DVXuser.com Feature Film - Writers wanted

[Dustin R. Rogan]

Hey guys looking good here thought I'd pass along an idea that Mike Horrigan sent me in PM

"Here's my take on one idea.

A meteorite (not quite a global killer) strikes an unpopulated area of the world. It releases something into the air and it results in a new form of plague never seen before.

It quickly spreads across the world untraced. The unsuspecting plague has an extremely long incubation period. It sits dormant for approximately one year before becoming active. Once it does all hell breaks loose.

90% of the population becomes infected 1 year later to the day of the meteor strike.

The following things happen to the infected.

1. Paranoia sets in immediately and they arm themselves. Guns, knives, whatever they can get their hands on.

2. They kill all those closest to them immediately.

3. They go out searching for anyone else who may pose a threat to their survival. i.e. Normals.
It's survival of the fittest.

4. They kill in a well thought out practical manner and have all their wits about them. They need to eat and drink just like the rest of us but do not sleep. Some of them work in groups but never say a word. Almost communicating telepathically.

One month following infection they kill themselves.

The movie can show how the normals struggle for survival. They are heavily outnumbered and facing more than slow moving mindless zombies.

I would end it with the infected killing themselves...

Followed by the surviving normals looking towards the skyline to see it littered with alien pods entering our atmosphere. Their alien plague has done most of the work for them.

The End.

We would only need two cool effects shots. One at the beginning and one at the end. The rest can just be pure survival horror.

What do you think?

Mike"

 

[jasonthewho]

I'm not sure about any idea where the main focus is people on computers. Seems boring to me. I like sticking to an "end of the world" film. Or perhaps one character going to many locations, and we'll just have to make his/her pay and transportation a large element of the budget.

 

[Erik Olson]

I like it okay. The ending is better than War of the Worlds anyway.



e

 

[Dustin R. Rogan]

ok take this example maybe the template is like Babel. different storylines that are connected very slightly....any thoughts?

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Hey guys looking good here thought I'd pass along an idea that Mike Horrigan sent me in PM

"Here's my take on one idea.

A meteorite (not quite a global killer) strikes an unpopulated area of the world. It releases something into the air and it results in a new form of plague never seen before.

It quickly spreads across the world untraced. The unsuspecting plague has an extremely long incubation period. It sits dormant for approximately one year before becoming active. Once it does all hell breaks loose.

90% of the population becomes infected 1 year later to the day of the meteor strike.

The following things happen to the infected.

1. Paranoia sets in immediately and they arm themselves. Guns, knives, whatever they can get their hands on.

2. They kill all those closest to them immediately.

3. They go out searching for anyone else who may pose a threat to their survival. i.e. Normals.
It's survival of the fittest.

4. They kill in a well thought out practical manner and have all their wits about them. They need to eat and drink just like the rest of us but do not sleep. Some of them work in groups but never say a word. Almost communicating telepathically.

One month following infection they kill themselves.

The movie can show how the normals struggle for survival. They are heavily outnumbered and facing more than slow moving mindless zombies.

I would end it with the infected killing themselves...

Followed by the surviving normals looking towards the skyline to see it littered with alien pods entering our atmosphere. Their alien plague has done most of the work for them.

The End.

We would only need two cool effects shots. One at the beginning and one at the end. The rest can just be pure survival horror.

This was just one idea that I had. I figured it would satisfy the people who wanted a Zombie flick.
They're not zombies, but it still has that survival horror feel with a bit of Sci-Fi thrown in.

I believe that this one is different enough and pretty easy to pull off. It would be easy to show how other parts of the world react to such an event.
That and I like bleak endings. :evil:

Just a thought... mull it over.

The one thing the script must have is a different protagonist in each city. If we go with one it won't work due to travel and budget.

The antagonist in this one could be the infected in general.

 

[Erik Olson]

The danger, which Babel couldn't avoid, was the trite nature in which everything comes together in the last ten minutes of the picture. Better to show it all as interconnected from the get-go. I am not a fan of the "hey, it's all tied together!" revelation movies. Altman pulled it off once.

