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

Opinions/Criticisms Please

M

mthompsonfilms

Hello all. I've recently finished a new short script, and I'd love to know what you guys think of it. It's called "Golden Sombrero," which is a baseball term for those of you that don't know. It's not about baseball, by the way. I'm a relatively inexperienced writer and I could certainly use some advice. Mostly, I'd like to hear your opinions of the ending.
Do you think it's too cheesy and formulaic, and/or that I left the fate of the protagonist too vague?

Anyway, here it is: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Zjc3OS00NjUwLTg2Y2YtMDY1NWQwYzEyZmNk&hl=en_US

EDIT: I just read through and spotted a few minor grammar mistakes, as well as one pretty annoying oopsie in the last action section. Feel free to point out any mistakes you find, but I may have beaten you to it on a few of them.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Overall I thought it was good. The dialogue can be tightened up. It reads more like talking heads. Many of the exchanges are too long. Imagine shooting this, you'll be focused on the person for a significant portion of time. While I'm not saying reduce everything to two lines, do go through and sift it down to what's essential.

Code: 
               GREG
Not just my savagery, I mean. All men like me. Violent 
criminals keep society in order. More than the cops do, 
anyway. Violence is a distraction, an excitement. It
gathers people’s attention. Every morning people are 
eager to read in their newspapers about what sorts
of bad things men like me did the night before. People 
are always in the mood for violence. Take this baseball 
bat, for instance. I must of cracked three dozen heads 
with it, but it’s always new. It’s fun, it’s fresh, it’s exciting. 
Busting someone’s brains out will never lose my interest, 
or that of the public.

                 JACK
You got a point here, or are you just trying to convince 
me that everyone is violently insane?
This can be better broken up and condensed with the same overall message.

Code: 
               GREG
Not just mine. All men like me. Violent criminals keep 
society in order. More than the cops do, anyway. 
For the public, violence is a distraction, an excitement. 
Every morning people are eager to read in their 
newspapers about what sorts of bad things men like 
me did the night before. People are always in the mood 
for violence. 

Greg takes the baseball bat and weighs it, tapping it in his
palm, staring at it.

                 GREG
Take this, for instance. I must of cracked three dozen heads 
with it, but it’s always new. It’s fun, fresh, exciting.  Busting 
someone’s brains out will never lose my interest, 

Greg looks up and holds it out in front of Jack's face.

                 GREG
... or that of the public.

                 JACK
You got a point here, or are you just trying to convince 
me that everyone is violently insane?
By breaking it up, it becomes more readable and there are now useable shots. It's no longer just a close up flipping between two heads. The reader can start to see a medium shot of how Greg is acting. This is helpful for Greg's actor also. I removed just a few words to keep the same sense. Really, think about the poor actor who needs to deliver these lines.

The ending is unfulfilling because it doesn't bring the resolution you want. I'd change it a bit. Below is your original. Your actions are compact. That's fine for a story, but in a screenplay you want to break them out a bit more. That's true for the rest of your script, but I'll focus here on the last piece.
Code: 
Both men reel backwards and Greg drops the gun. They stare
at their wounds. Greg pulls at the handle in his stomach. He
vomits blood.

GREG
Fuck. Fuck.

JACK
(examining his wound)
You son of a bitch!

Jack grabs the gun from the floor and fires three shots into
Greg’s torso. Greg collapses and begins to gurgle blood.
Jack begins to kick and stomp him.

JACK
Motherfucking son of a bitch!

Jack kneels down and pulls the handle out of Greg’s stomach.
Jack stabs Greg repeatedly with it. Greg grabs the revolver
and fires the final shot into Jack’s chest. Jack falls
backwards. Greg dies. Jack pukes blood as he pulls back
against a wall and leans on it. He breathes heavily.
You need to break up these action shots. It will lengthen your script slightly but it will give you a more realistic view of the timing.
Code: 
Both men reel backwards and Greg drops the gun. 

They stare at their wounds. 

Greg pulls at the handle in his stomach. He vomits blood.

                    GREG
         Fuck. Fuck.

                    JACK
         You son of a bitch!

Jack grabs the gun from the floor and fires three shots into
Greg’s torso. 

Greg collapses and begins to gurgle blood.

Jack stumbles towards him and begins to kick and stomp him.

                     JACK
          Motherfucking son of a bitch!

Jack kneels down and pulls the handle out of Greg’s stomach.

Greg grabs the revolver and fires the final shot into Jack’s chest. 
Jack falls backwards. 

                      GREG
          Are we so different, Jack?

Greg dies. 

