Comments Made During the Contest

Bill Clar (Level 5)

I like this story. It held my attention from the very first page. My curiosity wanted to know what the brain of the dead man held.

The three men in white coats are not introduced as characters which caused some confusion for me. I'm also distracted by their names. They have a policy of no names, but that doesn't mean they all have to be named after poker hands. I had to force myself to concentrate on the characters and story, rather than the poker images in my head.

Page four: "Jack High wheels on Agent." What does this mean? He's wheeling the Agent?

The character name, "Agent", is bland. Perhaps he could be "Agent 12" or "Agent Blue"? Something to make him stand out.

Brian Howell (Level 5)

I like it! I'm intrigued from the get go. It's got a very good pace to it. Cryptic dialogue, but you're giving me enough.

I love your character descriptions. You have a definate style.

You did start to lose me with the card game. I think it went on just a tad too long, plus the names made everything a little muttled. Outside of that, I have no complaints.

You have one of those titles that was just so-so at first, but after reading it? It takes on a lot of meaning. I like it.

EXCELLENT job!

Brian Wind (Level 5)

This was written and paced very well. It reads like a breeze and the story was fascinating. The thing I didn't really like was the ending. It confused me. Was it really a flashback? If so, I have no idea what we were supposed to gather from it. Was the dead guy a psychic prisoner? If the last scene wasn't a flashback, you need to get that out of the slugline because it's really confusing. If it wasn't a flashback, then the 3 psychics were the prisoners, which would make for kind of a cool twist. Either way, the ending needs some clarification.

Other than that though, nice job. Cool script.

Caroline Coxon (Mod Emeritus)

Great, tense, well-written opening.

I find the names PAIR OF THREES and ACES OVER SEVENS - very confusing to grasp. Nearly a page on a card game? Is it relevant? I don't think so.

This is very good indeed! In fact, would be excellent if not for the above...

Chris Messineo (Founder)

Very cool and creepy thriller.

I love the atmosphere and tone you establish. The twist ending is excellent. Amazing how much story you are able to pack into five pages.

It is a bit confusing at times (the names are a little tough to follow), but it is definitely worth it.

Very well done.

David Birch (Level 5)

one of the more original takes on this month's challenge...well written...only a few minor suggestions to make here...i'd really try to make your "lab techs" really nerdy...overly so, make their dialog reflect that..."this ain't no serial killer victim."...is more typical "trailer-trash" speak...maybe something more "spock-y"..like "it's highly probable that..."...anyway, nice job...good luck on the vote...

David D. DeBord (Level 5)

Sometimes scientific mumbo-jumbo goes over my head and I assume that the writer (movie characters) is simply that much brighter than I am. Sometimes, though I sense that the language is intentionally vague because it’s hiding something. And something may be because there is not much there. Mumbo-jumbo for it’s own sake to sound deeper than it actually is.

I’m really not sure here. There’s a lot a like about this story. The three poker playing characters are interesting and the little No Names tag work for me. But something just seems off to me.

I’ll have to read this again and see if I’m clear on the story line. A second read often means the story is not as clear as maybe it should be. A second read should add detail, not be necessary to explain the basic story.

By the way, there is a certain intensity throughout that I do like.

Elisabeth Dubois (Level 4)

I was so wrapped up with the beginning of the story that I had forgotten to check the qualifiers.
Your ending is too sudden for me. I wanted to know what had really happened to the dead victim.
Well done though.

Faith Friese Nelson (Level 5)

I have one comment but I give this entry an Excellent. Very original. I like the way the title is repeated in dialogue on page three. As mentioned, I have one suggestion and that is that the card scene that introduces the three men in white lab coats might be a bit shorter. Other than that… excellent!

Herman Chow (Level 5)

Your writing is very clear and concise. It was a breeze to read. The story was very intriguing for the most parts.

Maybe it's only me here, I didn't get your intended twist or surprise ending. I already suspected the dead body is being tortured to death by the agent, since the location of the incident is in a stone-walled room. So I thought the entire story would be about finding out what information the dead man has.

The first middle part was quite good. The three guys in the lab are interesting, especially they are not allowed to call each other by their names!

Staring on page 4, things start to get a bit repetitive. I got a bit lost as well. Maybe I wasn't informed as to what the agent is trying to look for. What's with the three letters and four numbers? Didn't get the reasoning behind the Agent's thinking.

I don't understand the flashback sequence either. So the stone-walled room was actually connected to the lab?

I'm really sorry that I couldn't understand it better.

GOOD.

