Opinions/Criticisms Please

[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.

Spoiler

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.

 

[garylloyd]

Well, gee. That is probably the nicest thing anyone has ever said about my writing. I'll try not to let that go to my head too much lol.

Be careful of these forum hacks who exist for no other purpose than tearing people down.

And if you haven't done so already, check out the films I've mentioned.

You might also go to Drews Scripts and download Maltese Falcon. If you do pay close attention to the Sidney Greenstreet character Casper Gutman. He turns into a gangster-philosopher several times just as your heavy does.

One criticism, if you're going to do real film noir, it might be best to eliminate all profanity. These movies were made during the 30s, 40s, 50s when profanity was not allowed.

Finally, you might be better served in a screenwriting forum where people have actually studied the craft of writing and screenwriting and aren't just winging it.

 

[Skreamings]

Be careful of these forum hacks who exist for no other purpose than tearing people down.

Michael, Gary is right. You should be careful on these forums. In fact you should take a look at some of Gary's other posts to see how he the master of criticism and trollism.

You should probably also take a look at some of his scripts to see if he is the person you really want to be taking screenwriting advice from.

 

[FantasySciFi]

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

Hasty generalization. But you haven't demonstrated you're anymore qualified.

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

If this were a stage play, it may work. Film is a visual medium. I think that the messages are powerful. He is a very 'verbal writer'. 'Verbal' movies, when poorly handled, are boring. The purpose of this forum is to help people develop. General audiences--as you find in festivals--like balanced dialogues. Professional readers look at white space and dialogue/action balance. Advice can always be ignored.

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.

My comment is about the SHORT, not the dialogue. It starts abruptly, and as written, has a very unsatisfying ending. I think the dialogue was superior but it's too dense and cerebral. It has redundancy which could be trimmed. The message I took away was he wanted to portray both "good" and "bad" were equally violent. But as a reader/viewer that wasn't handled to the best of his ability. I stand by the fact that it is good because it still has room for improvement.

Really, FantasySciFi, it's that simple?
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.

You apparently are a 'verbal' writer too. The point is not that he can't write good dialogue. I agree that he can. But there is more than the dialogue. My comments are to help guide him to think beyond dialogue. If this went to a studio reader, it would never get past the reader. They need to be fixed to be seen in the first place.

By his own admission, he doesn't know how to join them together. That can be frustrating. In working with students, I've found understanding one's writing preference gives some control and recognition. I'm not telling him how to write an extraordinary screenplay, just make the short he has written to work. At the moment, he doesn't have a story, just a scene. As a good screenwriter knows, story is important, and the screenplay is a blueprint for a visual medium, not a radio play.

You didn't realize how good and probably still don't.

Again, those are your assumptions. It has potential but it's not a masterpiece. This short is just a scene with limited visuals and no concrete story. The dialogue is philosophical but does nothing to explain the scene or move it forward. Maybe an experienced director like Tarantino can arrange the shots to make these lengthly monologues work, though his work tells a strong story with visual elements as well. I encourage him to shoot the script. I've read some very powerful shorts on this forum. And unfortunately, sometimes even the writer doesn't see the potential.

In this case, it is good, not great in my opinion. I respect that you see brilliance here.

 

[maralyn]

Anyway, let's not argue.

I am 17 years old and this is only like my fifth short

well, that is amazing. I can't really remember what I was doing when I was 17.

Trying to figure out how to drop out of school, and live it up on a fake ID, from memory. I definitely can't remember wanting to spend time stringing words together. That would have been on my list of things to do after death.

But try to put a bit of a story together before you write, even just a rough sequence of events, at least.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Mark this day on a calendar -- maralyn and I agree on something!

Thompson -- Skreaming's post above is a warning I think you should heed. gloyd is summarily discounting the opinions of EVERY SINGLE person in this thread, with some very broad generalizations that don't really apply to anybody. He may not be your best source of advice.

What you have written could be the best bad-guy monologue in the history of cinema, but it would still be a shitty short film. As FantasySciFi pointed out, great dialogue does not a great short film make. You still need this little thing called "plot".

Contrary to what gloyd thinks, I'm not saying these things to tear you down. I want you to succeed. You're a good writer. Keep improving.

