Ruby

[Sunk99]

Hi Sunk99,

Thanks for the read.

Good:
The story is set up well.
The intricate details are very nicely done, like the door closing switching the lights on.
The tension is built well with the ping-pong balls.

Not so Good:
The expressions 'work it' 'bummer' you don't need. This is a script, show us not tell us.
Break your action up to help the pacing and show the shots. It is so heavy with words. Simplify it and it will flow far better.
A lot of the dialogue seems unnecessary, e.g. "I'm sure." I would read the dialogue out loud, as some of it just doesn't read right.
I don't think legally word of mouth would work when it comes to a property. But that's nit-picky.

Overall, there are some really nice things here, but it's just too much. It becomes a slog to read. I'm not even sure at the end there is a payoff for getting through it... Straight away I thought, "was this house owned by Willy Wonka or Michael Jackson?" I think it needs work to work as a script, but as a story writer I think you would be very good. Well done.

Thanks for the review. Agree, verbal would not hold up in court. Your wondering what weirdo owned the house tells me you are not familiar with Rube Goldberg or his machines. I'm surprised and finding out that a lot of people never heard of him or at least recognize similar contraptions. I've moved all about the U.S. and put five kids through school. They all, at some time or another for school, built Rube Goldberg machines. There is even a national championship each year. Some people call them Mousetrap machines. The game Mousetrap was based on Rube Goldberg's newspaper cartoons in the early to mid 1900s. Throughout my script, I tried to pound the Goldberg name, and yet not get into a copyright issue. I may or may not have legally accomplished that. Honda made a really cool machine that is posted on Youtube. Check it out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ve4M4UsJQo Anyhow, I thank you for the read and input.

 

[Rustom Irani]

I just feel like I walked into a live action version of a Ralph Bakshi animation. Not necessarily a bad thing if you get the reference.

Whenever I've come across a script that reads so detailed with specific sound, prop and production design cues, I know that the author probably intends to shoot this himself/herself.

This could be challenging to pull-off without detailed c.g.

I can see this as a Sky Captain meets Sin-cty effort on a low budget, since in actuality your script reads very much like a detailed storyboard, which in all probability you'll definitely need to shoot this.

What I can't figure is, how does one then critique this effort which is obviously no longer in the running for being a couple of pages over than limit?

Based on writing? Well, this is a writer's competition and you'll get most comments aimed at the prose style, deviating from "white-space" and how there isn't much inner conflict.

All I can then add is my two cents on a different approach to tackle this in execution. Try blending retro with this, take out all dialog and add cue cards. Those will lend a lot of atmosphere to the kitschy premise.

"Who framed Roger Rabbit?" is my all time favorite film, and while your character might have Jessica's body, I think she's a lot more "Betty Boop" in personality.

I do hope that in future contests we get to read a script written by you which you intend someone else to probably shoot, just think like a writer without any other caps. Tis' hard, I know, but having read your reviews I get the feeling that you're primarily looking for visual narrative to take precedence over sub-text and carry the plot forward.

I totally get that, some people think visually, others prefer to have some room for their imagination to fill in.

As long as critiquing provides fixers and supports its argument, the end result can only benefit everyone involved.

I'd like to see this once you shoot it, if you wish for feedback on it.

All the best!

I love Goldberg devices, they're really awesome!

 

[Sunk99]

