Thank you again for the thorough feed back. You brought out that I may not have made something clear enough. Mrs. Andrews knows her child and they were living as a family. When Emma obviously knows who her mom is in the 2nd car and runs to her, do you take it as a plot hole b/c it was not set up well or b/c I'm new to getting reviewed and assumed I missed something?
I state it because that's what your script states.
Code:
Misses and Grandma sit across from each other.
MISSES
How long? [COLOR="Blue"]<-- I assume you meant that the Emma has been with her.[/COLOR]
GRANDMA
Since she was a baby, such a
special child that Emma.
I work with new writers all the time. I'm sorry, it's just plot holes because you're focusing on what you feel will look cool and not creating a believable world.
This and Strange Frequencies leads me to a big question I do have though, how much do I tell the audience? I like sub text for actors a lot, and don't want to be heavy handed, so maybe I don't set up enough? But do I have to tell the audience everything I know by the end?
As an actor myself, I use that to inform my writing sub-text to work from. Unfortunately, you have all the backstory in your head so it's not coming across. It's not about telling the audience but providing them clues to guide them so they reasonably learn everything you know by the end. "Strange Frequencies" is particularly lacking in that regard.
Mrs. Andrews isn't the villain, she is the protagonist. When I plotted the story she does everything, she's the doer, and she's the one who has a value change, not being able to kill her husband and missing her daughter, to killing her husband and with her daughter. Can I make this more clear?
Okay, if that's the intention, you need to definitely make it more evident. She starts as the villain and ends as the villain. Her actions do not show any change. A killer delaying a kill is still a killer. If he's the villain, then you need to bring that out at some point. She's even abusive to her own mother!
Code:
MISSES
You will not take another family
from me!
GRANDMA
You lost this one yourself.
Misses slaps Grandma.
MISSES
He had no right letting you see her.
GRANDMA
You can’t keep her in this crooked
lifestyle--
This doesn't suggest Misses is the protagonist. In fact, Andrews is the main focus and driving force (protagonist) through the script. Misses simply responds. The sequence with Grandma feels rather contrived. The dialogue doesn't feel relevant to the action. As a result, it comes across as just a scene stuck in between two action sequences. It may feel relevant to you because you've elaborated these characters in your mind. As an objective outside observer, Misses is still a cold, callous and one-dimensional villain. At least with Andrews, it feels like he's working in Emma's best interests.
I'm concerned with telling my story most effectively not changing my story to anything different. Can you separate bad from disliking something? For example, I don't like Pulp Fiction, but it's not bad, i just don't like serious movies or characters.
I don't think you need to make it different, you DO have to make it logically consistent with interesting characters. In reading scripts, I have to be objective. I look at four features: structure (pacing & flow), formatting (spelling, grammar & layout), story (narrative cohesiveness & character development), and marketability (who'd watch this?). This question was discussed at length in another thread about what gets a script rejected. "Chase" and "Strange Frequencies" have interesting elements but fall short in all areas.
I appreciate the time spent, and things were highlighted that are important to me, but some of the critiques where superficial based on taste. Mr. Andrews is still able to run b/c I never set a precedent in my world that he shouldn't be, and when you say bad dialogue in Strange Frequencies, do you mean you don't like that type? B/c to me (coming from acting) bad dialogue, is too difficult to deliver with good timing and lacks subtext for my character. Here we are getting punchy dialogue that alludes to cute innocent kids that have been taught not to curse.
The genre and environment set the precedent. If they had used rubber hoses, fine, I'll buy into it. Not lead pipes. Audiences will suspend disbelief in proportion to the degree of expectation. If I learned Andrews was superman, yeah, I'd agree. Would his toes be bleeding, probably not. If he can withstand a lead pipe, then three shots to the side shouldn't phase him. Logical consistency.
No, I mean the dialogue is bad. The script for "Strange Frequencies" just meanders since it's unclear what the purpose is. I also act and use that to inform my writing. While actors focus on delivering, writers need to focus on relevance and packaging. The dialogue you include may feel philosophically significant but it reads as trite and boring. Formatting issue: only use the ham radio as a character when an actual voice comes across.
Code:
Stilts and Lunch Box are competing to see whose spit can hang
down the lowest then suck it back up.
[COLOR="Red"] HAM RADIO <-- Wrong
Mozart. Crick. Crackle. Whir.
Mozart.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]The ham radio plays Mozart interrupted by periodic cricks, <-- preferred
crackles and whirs.
[/COLOR]
LUNCH BOX
Ha! I win again.
STILTS
No fair --
LUNCH BOX
Is too!
STILTS
Your face is closer to the floor!
[COLOR="Red"]HAM RADIO <-- Wrong
Crack. Guttural metal screech.
Mozart is replaced by HA HA HA.[/COLOR]
[COLOR="Blue"]The ham radio issues a guttural metal screech and resumes <-- preferred
playing Mozart which is interrupted by deep laughter.[/COLOR]
The boys look to each other for answers. A spit bomb hangs
from Lunch Box’s gaping mouth.
....
STILTS
What the fu-
Lunch Box hits him.
STILTS (CONT’D)
Ow! Fudge! I was gonna say fudge.
LUNCH BOX
Fudge my a--
Stilts hits him.
LUNCH BOX (CONT’D)
Apples! Jerk. I was gonna say fudge
my apples.
STILTS
Ah whatta you know bout apples lard
ass!
....
The dialogue is a total non-sequitur from the scene. How you handled the radio as a character was wrong. At first, I thought he/it was just another cutely named character so I went back to find where he was introduced. How does Bub-bub's ham radio fit in? Or those characters? How is this dialogue relevant? "Punchy" is not the descriptor I would use. The read is 'art film'--vague/disturbing images, loose connected/rambling dialogue, very little plot upon which the audience project their own interpretations.
Just want to specify what I'm looking for, do I have proper set ups and pay offs, do I hit all my beats and gaps, are my scenes necessary and doing rather than telling, and is the format good. Thanks guys.
To be clear then:
Poor set-up and not the pay-offs you intended.
There are plot gaps and the pacing needs improvement.
Unnecessary and/or inadequately developed scenes just strung together
The formatting is off and has typos.
The dialogue is rather forced and redundant.
I appreciate you wanted glowing praise rather than learning that the scripts have deficits. If you intend to shoot these yourself, go for it. You can correct the actors to get what you want to match the vision in your head. As standalone scripts, however, they need work. I think you have talent. What you are putting on paper is not matching up with the story in your head. You don't have to change your stories but you do need to enhance how you present them. You're welcome to use the suggestions as you please. Good luck.