Jeannie Sconzo (Level 5)

Sorry to say I didn't get it. I could not relate to any of the characters. I think the fact that they don't have real names is one of the reasons why.

JeanPierre Chapoteau (Moderator)

I don't know poker, so I have no idea what you're talking about...

This was good. A bit confusing at times, but still good. I know you tried to keep it authentic, but the language was too complicated in my opinion.

I love the fact that you slowly revealed to us he was being interrogated. That was a nice touch. I also liked the fact that he was bilingual.

I'm giving this a VG.

Joel Davis (Level 5)

Intriguing and creepy world you've created. The twist worked and had impact but I didn't feel like it connected to the main story -- it was a surprise that they were prisoners, as was the victim, but those two reveals didn't feel connected.

I really liked the creepy paranormal/sci-fi atmosphere you created here. And you did a great job building and managing the dramatic tension. But the agent felt more like an observer than an active protagonist, as if his only purpose was to show this world to us, rather than be a character himself.

I think you have the potential for a really excellent story here and you need to find the center of it. Look for theme and try and discover who the story is about.

Justin Ormsby (Level 3)

I think there are some great ideas here. The begining left me with a lot of questions which I intended to post here, but the end cleared a lot of that up. Primary among those questions was "Why would these people be suggesting there were no leads if they obviously hadn't even processed the body for evidence yet." An astute viewer might have the same reaction and that might give away your ending. The twist at the end was really good, but it might be of benefit to ask yourself "has this type of ending been overdone?" Seems like the good guys are really bad guys/government conspiracy thing might leave an audience thinking "oh, it was one of THOSE movies." In essence, ask yourself if that ending is the most creative way you could end the movie.

Katie Va (Level 3)

I really love your writing style. It's gripping and you know just what to include and just what to leave out. I enjoy the moments when you show and don't tell, they add to the drama and really compliment the style. Very well done.

Kevin Carty (Level 4)

There are so many characters. Such a long sequence with the card playing coats. I don't know what is going on here. This is just a twist dependent script. Don't love it. Give them names. Personally, I think this script is waaaaay too big too much talk too many nobodies. I think I know who wrote this but I could be wrong.
Some of the dialogue was interesting but not really anything that comes together in a clear way. Detective movies like this are easy to make, with the killer always hiding his identity.

Khamanna Iskandarova (Level 5)

I had hard time understanding the importance of the last bit - the sign in the corridor. And what the agent did to the dead man escaped me too.

I understood what the three men playing cards were doing and that they don't have names. The names that you gave them made sense.

The story overall is engaging. Only if I could understand it better...

Kirk White (Level 5)

I think I like the premise more than the execution (no pun intended). What I got was that the agent had tortured a fellow inmate of the three to force him to use the mental powers to identify the terror threat? like it's a psychic prisoner ward? if that is not the case then I don't understand the "no names" connection. the characters are nice but nothinig we've not scene a dozen times before. I kept waiting for something to happen that would serve as a nice twist on the genre. but what you end up with is a very "by the numbers" sci-fi thriller. and because of that, we KNOW that the agents are the bad guys at the beginning of the piece so the reveal is not as powerful.

KP Mackie (Level 5)

Terrific opening. Intriguing and suspenseful. Concise writing.
The two locations, the victim's room with the "stone wall" and the lab with the "labyrinth of steel shelves" where the "Three Men" play poker, are interesting.
The handful of characters are defined well enough. Took an additional reading to figure out that "Jack High, Pair Of Threes," and "Aces Over Sevens" were aliases for the three. Might be less confusing to initially introduce them by their "poker" names. The sign on the wall that Jack High points to, "Beyond This Point - No Names," clarifies the situation.
Probably could omit the three's specific discussion of their poker hands; seems no relevant information is contributed and may be lost on someone who doesn't know poker.
The actual mystery that evolves is good, except the crux is relayed by a lot of dialogue. Perhaps using a flashback, thereby "showing" what the three are explaining, would be more visual. Or, maybe start the story with how the victim died -- the interrogation -- and move forward linearly.

Kyle Patrick Johnson (Level 5)

"The ones who read minds?" Ooo, that line was so on-the-nose. I wish you'd left it out, kept us wondering until we met the characters. A little suspense is a good thing. Delete that sentence, and I think the scene will read a lot smoother.

A fun "mystery" set-up you had there! Very Good!