Jack pukes blood as he pulls back against a wall and leans on it. He breathes heavily.
He slowly slides down the wall leaving a smear of blood as he gazes over a Greg's
body.
It just needs something to tie it all together. The elements are broken out into shots.

Overall I think it is good for a short.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks a lot for the advice. I've always written my shorts in that format and I guess I never thought much of it. When I write a short I plan all the shots out on a different sheet of paper, as opposed to writing them in like that, but I think that will change. Also, I doubt the actor playing Greg would have much difficulty with the part since I'd do the bit myself if I ever film this lol. Again, thank you very much.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I started reading it, then realized it was going to involve graphic violence and murder, probably of the intense kind, and I stopped reading.

I think you can probably write, but I can't really stomach murderous violence all that well.

So, I skipped to the end. And had to figure out who had been killed.

One thing I want to say is, if you're going to kill a human being in your story, then I believe you shouldn't try to make the audience an accessory to the fact. I don't think they should be encouraged to share the urge to kill, or feel that the man killed somehow deserved to die.

I don't believe the writer was ever given the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Did he really deserve to die?

But then I don't agree with the death penalty. So, my answer would be "no".
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maralyn said:
I started reading it, then realized it was going to involve graphic violence and murder, probably of the intense kind, and I stopped reading.

I think you can probably write, but I can't really stomach murderous violence all that well.

So, I skipped to the end. And had to figure out who had been killed.

One thing I want to say is, if you're going to kill a human being in your story, then I believe you shouldn't try to make the audience an accessory to the fact. I don't think they should be encouraged to share the urge to kill, or feel that the man killed somehow deserved to die.

I don't believe the writer was ever given the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Did he really deserve to die?

But then I don't agree with the death penalty. So, my answer would be "no".
Click to expand...

But you didn't read the script. Your answer is "no", to what?! Your comments are way off-base.

mthompson, it's way too talky, man. It's basically all dialogue, and then they kill each other. Don't try to be Tarantino. His talking actually does serve the story. Think story first, and then talking comes second.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In another thread, I mentioned there are four "types" of writers--visual, verbal, action, and emotional. You sound very much like the "verbal writer". You hear great exchanges in your head, the characters' voices are distinct, the message is clear, and you can get great effect. Tarantino falls into this group as well.

The verbal writer tends to write great dialogue--just LOTS of it. So much, that it swamps the actor and fills the script page with dense paragraphs. The advantage is that you can really get great nuance with what you write. One line can be very powerful. The downside is that most verbal writers don't create visual spaces, descriptions of characters or even put in lots of action. Now if you're like Tarantino and shooting your own script, that's not a problem. When you want someone else to shoot your script, that makes it harder. A reader/director/producer needs to have some visual elements in there.

The challenge for a verbal writer is to make more of their dialogue carried by the actor's abilities to portray it visually. This involves some trust. Unlike the visual writer, the verbal writer needs to get pictures of places and people and add those to his script. The good news is you have the vocabulary to be succinct about that. Just don't go creative writing instructor, hog wild in your descriptions.

Where verbal writers tend to get blocked is they can think where to go next with their story. An exchange captures their imagination and then stops there. The before and after don't always flow. They need to sit and map out their story and its structure. Unlike the visual, you need to walk through the house with it empty, then put in the characters.

Your short starts abruptly and ends abruptly. And in your question, you weren't sure how it should end. This is a good place to work with a visual or action writer. Action writers are short and to the point. Little dialogue with lots of action and sparse description. Action and visual writers also tend to be actors and directors. While they may want to chop dialogue way down, they can help bring a sleekness to a script. Good luck!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thanks everyone, I appreciate all of your thoughts. I think perhaps the reason I use a lot of dialogue in many of my screenplays is because I've got a bit of a background in theatre. I guess I just prefer dialogue-driven stories, although I am by no means opposed to action. I just felt that this story in particular didn't need a lot of action; many of my other screenplays are either primarily action or alternating between action and dialogue. I think my problem is that I only think of chunks of a larger story. I can think of good scenes, but I can never put them together, which explains why I've never written a feature, I guess.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maralyn said:
I started reading it, then realized it was going to involve graphic violence and murder, probably of the intense kind, and I stopped reading.

One thing I want to say is, if you're going to kill a human being in your story, then I believe you shouldn't try to make the audience an accessory to the fact. I don't think they should be encouraged to share the urge to kill, or feel that the man killed somehow deserved to die.
Click to expand...


I think when it comes to the death/murder of a character in a movie/book the audience absolutely has to be involved in the process. I mean I as the viewer/reader, have got to have a point of view about the whole situation. Does it make sense to you?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maralyn said:
I started reading it, then realized it was going to involve graphic violence and murder, probably of the intense kind, and I stopped reading.