 

[garylloyd]

Michael, Gary is right. You should be careful on these forums. In fact you should take a look at some of Gary's other posts to see how he the master of criticism and trollism.

You should probably also take a look at some of his scripts to see if he is the person you really want to be taking screenwriting advice from.

And while you're looking at my posts, be sure to find the one where I tell Sreamings the truth about his short.

That will help you understand his rant directly above.

 

[garylloyd]

Hasty generalization. But you haven't demonstrated you're anymore qualified.

If this were a stage play, it may work. Film is a visual medium. I think that the messages are powerful. He is a very 'verbal writer'. 'Verbal' movies, when poorly handled, are boring. The purpose of this forum is to help people develop. General audiences--as you find in festivals--like balanced dialogues. Professional readers look at white space and dialogue/action balance. Advice can always be ignored.


My comment is about the SHORT, not the dialogue. It starts abruptly, and as written, has a very unsatisfying ending. I think the dialogue was superior but it's too dense and cerebral. It has redundancy which could be trimmed. The message I took away was he wanted to portray both "good" and "bad" were equally violent. But as a reader/viewer that wasn't handled to the best of his ability. I stand by the fact that it is good because it still has room for improvement.


You apparently are a 'verbal' writer too. The point is not that he can't write good dialogue. I agree that he can. But there is more than the dialogue. My comments are to help guide him to think beyond dialogue. If this went to a studio reader, it would never get past the reader. They need to be fixed to be seen in the first place.

By his own admission, he doesn't know how to join them together. That can be frustrating. In working with students, I've found understanding one's writing preference gives some control and recognition. I'm not telling him how to write an extraordinary screenplay, just make the short he has written to work. At the moment, he doesn't have a story, just a scene. As a good screenwriter knows, story is important, and the screenplay is a blueprint for a visual medium, not a radio play.


Again, those are your assumptions. It has potential but it's not a masterpiece. This short is just a scene with limited visuals and no concrete story. The dialogue is philosophical but does nothing to explain the scene or move it forward. Maybe an experienced director like Tarantino can arrange the shots to make these lengthly monologues work, though his work tells a strong story with visual elements as well. I encourage him to shoot the script. I've read some very powerful shorts on this forum. And unfortunately, sometimes even the writer doesn't see the potential.

In this case, it is good, not great in my opinion. I respect that you see brilliance here.

It was just a scene, not an entire screenplay and as a scene it really doesn't need the encyclopedic listing of things you say it does above -- we know this because scenes like this exist in in quality films, most especially in "film noir" genre. For example, in the Maltese Falcon Humphrey Bogart tells Mary Astor why he's "sending her over." It goes on for a minute or two where he waxes elegant about the private-eye code he lives by so forth and so on. There's no action; the two are standing in front of each other.

You, and most of you fellows, look for an excuse to trot out your catch phrases and hack admonitions. This game has become a end in itself -- whoever trots out the most buzz words wins!

Generally, you take the first paragraph in a script and see how many catch-phrases and buzz words you can hang on it:

1. Stop trying to sound like Tarantino!

2. Drama is a visual art!

3. Talking heads!

4. You have potential, but ....

5. That was good, but ...

And it doesn't matter if the poor fellow has only posted a single scene of his script -- no, you don't let that get in your way. You stack on your catch-phrases and Solomon-like admonitions nonstop:

"I see no character development here."

"Show don't tell!"

"You're writing radio!"

"Who's your protagonist?"

"Where's you McGuffin?"

The scene in question is what's called "In medias res"; that is, in the middle of things; which is to say, the catch-phrases and Solomon-like admonitions piled on here were entirely out of place. The scene should have been judged merely on the quality of its dialog -- not whether it satisfied every dramatic rule you fellows wanted to shoe-horn in.

Was the concept though-provoking?

Was it expressed concisely and well?

Did the diction fit the character, time, and place?

Was it logical?

Was it believable?

Original?

The answer to all these questions is an emphatic Yes! and that is a remarkable achievement -- most especially from a writer only 17 years old.

Certainly far better than what I've seen from any of you self-proclaimed pundits.

But I digress ...