I just feel like I walked into a live action version of a Ralph Bakshi animation. Not necessarily a bad thing if you get the reference.
Whenever I've come across a script that reads so detailed with specific sound, prop and production design cues, I know that the author probably intends to shoot this himself/herself.
This could be challenging to pull-off without detailed c.g.
I can see this as a Sky Captain meets Sin-cty effort on a low budget, since in actuality your script reads very much like a detailed storyboard, which in all probability you'll definitely need to shoot this.
What I can't figure is, how does one then critique this effort which is obviously no longer in the running for being a couple of pages over than limit?
Based on writing? Well, this is a writer's competition and you'll get most comments aimed at the prose style, deviating from "white-space" and how there isn't much inner conflict.
All I can then add is my two cents on a different approach to tackle this in execution. Try blending retro with this, take out all dialog and add cue cards. Those will lend a lot of atmosphere to the kitschy premise.
"Who framed Roger Rabbit?" is my all time favorite film, and while your character might have Jessica's body, I think she's a lot more "Betty Boop" in personality.
I do hope that in future contests we get to read a script written by you which you intend someone else to probably shoot, just think like a writer without any other caps.
Tis' hard, I know, but having read your reviews I get the feeling that you're primarily looking for visual narrative to take precedence over sub-text and carry the plot forward.
I totally get that, some people think visually, others prefer to have some room for their imagination to fill in.
As long as critiquing provides fixers and supports its argument, the end result can only benefit everyone involved.
I'd like to see this once you shoot it, if you wish for feedback on it.
All the best!
I love Goldberg devices, they're really awesome!

Wow Rustom - I'm humbled. So well written. Thanks.
Although this script was written specifically for this contest, you are correct the intention was it could be made locally on a shoe string budget.
I've written numerous scripts that needed Spielberg budgets. Of course, they never went anywhere. Older and hopefully wiser now.
Yes it will need CG. But actually these are simple in After Effects.
I do like your recommendation about cue cards. It could add some humor in a quirky way. I'll seriously consider the change.
Betty Boop? She was supposed to have the secretary from Ghost Busters personality. Dry, grinding. wah-wah - I failed on that. Back to studying the film again.
You have me nailed on visuals, and that is my preferred style, but I do write drama as well.
I would be more than happy to send a short for personal review. Simply ask.

I think I am capable of imagining visuals, with few cues, and doing the same in my writing.
Did you notice in Ruby the main location is simply described "HAUNTED HOUSE." There are others as well.
I do prefer to control the camera (storyboard) depending on occasion as do others. I recall someone panning through the ground.

I know some people are taking offense at my review format - which shows my scoring.
I'm the only one doing such and so I'm getting bashed where I score low.
That's okay - just trying to be honest. Some very emotional types - writers.
I'm not afraid to tell a writer my rating and give the breakdown as to why.
To me such information would be very useful for my writing to get better. 1-10 stars, likely have Facebook friend results.

I am sad about one flame where I totally did not get some omni-meta-physical I don't know what thing.
I re-read the script three times and still come way not seeing how an audience would arrive at such.
I asked a couple others to read it. They agreed with me.
But, reviewers here commented on how deep it was and how you have to ignore practical lighting.
I'm sorry I simply didn't get it. Nothing bad meant by it.

In a way I'm getting the same reactions to Ruby.
It appears many simply do not know of Rube Goldberg or his machines or the Mousetrap game for that matter.
Without that "recollection" they get lost in the story. I fully understand why and have learned that I need to survey wider groups.
I know how to resolve this issue in this story. I pause due to copyright concerns.
If I add in a Rube Goldberg newspaper cartoon clipping of one of his machines at the start, it should help a lot.
I've decided - I'm going to write them and discuss it. It's a local film, small time beans. Maybe they'll like the
added publicity and not want money. An aside - The guy who invented Mousetrap based the game on
Rube Goldberg Machines. He was never sued though Rube thought it fair that he get royalties. Never did.

Thanks again for the review - sharing your ideas. You got me thinking which is the name of the game.
TimMc

 

[lawriejaffa]

I know some people are taking offense at my review format - which shows my scoring.
I'm the only one doing such and so I'm getting bashed where I score low.