I think you can probably write, but I can't really stomach murderous violence all that well.

So, I skipped to the end. And had to figure out who had been killed.

One thing I want to say is, if you're going to kill a human being in your story, then I believe you shouldn't try to make the audience an accessory to the fact. I don't think they should be encouraged to share the urge to kill, or feel that the man killed somehow deserved to die.

I don't believe the writer was ever given the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Did he really deserve to die?

But then I don't agree with the death penalty. So, my answer would be "no".
Click to expand...


Are you actually comparing "writing a story" to somebody who actually has the power to play executioner and the death penalty?! It's a flipping story.

If you are being serious... woofta.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mthompsonfilms said:
Thanks everyone, I appreciate all of your thoughts. I think perhaps the reason I use a lot of dialogue in many of my screenplays is because I've got a bit of a background in theatre. I guess I just prefer dialogue-driven stories, although I am by no means opposed to action. I just felt that this story in particular didn't need a lot of action; many of my other screenplays are either primarily action or alternating between action and dialogue. I think my problem is that I only think of chunks of a larger story. I can think of good scenes, but I can never put them together, which explains why I've never written a feature, I guess.
Click to expand...

Just remember... theater is completely different than narrative work..

Get your story across by showing it. Let the viewer/audience fill in the rest.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mthompsonfilms said:
Hello all. I've recently finished a new short script, and I'd love to know what you guys think of it. It's called "Golden Sombrero," which is a baseball term for those of you that don't know. It's not about baseball, by the way. I'm a relatively inexperienced writer and I could certainly use some advice. Mostly, I'd like to hear your opinions of the ending.
Do you think it's too cheesy and formulaic, and/or that I left the fate of the protagonist too vague?

Anyway, here it is: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...Zjc3OS00NjUwLTg2Y2YtMDY1NWQwYzEyZmNk&hl=en_US

EDIT: I just read through and spotted a few minor grammer mistakes, as well as one pretty annoying oopsie in the last action section. Feel free to point out any mistakes you find, but I may have beaten you to it on a few of them.
Click to expand...

Powerful dialog.

Point, counter-point.

Also -- not just effective dialog, but far more cerebral than generally seen.

In fact, in an academic sense more insightful than even Dashiell Hammett's film noir.

Sidney Greenstreet as an enforcer.

A beefed up Peter Lorrre.

A bit too cerebral?

Maybe.

I should say, some of the points made above about too much dialog are true -- but that's too much mediocre dialog!

Dialog as powerful as yours can break the rules!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
mthompsonfilms said:
Thank you! It really means a lot to me that you enjoyed it.
Click to expand...



Be careful of the advice you get around here.

Technically speaking, these people are amazing, but when it comes to screenwriting, most of them haven't the foggiest Idea what they're doing.

Your dialog was far and away better than ANYTHING I've seen here and the fact these guys didn't know that speaks volumes.

FantasySciFi said:
Overall I thought it was good. The dialogue can be tightened up. It reads more like talking heads. Many of the exchanges are too long. Imagine shooting this, you'll be focused on the person for a significant portion of time. While I'm not saying reduce everything to two lines, do go through and sift it down to what's essential.

Code: 
               GREG
Not just my savagery, I mean. All men like me. Violent 
criminals keep society in order. More than the cops do, 
anyway. Violence is a distraction, an excitement. It
gathers people’s attention. Every morning people are 
eager to read in their newspapers about what sorts
of bad things men like me did the night before. People 
are always in the mood for violence. Take this baseball 
bat, for instance. I must of cracked three dozen heads 
with it, but it’s always new. It’s fun, it’s fresh, it’s exciting. 
Busting someone’s brains out will never lose my interest, 
or that of the public.

                 JACK
You got a point here, or are you just trying to convince 
me that everyone is violently insane?
This can be better broken up and condensed with the same overall message.

Code: 
               GREG
Not just mine. All men like me. Violent criminals keep 
society in order. More than the cops do, anyway. 
For the public, violence is a distraction, an excitement. 
Every morning people are eager to read in their 
newspapers about what sorts of bad things men like 
me did the night before. People are always in the mood 
for violence. 

Greg takes the baseball bat and weighs it, tapping it in his
palm, staring at it.

                 GREG
Take this, for instance. I must of cracked three dozen heads 
with it, but it’s always new. It’s fun, fresh, exciting.  Busting 
someone’s brains out will never lose my interest, 

Greg looks up and holds it out in front of Jack's face.

                 GREG
... or that of the public.