 

[brianluce]

mthompson,
Bottom line, take any and every criticism/comment/accolade with a grain of salt. Sooner or later, don't even bother putting them out there for people like us to comment on. You're the expert as they say. Either produce them or sell them and let the cards fall where they fall. No one knows anything -- scripts sit in purgatory for years and suddenly get discovered, produced, and win Oscars. Reading screenplays and evaluating screenplays isn't rocket science, it's actually much more difficult.

 

[brianluce]

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.

.

Yes, but it's sexy to do that isn't it? We're talking a high level of skill now. Tarantino can do it, Doetoevsky, the great ones. To take someone to a place they don't want to be and make them like it? Wow!

This script doesn't do that and not sure if it supposed to do it, just commenting on your comment here.

 

[brianluce]

You, and most of you fellows, look for an excuse to trot out your catch phrases and hack admonitions. This game has become a end in itself -- whoever trots out the most buzz words wins!

Generally, you take the first paragraph in a script and see how many catch-phrases and buzz words you can hang on it:

1. Stop trying to sound like Tarantino!

2. Drama is a visual art!

3. Talking heads!

4. You have potential, but ....

5. That was good, but ...

And it doesn't matter if the poor fellow has only posted a single scene of his script -- no, you don't let that get in your way. You stack on your catch-phrases and Solomon-like admonitions nonstop:

"I see no character development here."

"Show don't tell!"

"You're writing radio!"

"Who's your protagonist?"

"Where's you McGuffin?"

The scene in question is what's called "In medias res"; that is, in the middle of things; which is to say, the catch-phrases and Solomon-like admonitions piled on here were entirely out of place. The scene should have been judged merely on the quality of its dialog -- not whether it satisfied every dramatic rule you fellows wanted to shoe-horn in.

Was the concept though-provoking?

Was it expressed concisely and well?

Did the diction fit the character, time, and place?

Was it logical?

Was it believable?

Original?

The answer to all these questions is an emphatic Yes! and that is a remarkable achievement -- most especially from a writer only 17 years old.

Certainly far better than what I've seen from any of you self-proclaimed pundits.

But I digress ...

I'm all for taking a piece in totality, I guess, but you've just substituted one list of buzz phrases for another.

And face it Gary, you're as much a self proclaimed pundit as anyone around here. Hypocrisy diminishes your insights.

 

[mad_hatter]

I spotted this a while back, but I've only just gotten round to reading it. Anyhow, I thought he dialogue was good. It felt natural and I could imagine people saying these things. I would, however, say that it could use some work. It definitely needs breaking up, as per Fantasy's comments.

This isn't really a story. No matter how short your movie, it should have a plot - beginning, middle, end. What you've got, as others have already pointed out, is just a scene. It works as a scene and it may be enjoyable to watch, as it doesn't go on too long. Really look at giving us some sort of a plotline.

That's all I've got, you've had some really good comments above.

It was just a scene, not an entire screenplay...

I think you've missed something Gary. It is an entire screenplay. It's a short film. What you see is what you get. Does that fact change your opinion of the script?

 

[garylloyd]

I'm all for taking a piece in totality, I guess, but you've just substituted one list of buzz phrases for another.

And face it Gary, you're as much a self proclaimed pundit as anyone around here. Hypocrisy diminishes your insights.

Right now they're flooding the kid's box telling him not to listen to anything I say. In fact, if he makes any indication that he agrees with anything I say he'll be ostracized for life around here.

None of the critiques were valid. Each was the same crap they roll out whenever a new person makes the mistake of posting his stuff.

They don't actually read his stuff, they look to see when he joined the group and how many posts he's made. If he's new, he gets the treatment the way this guy did.

And it's the same treatment over and over again -- "You have potential, but ..."

These people would rather cut off their arms than write something positive about a noob's work.

 

[JoshL]

These people would rather cut off their arms than write something positive about a noob's work.

gary, you crack me up man. Last week it was:

It's the most sickening thing in the world watching you so-called Indie filmmakers fawn over each other. Never, ever do you tell a person his work is dreck. It's like this is a therapy group, not a forum.

(also, for the record, in response to a first time poster)
So are people too positive or too negative?