I think its simply because your own script is a bit floppy (no offence) and thus it comes across as a bit comical when you give 'rated' critiques, as it comes across as pretentious... which it is. I can sympathise im a pretentious git as well, but you need to have the goods to back up such a review format when it is supposedly a contest of equal peers. So you may be entitled to do as you wish review wise, but naturally you can expect it back Your attitude (and how it came across) actually put me off reading your script (but i will and i do intend to get on to the others.) So as a note of reference, id reconsider such review formats in future. I say that as no-angel on this forum (my critiques have been legendary in their comical offence to some) but as a gentle bastard that understands your fellow crudeness.

 

[Sarah Daly]

I basically agree with Rustom. He had some great stylistic ideas. And yep it's deffo over the page limit, and quite substantially since you've also shoe-horned quite a lot of action into your paragraphs, not enough white space etc etc You could rectify this by not spending the first page giving such a detailed and erotic description of your cliched hottie A line or two should suffice. We all know this character already so no need to write an essay about the shape of her calves.

I didn't get the Rube reference but I don't think that's a problem in understanding the premise. It's a pretty typical screwball inventor set-up - we're all familiar with these type of contraptions from various 90s kids comedies. So knowing or nor knowing Mister Goldberg's reputation isn't an issue I don't think as long as the whole purpose of the script isn't for us to realise that this is his house, when the characters don't - which really isn't enough of a premise for a story anyway unless you have the Ruby reveal at the end, sort of like the Wizard of Oz, and make some kind of statement with that reveal too.

And you don't, so what IS an issue for me, is that I don't see a theme or a message here. No message is fine - plenty of mainstream entertaining scripts don't have them but a theme is pretty important. Even the most mainstream/pulpy films have a theme. This script feels to me more like a series of events rather than a purposeful story. There's no twist and no arc since we know exactly the same amount about the house and the characters at the start as we do at the end. A sexy woman goes to see the house she's inherited, but it's rigged to seem like a haunted house so she gives it to her lawyer who is glad until he too realises that it's 'haunted' and then he...stands there in coloured light? Why doesn't she deserve the house? Why doesn't he? What was Ruby's intention in rigging the house? What did the character's learn or how did they change?

The devices in the house could work really well to get a message across. Maybe if you set up the lady to be this abhorrent money-grabber it would work better. Then, we would enjoy watching her be foiled by the house's traps ala the burglars in Home Alone. But as it stands we don't feel anything about her (except perhaps horny if you're a dude after reading the first page) so we just sorta think - 'oh that's a shame - but if I was her I'd probably sell the place rather than giving it to some random lawyer.' Also what happens in the end? Does the lawyer realise it's just a hoax and then get to keep the house? Or does the house devour him somehow when the boot falls? (Ps. I think we need to have an idea of what happens when the barrel is full of balls for that device to create the right tense response)

A jimmy-rigged house has huge comedic/scary potential but I don't think you exploited that to the full.

Overall, some good visuals and your concept has potential, but I was put off very badly by the first page. And by all the action/description chunks. This is probably more like a 12 minute film the way it stands? But if you're going to go to all the effort with the CGI and location, it might actually be worth making this longer rather than shorter. Seems more like the premise for a feature than a short. (Albeit with a fleshed out cast and a definite theme).

Hopefully that was helpful. I'm not normally so brutally honest but I figured I'd return the favour since you obviously want thorough feedback. When one gives it out, one must be willing to take it. My apologies for my reaction to your review, but I do feel that your reviews in general have been very blunt and unnecessarily scathing rather than constructive and unbiased. You're welcome to your opinion, but you won't make any friends that way and we all need all the friends we can get in this business. Even in my time as a script consultant I was instructed to add a little sugar to help the medicine go down.

Perhaps if I had described my actress in more lurid detail and had some neon lights in the coffin you woulda scored me higher. I'm being cheeky now ha.

No hard feelings though eh? (Genuinely not being sarcastic there!)

 

[Sunk99]

Thanks Sarah for the review.
I've written you privately to personally apologize for my own review which totally failed to say what I found right about your script.
As it was posted it was all negative which I agree is an improper review. I publicly apologize for such and have edited/deleted it.
Water under the bridge.
TimMc