Everything that has come since is forgettable at best and incredibly irritating at worst.

I'm not a big fan of 24 (how many times can we threaten LA - and who gives a toss anyway?), but they do have a better way of handling the interwoven concurrent storytelling. They don't work so hard to obfuscate the connectedness of the characters and plot. If we can follow this, even through the telling of the story from different parts of the world, we might have something watchable.

I do like the idea of having a mix of government agencies and private citizens somehow working together across the world to fight the threat. It would be cool to present an optimistic world-view like the one so well-executed in Independence Day.

e

 

[pia12254]

I tend to agree with Jason and Erik...I like the "end of the world" bit because it feels bigger than what you actually have to show on screen. Insinuating that there is a bigger problem makes the characters decisions seem more important.

Also, I like Erik's take on mixing government agencies, private citizens fighting a threat.

An interesting thought was raised by someone though about people communicating via the Internet. I don't know if anyone just watched "The Andromeda Strain" mini-series on A&E the past couple of nights but about 90% of communication between the main players takes place via "video conference". But it feels like they are really interacting. Perhaps some of the scenes could be shot with a "video conference" screen that just has marks on it and the editors could incorporate clips from one of the other locations in post.

Just a thought to make the various pieces feel more "integrated"...

But I do like the "big scale/end of the world/something huge at stake" idea...even if the setting/execution of the actual filming is on a much smaller scale.

My $.02

 

[traviscool]

I'm really liking the idea of an end of the world scenario, with stories about people all over the world. Some of the story lines should be connect in some way or another others maybe not at all.

I know this is done a lot in film however one example of this I can think of is something they do in Heroes, international characters from all over are introduced, they go on there various quests and sometimes they meet up with others, sometimes not, and sometimes they get very close to meeting up with another group but don't.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Okay, if you're determined to do an end of the world scenario, then tell me this -- DOES the world come to an end? Or is everyone saved in the nick of time? If they are saved, WHO saves them? And HOW?

Is the story just about how various people react to the coming end of the world? Or is there something they are DESPERATELY trying to do to SAVE the world?

If it's just people sitting around -- or running around -- waiting for impending doom, hoping that SOMEBODY will save them, then I'm not really grabbed by that scenario. If it's people desperately trying to stop what's happening as things get worse and worse and worse until it appears that all hope is lost -- that's much more interesting, in my opinion.

 

[David W. Richardson]

I tend to agree with Jason and Erik...I like the "end of the world" bit because it feels bigger than what you actually have to show on screen. Insinuating that there is a bigger problem makes the characters decisions seem more important.

Also, I like Erik's take on mixing government agencies, private citizens fighting a threat.

An interesting thought was raised by someone though about people communicating via the Internet. I don't know if anyone just watched "The Andromeda Strain" mini-series on A&E the past couple of nights but about 90% of communication between the main players takes place via "video conference". But it feels like they are really interacting. Perhaps some of the scenes could be shot with a "video conference" screen that just has marks on it and the editors could incorporate clips from one of the other locations in post.

Just a thought to make the various pieces feel more "integrated"...

But I do like the "big scale/end of the world/something huge at stake" idea...even if the setting/execution of the actual filming is on a much smaller scale.

My $.02

The original Invasion of the Body Snatchers taught us that the end of the world can come in a very low-key manner.

 

[David W. Richardson]

Okay, let's take a closer look at this...

"Here's my take on one idea.

A meteorite (not quite a global killer) strikes an unpopulated area of the world. It releases something into the air and it results in a new form of plague never seen before.

We would either need an impressive FX shot of the meteorite striking the earth, or we'd need simulated news (CNN style) reports about it, with grainy footage from the scene. And we'd need some way to convey that it released a plague.

It quickly spreads across the world untraced. The unsuspecting plague has an extremely long incubation period. It sits dormant for approximately one year before becoming active. Once it does all hell breaks loose.