An interesting anti-torture point you make at the end. It's clouded, though, by the fact that an entire airplane full of passengers is likely to be saved by the Agent's intervention. If your point is that torture doesn't succeed, well, clearly it did in this case. If you want to present a moral case, make sure it can't be interpreted in multiple ways, unless you're just going for multi-interpretational art, which is also perfectly fine.

By the way, no idea what the title means.

Lee Carlisle (Level 4)

This was a very interesting read - you established your world and the technology very well given the short amount of time you had. I found the science to be believable without it being too jargony. Overall, I think you might want to play with your reveals a little more. Since we see the opening, the fact that he was tortured to death is not a surprise to us. Even though it is to the scientist, it doesn't have the same impact as something we as an audience didn't know, and the ending feels a little hollow because of this.

I might suggest starting with the scientists - then everything about the case can be a mystery and the ending will really be a surprise for us. Playing their outrage is a bit of a hard sell, though, since it's established that there actually was a bombing that was prevented (and hundreds of lives likely saved). If you're playing with the morality of torture, it might work better to muddy the water of their case - maybe this just gives them a lead but the case isn't solved yet. Maybe Agent doesn't know if he really is a terrorist after all. It's also unclear how the Agent knew there were two other terrorists, or what they looked like, or what kind of bomb they'd have, so being more intentionally vague about the case may help this as well.

Leonard Walker (Level 3)

Exciting script. Nothing original but good just the same. All your characters seemed well within reason and the dialogue between them smart. I though the characterization of Agent was especially fine work. And your scene descriptions were good. The ending wasn’t too bad either.

Cool read.

Marnie Mitchell Lister (Level 5)

Oyy my head. That was confusing. Not the story but the characters...too hard to keep up with. So hard to keep up with that I missed a lot of what was going on cus I was trying to picture who was who. If I'm not the only one who says this you might want to give your characters simpler names and keep the number of characters down for these five pagers.

Martin Jensen (Level 5)

Great set-up in the first scene. Pretty much perfect, quick and very attention-grabbing.

I like how you use their card hands as code-names in a way. It really helps showing how the way they're living is dehumanising them.

The race against time is great. Very tense, and suspenseful, especially as we don't know what they're looking for.

If I have one complaint, is that the card game is really too long. The flashback ending was really cool, but is it meant to reveal new information? It felt like it could be a twist that I haven't recognised, but the straight ending works really well too.

Very good.

Matias Caruso (Level 5)

This was cool. The story kept always moving and there were a couple of nice twists.

My only beef: there doesn’t seem to be a clear protagonist here. Someone to root for and to care about.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed this. But maybe this story could be better if you find some emotional angle to it. Right now, while intellectually engaging, the story has a “just the facts” feel to it.

Good.

Matthew Fettig (Level 5)

Unique story. Confusing at times. Card game slowed the pace.

Once the dead guy was brought to the lab, I liked the pace. I thought you handled the unique concept pretty well. One thing I didn't understand was the mention of outdated equipment on the shelves but this lab was supposed to be a group on the cutting edge as best I could tell. Was the idea that they were able to rig this very high-tech process out of discarded old equipment? If so, I didn't get that from your story.

I don't know if you were trying to make a political point at the end either. I got the sense that you were trying to but that didn't seem to fit with anything else either. Certainly if they were part of some government agency, I don't think they would have been voicing an opinion about interrogation procedures.

Overall it was an interesting read.

Michael Alberstadt (Level 4)

This is an intriguing premise for a short. Nice, tight action sequences, certainly interesting characters.

I got really confused by the names (Jack High, Aces over Sevens). While I understand why you did it, it really muddied the waters for me. I found myself reading and re-reading to get the point, and never got there. And I will admit to completely missing the connection between the first mention of "NO NAMES" and the second. Maybe over the next few weeks it will come to me and I can rewrite this review.

There was a certain sense of drama to this but no real surprise, nothing to make me laugh or think. I wanted to feel something for one of these characters, but couldn't.

MJ Hermanny (Level 5)

Interesting idea, you have a lot going on here and I liked the image of these wild scientists being able to read a person' last thoughts.

I also found it quite difficult to read. The names of the scientists, JACK HIGH, PAIR OF THREES, ACES OVER SEVENS are real mouthfuls and were a bit too much to take in along with their dialogue especially when that dialogue became scientific. I kept having to re-read what they were saying and I found that frustrating.

When you have the scientists later talking as OS - aren't they visible on the other monitors? I think that needs to be clearer and lose the OS because otherwise we're visulaising only the agent and Jack in a really tiny space with all dialogue going on around them.

Also not sure why the scientists would be angry they were helping stop terrorists??