                 JACK
You got a point here, or are you just trying to convince 
me that everyone is violently insane?
By breaking it up, it becomes more readable and there are now useable shots. It's no longer just a close up flipping between two heads. The reader can start to see a medium shot of how Greg is acting. This is helpful for Greg's actor also. I removed just a few words to keep the same sense. Really, think about the poor actor who needs to deliver these lines.

The ending is unfulfilling because it doesn't bring the resolution you want. I'd change it a bit. Below is your original. Your actions are compact. That's fine for a story, but in a screenplay you want to break them out a bit more. That's true for the rest of your script, but I'll focus here on the last piece.
Code: 
Both men reel backwards and Greg drops the gun. They stare
at their wounds. Greg pulls at the handle in his stomach. He
vomits blood.

GREG
Fuck. Fuck.

JACK
(examining his wound)
You son of a bitch!

Jack grabs the gun from the floor and fires three shots into
Greg’s torso. Greg collapses and begins to gurgle blood.
Jack begins to kick and stomp him.

JACK
Motherfucking son of a bitch!

Jack kneels down and pulls the handle out of Greg’s stomach.
Jack stabs Greg repeatedly with it. Greg grabs the revolver
and fires the final shot into Jack’s chest. Jack falls
backwards. Greg dies. Jack pukes blood as he pulls back
against a wall and leans on it. He breathes heavily.
You need to break up these action shots. It will lengthen your script slightly but it will give you a more realistic view of the timing.
Code: 
Both men reel backwards and Greg drops the gun. 

They stare at their wounds. 

Greg pulls at the handle in his stomach. He vomits blood.

                    GREG
         Fuck. Fuck.

                    JACK
         You son of a bitch!

Jack grabs the gun from the floor and fires three shots into
Greg’s torso. 

Greg collapses and begins to gurgle blood.

Jack stumbles towards him and begins to kick and stomp him.

                     JACK
          Motherfucking son of a bitch!

Jack kneels down and pulls the handle out of Greg’s stomach.

Greg grabs the revolver and fires the final shot into Jack’s chest. 
Jack falls backwards. 

                      GREG
          Are we so different, Jack?

Greg dies. 

Jack pukes blood as he pulls back against a wall and leans on it. He breathes heavily.
He slowly slides down the wall leaving a smear of blood as he gazes over a Greg's
body.
It just needs something to tie it all together. The elements are broken out into shots.

Overall I think it is good for a short.
Click to expand...

Your suggestions probably would improve the scene but what I find disconcerting is your casual "it's good."

The dialog is not just good -- it's very, very good and by not saying this you send the wrong message -- ie, format is more important than content.

It isn't.

maralyn said:
I started reading it, then realized it was going to involve graphic violence and murder, probably of the intense kind, and I stopped reading.

I think you can probably write, but I can't really stomach murderous violence all that well.

So, I skipped to the end. And had to figure out who had been killed.

One thing I want to say is, if you're going to kill a human being in your story, then I believe you shouldn't try to make the audience an accessory to the fact. I don't think they should be encouraged to share the urge to kill, or feel that the man killed somehow deserved to die.

I don't believe the writer was ever given the role of judge, jury and executioner.

Did he really deserve to die?

But then I don't agree with the death penalty. So, my answer would be "no".
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how ridiculous this comment is?:

"I didn't read your scene but here's how you can improve it."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0 Downvote
FantasySciFi said:
In another thread, I mentioned there are four "types" of writers--visual, verbal, action, and emotional. You sound very much like the "verbal writer". You hear great exchanges in your head, the characters' voices are distinct, the message is clear, and you can get great effect. Tarantino falls into this group as well.

The verbal writer tends to write great dialogue--just LOTS of it. So much, that it swamps the actor and fills the script page with dense paragraphs. The advantage is that you can really get great nuance with what you write. One line can be very powerful. The downside is that most verbal writers don't create visual spaces, descriptions of characters or even put in lots of action. Now if you're like Tarantino and shooting your own script, that's not a problem. When you want someone else to shoot your script, that makes it harder. A reader/director/producer needs to have some visual elements in there.

The challenge for a verbal writer is to make more of their dialogue carried by the actor's abilities to portray it visually. This involves some trust. Unlike the visual writer, the verbal writer needs to get pictures of places and people and add those to his script. The good news is you have the vocabulary to be succinct about that. Just don't go creative writing instructor, hog wild in your descriptions.

Where verbal writers tend to get blocked is they can think where to go next with their story. An exchange captures their imagination and then stops there. The before and after don't always flow. They need to sit and map out their story and its structure. Unlike the visual, you need to walk through the house with it empty, then put in the characters.