If it quickly spreads across the world untraced, then all erupts at once a year later, then how will people associate it with the meteorite? I'd rather keep things on a short timeframe to ratchet up the tension. Say, the plague releases immediately and as it spreads out from the meteorite, it's killing everything in its path. CNN can actually track the spread of the plague by noting where the mass deaths occur -- with a map that shows the plague's progress across the globe. And the spread could be fast!

90% of the population becomes infected 1 year later to the day of the meteor strike.

Again, I would cut this down to a matter of days or weeks.

The following things happen to the infected.

1. Paranoia sets in immediately and they arm themselves. Guns, knives, whatever they can get their hands on.

2. They kill all those closest to them immediately.

3. They go out searching for anyone else who may pose a threat to their survival. i.e. Normals.
It's survival of the fittest.

4. They kill in a well thought out practical manner and have all their wits about them. They need to eat and drink just like the rest of us but do not sleep. Some of them work in groups but never say a word. Almost communicating telepathically.

How does this plague work? A person in a family can get it, but the rest of the family doesn't? That implies that all the 'normals' have to do is kill the infected folks, and everything will be alright. Is that the way it works? (I admit, I've not seen many zombie movies.)

One month following infection they kill themselves.

Why? This makes it too easy for the normals. All they have to do is hide and wait it out.

The movie can show how the normals struggle for survival. They are heavily outnumbered and facing more than slow moving mindless zombies.

And how DO the normals struggle for survival? What do you envision when you say that? People living in caves? In boarded up houses? How can we pull this off on a miniscule budget?

I would end it with the infected killing themselves...

Why? Again, it seems to me this makes it too easy on the normals.

Followed by the surviving normals looking towards the skyline to see it littered with alien pods entering our atmosphere. Their alien plague has done most of the work for them.

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I do like that!

Just playing devil's advocate here. Nothing personal. Just story analysis, that's all.

 

[pia12254]

David,

I agree with your story thoughts. Both on this specific story suggestion and on the general "end of the world" idea.

The people who are aware of the impending doom should definitely be doing something to try and stop it! Otherwise, as you put it, it would be boring!

Good thoughts.

 

[Michael Anthony Horrigan]

Okay, let's take a closer look at this...



We would either need an impressive FX shot of the meteorite striking the earth, or we'd need simulated news (CNN style) reports about it, with grainy footage from the scene. And we'd need some way to convey that it released a plague.

Easy either way IMHO. I've seen some pretty good meteor effects by some talented people on the net.



If it quickly spreads across the world untraced, then all erupts at once a year later, then how will people associate it with the meteorite? I'd rather keep things on a short timeframe to ratchet up the tension. Say, the plague releases immediately and as it spreads out from the meteorite, it's killing everything in its path. CNN can actually track the spread of the plague by noting where the mass deaths occur -- with a map that shows the plague's progress across the globe. And the spread could be fast!



Again, I would cut this down to a matter of days or weeks.

Having it come as a surprise a year later would mean that most of the planet would be infected. 90% or so as I suggested. The fact that it relates back to the meteorite could be hinted at easily with a line or two of dialogue. Especially from a conspiracy buff character type. Maybe a quick newscast of it starting first closest to the population living near the crash site.

If it happens quickly then we have the typical government reaction, quarantine etc. Think about it this way. What would happen if you woke up tomorrow and 90% of the world around you was trying to kill you?



How does this plague work? A person in a family can get it, but the rest of the family doesn't? That implies that all the 'normals' have to do is kill the infected folks, and everything will be alright. Is that the way it works? (I admit, I've not seen many zombie movies.)

The normals would be outnumbered drastically. And they are not Zombies, as I also described previously.



Why? This makes it too easy for the normals. All they have to do is hide and wait it out.

Nope. They don't know what is going on and have no idea what is going to happen a month down the road. Nor does the audience. They definitely don't have it easy.



And how DO the normals struggle for survival? What do you envision when you say that? People living in caves? In boarded up houses? How can we pull this off on a miniscule budget?