Needs a tidy up, trim excess words and think about making the names simpler to read once you've introduced them

Paul De Vrijer (Level 5)

The title kind of puts me off, feels a bit too bland. And knowing the requirement even a bit forced. Could you really picture this on a movieposter?

Bit too exposition-y in the beginning. Specially the sentence: "My god, those guys ho read minds". Try to cover this up a bit. I like the premise and the movement, but it's not really dynamic is it? And it already has way more characters than it should.

Technobabble, yay! Least you explain the title, which is alright. It's all really interesting, I got a tihng for sci-fi and stuff like this. But they are really blurting out dialogue and exposition without much happening visually. Maybe this is more of a radio-play?

Technically and storywise, I love what you did here. It's strong and my type of stuff. BUT, it's really not visual and the presentation leaves loads to be desired. Why no shots of the plane? Why nothing dynamic on screen? It's just people doing technobabble now. Too unvisual for sci-fi thrillers, sorry.

Paul Williams (Level 5)

I love what you are attempting to do here and this is inventive and creative. It did have a sort of "Minority Report" feel do it, only here the murders are solved, not prevented.

Even though it's explained, I'm confused as to the exact technology used to capture the dead man's thoughts, but oddly, this all seemed too easy and convenient. Wouldn't these three guys be used to help solve every murder?

The name situation: I don't understand the "no names" theme throughout the script and it was very confusing in spots to read. The names "Pair of Threes, etc...," while unique, didn't facilitate an easy read, I'm afraid.

I think you should just initially describe the three men prior to their dialogue because you have them all speak first and we don't know who or what they are or their names mean.

I'm not quite sure I understand the flashback at the end. I get what happened, but I'm not sure as to its significance or what the impact was supposed to have on me.

Your screenwriting is very good; format overall appears in order; didn't detect any typos.

Pia Cook (Level 5)

I'm going to vote Very Good on this one. I thought it was written well and the story intrigued me until the end when you ruined it by making it the US being the bad guys. Of course I don't promote torture, I just think this is getting a little old. Same reason why I never wanted to go see The Green Zone even though I like action films.

I think this script would be brilliant if you could be a little more clever about the ending. Surprise me instead of make me groan in disappointment.

The rest was great stuff so good luck with it and I hope you rewrite it into something fresh.

Ron Hooker (Level 4)

An interesting premise for a story. You lay it out pretty well and offer some great imagery. Nicely done.

The only suggestion I would make is to use "active" language in your ACTION instead of "passive" language:

-"dangling from the ceiling" is passive
-"dangles from the ceiling" is active

You bounce around between passive and active throughout the script, so stick with the latter and ditch the former. It's stronger and also saves a little space.

I hope that's helpful. This was very good.

Sally Meyer (Moderator)

I'm amazed by all different stories that have come out of this competition. Totally off the wall, imaginative stories.

I thought your story was great. Very unique and interesting. The writing style was good. Your use of dialogue was very well done.

Nice work on using all the words effectively!!

Scott Merrow (Level 5)

This is really good. There were a couple things that could be improved (in my opinion), though.

First, the ending. I didn't really understand the very end. It was great up until the middle of Page 5. But then everyone gets all upset because the dead guy turns out to be a terrorist who'd been tortured. But they've just stopped a terrorist plot to blow up an airliner!!! Aren't they elated about that? It seems like the last scene in the lab (followed by the flashback) is meant to be some kind of big dramatic reveal, but there was never any set-up for that. They get all indignant when they realize they've been duped...but why did they think this was a serial killer victim? No one ever said that in the script. And it seems like there's supposed to be some irony in the flashback scene, but I didn't really get it. "Beyond this point -- no names" in both the torture cell and the mind readers' lab -- what's the connection? I didn't get it.

The other comment I would make (and this is much smaller) is that the characters' names (Jack High, Pair of Threes, and Aces Over Sevens) were a little confusing at first. That kinda bogged down the flow of the story in the first lab scene. And, I'm not sure how important it is -- why are no names allowed?

Anyway, I really enjoyed the script. I wish the ending was a little clearer, though.

My score: VERY GOOD.

Sue Ploeger (Level 3)

First thought was: do you want me to think this was a torture thing? Because if it’s a crime scene, where are the cops and evidence guys? Why would a (federal) AGENT be there first? How do we know he’s an agent? Have his badge on his belt or pocket.

Slug line stuff: delete the NO DEFINITE TIME and TWO HOURS LATER. Unnecessary.

Cut the Bleary-eyed…. Show us that he’s exhausted and frustrated. Dialogue and actions.