Or are people finding opinions that are not relative to noobness (noobocity? noobitude?) and expressing them? You disagree with them, which is cool, and you make your point. All feedback and perspectives are good. It's these broad sweeping generalizations and personal attacks against the community that are out of place.

As has been said, just about everyone here wants to see just about everyone else succeed. If asked for opinions, we'll give them and you can trust that they're honest. Use them or ignore them based on your own judgement, and learn what you can from wherever you can!

 

[mthompsonfilms]

Geez. This turned into a bigger argument than I would have liked...

Oh well. I just thought I'd say that I have appreciated everyone's insights, be they praising my dialogue or suggesting how I make my writing flow better. I only posted the very first draft, and I've been going through and changing some (minor) things based on the suggestions of a few posters.

I'd also like to clear something up with those of you who have said things like, "It needs a plot" and such. Well, it has got a plot. The plot is that a gangster has kidnapped a detective and proceeds to tell him why he is the way he is, before being defeated by said detective, albeit in a hollow victory. That is all. This is not a scene, it is a complete film. I know, I know, a lot of things are left out, but that was intentional. I enjoy films and stories that provide the viewer/reader with only a portion of the story and let them assume the rest. Normally my screenplays don't leave much up to the reader, but in this case I thought it would be interesting to allow people to decide for themselves how the two characters wound up in their predicament.

 

[maralyn]

yeah, maybe criticism isn't all that productive early on. I don't know. I wasn't criticized as a noob. I just wrote whatever I wanted without ever even thinking about asking for feedback.

So I don't know. Maybe the only thing that matters is to write, and enjoy writing.

Even going into production on a terrible script doesn't matter. As long as it's only a short. No one is damaged by making shorts, you learn from everything you do.

I don't think it matters much what you do early on, as long as you're productive, and having fun, and collaborating.

And I disagree with the whole Tarantino being sexy comment. I think he's an abomination. And Dostoyevsky, he's just torture, and rightly so, suffering should be torture.

 

[brianluce]

I think your script, being talky, is something a lot of actors would want for their reel..
You should shoot it.

 

[garylloyd]

I want someone to show me dialog better than this:

GREG

Without villains there would be no
heroes. Because of my capacity for
violence, and that of other men in
my line of work, a group of people
with a similar capacity and a
similar mindset have risen up to
combat me. The police are psychos,
too. They just justify their
violence by choosing victims who
did the same thing first. An eye
for an eye, I guess.

JACK
You’re wrong, Farese. It’s my job
to stop men like you from hurting
innocents. It’s my job to enforce
the law. It’s my job to do what is
right.

 

[garylloyd]

Geez. This turned into a bigger argument than I would have liked...

Oh well. I just thought I'd say that I have appreciated everyone's insights, be they praising my dialogue or suggesting how I make my writing flow better. I only posted the very first draft, and I've been going through and changing some (minor) things based on the suggestions of a few posters.

I'd also like to clear something up with those of you who have said things like, "It needs a plot" and such. Well, it has got a plot. The plot is that a gangster has kidnapped a detective and proceeds to tell him why he is the way he is, before being defeated by said detective, albeit in a hollow victory. That is all. This is not a scene, it is a complete film. I know, I know, a lot of things are left out, but that was intentional. I enjoy films and stories that provide the viewer/reader with only a portion of the story and let them assume the rest. Normally my screenplays don't leave much up to the reader, but in this case I thought it would be interesting to allow people to decide for themselves how the two characters wound up in their predicament.

Actually, it is a scene and this is not something you get to define because you're the screenwriter.

You may not have worked out what comes before it or after yet. It may take you 20 years to do that. But no one ends up in a room tied to a chair with a maniac standing over them with a baseball by accident. A series of events caused this to happen and that series of events is the rest of the story.

But the plot or rest of the story is not needed to evaluate the dialog -- that's what these people get hopelessly wrong. A scene can be evaluated by itself and that means all the things they were talking about are irrelevant.

Your dialog is riveting. It's educational, even to me, a 50 year old man. I don't think I could have made Greg as eloquent as you did and I've been writing for a very long time.

These people slamming the scene don't write at your level -- I know, I've seen their work.