I think it could be done fairly easily. Have some people traveling on the road in a lot in barren areas. Trying to get away from populated areas. Others can be locked up in their basement listening to those trying to get at them. There are many scenarios that could play out.



Why? Again, it seems to me this makes it too easy on the normals.

The plague is just a genocide set forth in order to wipe out Earth's inhabitants. By the end of the movie there would just be what was left of the original 10%. Probably around 2% since they are severely outnumbered by those who want them dead. Not much for the invasion to worry about.



Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I do like that!

Just playing devil's advocate here. Nothing personal. Just story analysis, that's all.

No problem at all. Obviously it was just an outline of an idea that would need to be fleshed out quite a bit. That's why we're here...

Cheers,

Mike

 

[David W. Richardson]

Okay then, let's look at it logically....

If all the plague all over the world sprang from this one meteor, then it would take time to spread globally. During that time it would infect whoever it came into contact with. So the people closest to the meteorite site would be infected first -- the people on the other side of the world might not be infected for weeks or months.

So why, then would EVERYONE suddenly go nuts at the same time??? I would think that logically they would go nuts a certain number of days, weeks, or months after they contracted the plague, not everyone at once.

If there were multiple meteorrites landing in places all over the Earth, that would make a common outbreak more plausible. But, of course, that complicates the VFX.

Then let's talk logistics as they relate to story. We have, say, four different groups of people fighting for survival in four different areas or countries. Absolutely no interconnection or intercommunication between/among the groups. So it's four distinctly separate stories, each with its own group of people whom we care about. That's a LOT of people for the audience to get emotionally invested in, in my opinion. It's spreading audience sympathy mighty thin. It also doesn't allow us to fully develop the supporting characters very well.

This is one reason why I thought a story that had people from all across the country who were CONNECTED somehow, like via the Internet, might work better. We care about THOSE people and perhaps the one or two folks that each one has in his/her immediate circle. They become a unified group whom we care about and want to see survive. And, even though they are separated by many miles, they do in some sense work together to fight against the antagonist. It's not just about survival -- it's about WAR and VICTORY over the enemy.

Again, keep in mind that I tend to be 'old school' and this is just what seems like it would work in my opinion. That's all.

 

[ConspiracyPenguin]

Mike's idea is started to get too close to "cookie-cutter zombie" for me. I REALLY like it, though. I think if the meteorite hits we would know about the spread from the news "There appears to be a brownish vapor being emmitted from the rock, tests are unway to try and figure out just what this may be and whether or not folks should be afraid. Janine Johnson, New York City, back to you Frank."

As far as who gets infected, I think we need some to be immune somehow. Maybe it only affects people who drink orange juice, or maybe it is only those who are outside when the innitial wave of vapor hits the town. This part of fuzzy/in the air for me.

Where connecting the different stories is concerned, I think the main connection is the plague. We could even (if budget permits) allow a few characters to overlap; not in a big way, but in a more casual way. Alternatively, if we really want a bigger connection, what about our groups of people have all gone online to a forum to talk about the disease and end up having to work together in the end.

Then David said that having the infected kill themselves is too easy for the normals, but it's really not because they don't know they only have to hide out for a month or so. They think they are going to be around forever, further, the diseased are attacking like crazy and the normals have no choice to fight because they are waaaay out numbered.

I, too, really like the idea of the ending. It kind of leaves a bitter-sweet taste in your mouth. None of that filthy, ooey gooey, everything works out fine crap that has to be spoon fed down the audiences throat and brought in on a silver freakin' platter.

-------------------------------------------

As far as the idea directly above this, it is pretty good, but I think it is too much "end of the world." Many have expressed not wanting an end of the world piece and I can't blame them. It also seems like it calls for too much VFX, but maybe not. I would like to see what everyone else thinks of all this now.

 

[karapetkov]

You need a lot of money for these plague, anarchy, everyone's nuts\infected, global planetary cataclysm kinds of stuff.