Have the SUIT enter instead of being there already. Suggests the mislead of it being a crime scene.

SUIT: “No. (beat) .” The word “beat” is annoying in scripts. It prompts the actor to pause (you don’t want to prompt the actors about acting). Instead, put in an action that defines character, advances plot, adds more misdirection :) (we like misdirection).
LOVE the psychics in the basement playing poker. Wall sign explains no names in script.

Great reveal when Jack High asks the big question.

I don’t think you need the last scene. You could add the “Agent looks up…on his face” line at the end of the first scene, still leaving the question of “crime scene or interrogation?”. Because once he walks out of the lab, we know that it was an interrogation that he did. You could have Agent give Jack High a meaningful glance. You don’t need to explain it to us with a whole extra scene. In fact, please don’t.

I know, the tie-in with the matching No Names sign. It’s cool, but leaving it out could also be another “oh, that’s why…” cookie that you give to the audience. Let us figure it out. We’ll love you for it.

Sylvia Dahlby (Level 5)

The dialog is amatuerish - telling me what's going to happen, oh no not the mind readers in the basement... this killed the suspense of what might have been a great start. And then it goes on more the the same (ie, this man was tortured to death, number and colors are easiest, PHL - show don't tell). The deliberate lack of character names also did little to draw me in or make any connection to the story. What might have been a powerful statement about extreme interrogation was devoid of all emotion.

Teo Gonzalez (Level 4)

I think your original idea here was great -- and I really mean it -- but it feels like it got lost during the writing.
First, you have an intriguing title, but I am not very sure wether it is really relevant to the story. You have Aces Over threes explaining what a spike train, Nad you do it in a way that doesn't feel on the nose; but I don't know if a spike train is what your story is about.
I would recommend to twick the dialogue between Agent and Suit. I think it rings too espository. It is like they always say: If both your characters know what they are talking about, there's no point in one explaining to the other. It doesn't feel real.
I think that Pair of Threes, Jack high, and Aces Over Sevens should be introduced before they talk. I have to cofess, the first time I read their introductory dialogue, I had to really stop to make sense of what was going on -- it was I, not your story. I got a bit jammed with their names. But I really feel that the paragraph where you have then grinning, showing the comp screen, etc., should come before they talk.
Then, everything gets on its way. You have a good pace, good dialogues, and the story moving forward. Agent gets a bit expository when he phones -- I think all of your readers know what is going on as soon as he speaks of a plane, so you could omitt most of the explanation he gives.
But then, I reach the end, and I get totally lost. Why is Pair of Threes surprised that the dead guy is no serial killer? We never knew that these guys only studied only serials killers. What is the point of Jack High's outburst? Is it an outcry against torture? If so, it adds nothing to the story. And what is the point of the flashback? What's the significance of the No Name signs in both locations? I am sure you had a reason to bring them to our attention, but you need to explain more clearly why.
As I said at the beginning, you have a very original concept her. But you really need to sharpen your abitlties if you want it to come through in a story. Good luck!

Thomas W. Brown (Level 4)

This is fantastic, I love every aspect of it. It's a nice slow burn with a great payoff. The "techs" are great characters, the twist is excellent, and the ending perfect. Hope this does well!

Tim Ratcliffe (Level 4)

I thought this was pretty well written. I get what you were going for with the whole no names thing but it did make it hard to distinguish the psychics from one another and resulted in them having a very generic feel.

The script moved at a good pace and was easy to read, but there wasn't really much to invest in emotionally. Maybe if we had known from the beginning that they were trying to stop a terrorist attack we would have felt more urgency for the agent to get his answers. Perhaps giving him a name besides agent would humanise him more as well. As it is there is little emotion in this one and while the story was well written I just wasn't invested in it.

William Bienes (Mod Emeritus)

Interesting concept which I think would be even better with a little more length.

The names were a bit distracting, and I don't think you need to spend any time on the card game. Having this story being told as an aloof, not sure what's going on, in tone and mood, works.

Comments Made After the Contest

Pete Barry (Level 5) ~ 4/4/2010 3:15 PM

I'm glad to have a lot of feedback to help figure out the line between too much and too little information. I found it difficult to know how much exposition to use, how quickly I could get across the pseudo-science of "reading the dead man's mind" without beating people over the head. (The card game was supposed to illustrate what they did visually, and it seemed to be a big drag for a lot of people.) Add on top of that the twist ending, and I know it needed a lot of tweaking.

Thanks to everyone for the helpful comments.