Your short starts abruptly and ends abruptly. And in your question, you weren't sure how it should end. This is a good place to work with a visual or action writer. Action writers are short and to the point. Little dialogue with lots of action and sparse description. Action and visual writers also tend to be actors and directors. While they may want to chop dialogue way down, they can help bring a sleekness to a script. Good luck!
Click to expand...

Really, FantasySciFi, it's that simple?

No, it's not that simple.

If you don't have anything to say, all the dramatic technique in the world isn't going to save your script or your ass.

The above is your second comment on the scene and again it misses the salient point -- what was actually said.

The rules you point out may be helpful, but they're not what makes a screenplay extraordinary. A studio can hire an intern to fix the things you mention -- but no intern can punch out the world class dialog we get in this scene.

Basically, the QUALITY of the dialog went over everybody's head here.

And don't come back and say you said it was "good."

You didn't realize how good and probably still don't.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think this person possibly has the potential to write well, but you can't say this was great.

Two tough guys talk tough for a bit, then kill each other.

Apart from being gratuitous violence, which is what I was sort of trying to get at, it didn't seem particularly original. I had to keep looking at the character's names to see who was talking, and that's not good, that means he's used the same tone for each.

I also agree that dialogue is the consequence of the drama, rather than what's driving it.

But I think he's got potential. I don't think he should be offended, but I mean, we've all seen tough guys talking ad nauseam.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well I don't know, maralyn, I'll admit the script isn't a masterpiece (I am 17 years old and this is only like my fifth short), but I disagree that the two characters are written with the same tone. One is obviously more cynical and, at least in his own mind, realistic. The other is by no means an optimist, but he at least has a mildly positive view of humanity. And as for the originality, I didn't exactly set out to write some mind-blowing script that has things no one has heard of before. Most of my scripts start with a genre which I enjoy and am familiar with, in this case mob/noir type stuff, and I build a story from there. Most stories are generic, but I like to think while mine may build off familiar scenarios and/or characters, my scripts are still interesting enough in their own right to be worth reading. I appreciate your comments, though, and I'll definitely work on some of the things you've mentioned.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I just wanted to say, I agree with the people who say it should be broken up and less density to the paragraphs, BUT I would like you to know that what you do have is tremendous - you should not get rid of any of it.
FYI I would like to help film - if only WV wasnt so far away
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maralyn said:
I think this person possibly has the potential to write well, but you can't say this was great.

Two tough guys talk tough for a bit, then kill each other.

Apart from being gratuitous violence, which is what I was sort of trying to get at, it didn't seem particularly original. I had to keep looking at the character's names to see who was talking, and that's not good, that means he's used the same tone for each.

I also agree that dialogue is the consequence of the drama, rather than what's driving it.

But I think he's got potential. I don't think he should be offended, but I mean, we've all seen tough guys talking ad nauseam.
Click to expand...

Show me a better antagonist speech. Pull it from wherever you like and post it here.

And please don't ever use the words "he's got potential" in a critique again -- especially one in which you say the writer lacked originality.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mthompsonfilms said:
Well I don't know, maralyn, I'll admit the script isn't a masterpiece (I am 17 years old and this is only like my fifth short), but I disagree that the two characters are written with the same tone. One is obviously more cynical and, at least in his own mind, realistic. The other is by no means an optimist, but he at least has a mildly positive view of humanity. And as for the originality, I didn't exactly set out to write some mind-blowing script that has things no one has heard of before. Most of my scripts start with a genre which I enjoy and am familiar with, in this case mob/noir type stuff, and I build a story from there. Most stories are generic, but I like to think while mine may build off familiar scenarios and/or characters, my scripts are still interesting enough in their own right to be worth reading. I appreciate your comments, though, and I'll definitely work on some of the things you've mentioned.
Click to expand...


Maralyn had no point at all. Most of these people don't -- they file their comments because they think that's what they're supposed to do. The telling thing is their comments are sprinkled with buzz words that generally have no application to the referenced scene or script.

Get a copy of "The Maltese Falcon" screenplay and you'll see speeches very much like yours throughout.

It's "film noir" a genre these folks are unfamiliar with.

In film noir or hard-boiled films the heavy is always a bit of philosopher. Check out "Double Indemnity" it's on youtube. Fred McMurray opens the movie talking into a recorder. His speech is maybe five minutes long with no action save for his draw on his cigarette.

I'm not trying to be a wise guy, it's just painfully clear to me these people are totally unfamiliar with the genre, as I say.

Your sensibilities are spot on. You bad guy speech was marvelous... poetry, really.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top