots of movies where a 4th main character, has morally conflicted development, even though it's just so we understand why he does what he does, in order to bring the story to a certain direction.

Now you say that Tyler is the one who needs the moral flaw, and his is established later on in good time. However, Manning's moral flaw is established in the opening scenario, because mainly it presents an opportunity to show it then. You say that the protagonist is the one who needs the moral flaw, which he will have one come too later, but are other characters not allowed to have them, even if it's required to create motive for certain things to happen in the story?

There are movies where secondary characters also have flaws aside from the protagonist.

Now since the gang does not seem capable of an elaborate plan, what could I do to make the audience think they are?

What can I do to make Manning seem more important at this point? There are movies though where a character's first scene will have that character thrown under a bus, like Manning's first scene. For example, in the movie Licence to Kill (1989), in the villain's first scene it shows him bust through the door, and catch a woman he lusts over, in bed with another man. He gets mad and beats her. Now we have no idea who this villain is really, or who this woman is, yet the first scene, has him throw her right under a bus. So what did they do to develop these characters, differently even though there is nothing done with them previously?

How can I write my characters like that where it's okay to throw them under a bus, on their first appearance, like that type of movie?

 

[maz]

If you're writing your characters as fully formed human beings, then they will all have moral flaws, even if most of them don't ever have the opportunity to demonstrate them. The protagonist is the focus, however, and his moral flaw needs more detailed exploration.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thrown them under a bus". I'm not sure how the example of the woman compares to Manning. Is the woman an important character subsequently?

 

[harmonica44]

Yes the woman in that movie was a main character. By throw them under a bus, I mean, their first scene, is them starting out in the middle of a predicament, or a moment of truth, without any prior knowledge of the character beforehand. However, Tyler does not have a moral flaw until after tragedy strikes him and he is shifted into antihero mode. So I cannot establish his in the first few pages, but I can establish Manning's. Manning's has to be established in this kidnapping scenario because after he realizes he cannot go through it, he does things afterwords as a result that drive the story in the required direction.

As for more exploration of Tyler, are their any examples of what I can do? Mainly to get the plot started, Tyler has to get a hunch and make this particular bust in order to get the plot going the way it needs to go. So I was hoping to develop his character through the hunch and bust to start him off. What can I do otherwise, that would be better? A few scenes later in the script, we show some of Tyler's private life with his wife. But I thought it would be best to introduce that after the hook, especially since it gives them something to talk about later, in addition to talking about themselves.

 

[maz]

What moral flaw is Manning supposed to be showing here?

 

[harmonica44]

Well at first he is just scared like maybe he got into the wrong business and it's not what he signed up for. This causes him to be a liability because he failed their test of devotion. Him now being in possible danger from them and him feeling guilty from the tragedy that follows the plan going wrong, causes him to act and prevent them from doing it again later. This leads to a series of events that is required to send the plot in certain directions.

 

[maz]

I didn't get any of that from the scene as written. Again, rape is a bad choice, as there are any number of reasons why Manning can't 'perform'. Is gang loyalty and devotion really going to be based on ability to get it up when surrounded by armed men?

I would say why not just have him kill a man, or torture him or something?

 

[harmonica44]

Well that's like asking why in Die Hard, did they decide to rob a complicated building instead of just some simple armored cars or something. You change the crime, you change the story. It has to be this crime specifically, for plot that comes later. They are really just killing two birds with one stone, rather than killing or torture a man who is not necessary for their plan.

I see what you mean though, at first the crime may come off as not necessary or not important to the audience. What if I wrote it so that Manning said to Henderson "Can't I just do something else, like torture someone?". And Henderson replies back "I have no reason to torture anyone right now. You want in, do what's necessary. This is what we need for our goal to work". Or something like that?

 

[maz]

Well that's like asking why in Die Hard, did they decide to rob a complicated building instead of just some simple armored cars or something. You change the crime, you change the story. It has to be this crime specifically, for plot that comes later. They are really just killing two birds with one stone, rather than killing or torture a man who is not necessary for their plan.

I see what you mean though, at first the crime may come off as not necessary or not important to the audience. What if I wrote it so that Manning said to Henderson "Can't I just do something else, like torture someone?". And Henderson replies back "I have no reason to torture anyone right now. You want in, do what's necessary. This is what we need for our goal to work". Or something like that?

You can't argue with biology though, so rape shows nothing about devotion, loyalty, obedience or anything else. And what purpose does rape serve that torture wouldn't?

(And it isn't like Die Hard. The whole point of Die Hard is the gang attempt a daring, massive-scale heist that needs a big hero to resolve. It's deliberately set up to be just about the most extreme thing they can do. Raping a woman in her own home is not even the most extreme thing they can do to that particular woman, let alone at all).

 

[harmonica44]

Well the thing is, is they wanted to film the rape, in order for another character to see it, so they could bait him into reacting and doing something.

The reason why I chose rape is because people tend to take rape more seriously than torture, especially in the movies for some reason. I mean if you look at a movie like The Last House on the Left (2009) for example, two parents find their daughter beat up and shot, but still alive. They are worried she won't make it, and as the doctor Dad is trying to take care of her, he finds out that she has been raped. He becomes even more traumatized and then tells the Mom. The Mom then reacts by saying"No! No!". Or something along those lines.

In the movie Trust (2010), the parents find out that their daughter has been raped, and are very angry about it. However, if in both those movies, the daughters were just beaten up or tortured, I don't think the parents would have the same reaction. Rape is just more personal to a lot of people, than being beaten, or assaulted. Hard Candy (2005), and Irreversible (2003), also had rapes being avenged, but they could have used other forms of violence, but they chose rape particularly, to get a more personal reaction from the avengers.

Even in real life, I was beaten up in school once when I was 15. I wanted to call the police and have them do something about by my parents talked me out of it and said let's call if it happens again. However, I bet if I was raped at school they would have pressed charges immediately. People just take rape a lot more personally, and I don't know if torture alone would work to get as strong enough of a reaction that is required for the plot, for the villains plan to work. This what my female friend said who helped me come up with some of the ideas, but that's her opinion so far. But according to those movies, she may have a point.

Of course in my script the attempted rape is stopped, but the intent of it, still has to be there to create that logical personal reaction I think. In Cape Fear (1991), the lawyer protagonist, feels he needs to stop the villain cause the villain plans on very possibly raping his wife and daughter. Not beat or torture. Rape. If torture is just as equal, then why didn't they just use that to stir his panic? What do you think? Can torture work just as well? If rape is not necessary and comes off as exploitative even, then why did movies like Trust or the Last House on the Left, just use torture instead?

Also here, is the opening to Licence to Kill:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wye2OCpyFt4

In this opening at 2:10 into the video, the first shots you see of the villains take a woman captive, and beat her. Now you do not know who these characters, are and there are no scenes of them previously in order to develop them. They start out in the middle of a kidnapping, right then and there. So how can I write it like that, where it's written in a way, in which you are invested in them, even though there is no prior development?