Believable anarchy, extras, etc.

 

[Tom Shortridge]

Hear me out on this -

I think the "end of the world" scenario, in and of itself, is a great setting for this kind of film.

However, I think that all these ideas of infections, and how people get infected, and how long it takes before they go nuts, or it's really demons or whatever, are not the way to go. With a big collaborative film like this, I don't think that kind of story works.

What about this?

It's "the end of the world." Doesn't matter why it's ending, doesn't matter how. What matters is the human response.

What would you do if the world was ending?

Five or six vignettes, each exploring how different groups of people react in different places. Maybe some people don't change a thing. Maybe some make amends, with people or with God. Maybe some steal and rape and murder.

And each section can build in intensity, but be linked through a common prop or line of dialogue or whatever works.

So the "end of the world" is just an underlying theme through every piece. I don't know how, or even if you'd link it all back together at the end. It'd be easier to tell that once we'd get the separate stories written and brought back together here.

Think about it.

(And lemme know if you understand what I'm saying, I'm half-asleep writing this.)

 

[ConspiracyPenguin]

Hear me out on this -

I think the "end of the world" scenario, in and of itself, is a great setting for this kind of film.

However, I think that all these ideas of infections, and how people get infected, and how long it takes before they go nuts, or it's really demons or whatever, are not the way to go. With a big collaborative film like this, I don't think that kind of story works.

What about this?

It's "the end of the world." Doesn't matter why it's ending, doesn't matter how. What matters is the human response.

What would you do if the world was ending?

Five or six vignettes, each exploring how different groups of people react in different places. Maybe some people don't change a thing. Maybe some make amends, with people or with God. Maybe some steal and rape and murder.

And each section can build in intensity, but be linked through a common prop or line of dialogue or whatever works.

So the "end of the world" is just an underlying theme through every piece. I don't know how, or even if you'd link it all back together at the end. It'd be easier to tell that once we'd get the separate stories written and brought back together here.

Think about it.

(And lemme know if you understand what I'm saying, I'm half-asleep writing this.)

I think I know what you're saying. The only problem I have is with the bolded line in the quote above. I have learned from expirience that the audience wants to know WHY and HOW. In fact, if they don't, they feel jipped, ripped off. I have written pieces that are vague in an attempt to be symbolic, but the result was always bad criticism. I think we should avoid that at all costs.

One more note, I think the people should be tied together by more than a line of dialogue. It needs to be a cohesive film that flows and has connections throughout. Further, I am not sure if everyone wants to go with an end of the world scenario. I like what you have to say, though, keep it up.

 

[Tom Shortridge]

I think I know what you're saying. The only problem I have is with the bolded line in the quote above. I have learned from expirience that the audience wants to know WHY and HOW. In fact, if they don't, they feel jipped, ripped off. I have written pieces that are vague in an attempt to be symbolic, but the result was always bad criticism. I think we should avoid that at all costs.

One more note, I think the people should be tied together by more than a line of dialogue. It needs to be a cohesive film that flows and has connections throughout. Further, I am not sure if everyone wants to go with an end of the world scenario. I like what you have to say, though, keep it up.

Well


Well, the way I was thinking (and I'm glad you're kinda getting me) was that it's about the people. If we write characters that are strong, and the audience connect with them emotionally (which, granted, is very difficult), they'll be along for the ride.

And yeah, I don't know how to connect the stories at this point. Just a nugget of an idea.

 

[David W. Richardson]

The problem with this theory, as I see it, is expecting the audience to connect with and care about (on a truly deep emotional level) so MANY different people. In a typical story, the audience is really only required to care DEEPLY about two or three main characters at most. If you have four stories going on in four completely separate areas of the world, then each story is going to have to have at least one or two characters the audience needs to care DEEPLY about -- and that's a total of between 4 and 8, at least. That pushes it for me.

It's also hard to fully develop that many characters so that the audience CAN care deeply about them.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but as a writer I feel it will be VERY hard. Just my 2 cents.