Then again, maybe it's a fluke. Do you have any other samples of dialog?

 

[mthompsonfilms]

Well, yeah, I guess it is a scene, but it is also the scene, the only scene. There is nothing more to it. It begins after Greg has kidnapped Jack and ends when they both lay dead or dying. Sure, something led up to this, and something may happen afterward, but that is no concern of mine. This is the story (or the part of the story) I wanted to tell, and I believe I did so effectively. Think of it like this: The events depicted in my screenplay happen as they unfold. The screenplay inhabits the present of the universe within the story. What happened before is the past, and what happens after is the future. I suppose I could define the past, but I don't really care to.

As mentioned above I'd prefer it if the events leading up to the screenplay were left to the reader. Or perhaps it is simply a case of deus ex machina, and there is no explanation, no need to question it. One merely needs to experience the present. And as for the future, if I were to ever film this, I would stage the final shot in such a way that it is left ambiguous to the viewer as to whether or not Jack dies. That way, no matter what the viewer concludes, it can be their own personal happy or sad ending.

And yes, I've got some other material, but I don't really think I want to post any of it.

 

[Skreamings]

I want someone to show me dialog better than this:

How's this?

EXT. SAFE HOUSE - SAME
A Volkswagen comes roaring up. Matt stands in front of it, fires a round into the air and aims the gun down at the DRIVER, who SCREECHES to a stop.

In Portugese -- subtitled:

MATT
Open the trunk and get out of the car!

The trunk pops open. Matt swings open the front door and orders the driver to run.
Directs Frost toward the open trunk.

MATT (CONT’D)
Get in.

FROST
You’re making the wrong play here.

MATT
I said get in.

FROST
You need to reconsider what you
think your options are.

MATT
Shut up.

FROST
Those men aren’t coming to free me.
They’re coming to kill me. You don’t
have the shoulders for this. As long
as you’re with me, you’re dead.

Matt cocks the gun.

MATT
And as long as you’re with me,
you’re not. Get in the fucking trunk.

Frost eyes the barrel -- sizing up Matt.

CUT TO --

EXT. SAFE HOUSE - BACK ALLEY - MOMENTS LATER

Vargas and his men bomb out the back -- race to the front.

INT. VOLKSWAGEN - SAME
Matt hops behind the wheel. Throws the backpack onto the passenger seat. Slams the door. Drops the hammer. HITS the gas and --

EXT. SAFE HOUSE - SAME -- the Volkswagen PEELS AWAY as: THE MERCS
arrive -- already FIRING -- BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Bullets RIDDLE the back of the Volkswagen --

INT. VOLKSWAGEN - SAME
-- and BLOW UP the back window. Glass RAINS inside. Matt switches gears. CRANKS the wheel. THUNDERS forward, RUNNING a red light -- nearly getting CLIPPED by traffic.

EXT. SAFE HOUSE - SAME
Vargas watches as the Volkswagen ROARS ahead, disappearing into the distance as we

CUT TO --

EXT. RIO STREET - SAME
The Volkswagen hauls ass, weaving around cars, sliding into hard lefts and rights.

INT. VOLKSWAGEN - SAME Matt white knuckles the wheel, threading traffic, on edge.
He takes a hand off the wheel. Reaches across to the backpack on the passenger seat. Pulls the zipper down. Draws a secure phone. Punches in a number.

OPERATOR (V.O.)
Operator.

MATT
South America.

OPERATOR (V.O.)
Designator?

MATT
Echo Bravo two three.

OPERATOR (V.O.)
Transferring.

INT. TRUNK - SAME
Frost -- on his back -- searching -- thinking. His hands locate a tire-changing tool set. Starts digging around the various tools.
INT. VOLKSWAGEN - SAME The Landlord answers.

LANDLORD (V.O.)
Landlord.


Matt -- panicked -- freaked:

MATT
This is the housekeeper. 7-R’s been
hit. Everyone’s dead!

LANDLORD (V.O.)
Say again.

MATT
Kiefer -- his team -- everyone!
They’re all dead!

LANDLORD (V.O.)
Is this a secure line?

MATT
Are you hearing me!? The house has
been crashed! I got Frost. We’ve been evicted.