Kill the CEO

[roadrunner650]

Hi GITS peeps!

My completed draft. Looking for feedback. Go ahead and pick it apart. Let me know which scenes you liked, didn't like.

Thanks for taking the time to read and review!

www.sendspace.com/file/76ji3f

[mscherer]

Roadrunner650,

One consistent mistake I see throughout is punctuation when someone is addressed by another person. For example, on page 11 you write: Sorry Sheriff. When in fact it should be: Sorry, Sheriff.

Found the whole story very, very confusing from page 65 till the end. Could not keep track of who was on which floor; what the true situation was; saw no sign of any plan to this assault at all.

Then the ending? WTF? Everyone dies except the bad guys? This story is illogical at best, poorly written. The protagonist ( which I identified as Victor) has no arc. None of the characters change – instead they all die.

You need to sit down and rethink the story; the concept; the execution.

I hate to be so harsh because I was enjoying the story until around page 65, but then it all fell apart. It was written as if you were in a hurry to finish the script. No thought was given to the story logic. Just a bunch of action scenes spliced together without regard for the story.

Sorry to be so harsh, but it is what it is...

One man's opinion -- mileage may vary -- batteries not included.

Attachments:

[roadrunner650]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for reviewing my screenplay.

To answer your questions:

I tried to follow blake synder's five point finale for the assault.
1. GATHERING THE TEAM
2. STORMING THE CASTLE
3. HIGH TOWER SURPRISE
4. DIG DEEP DOWN
5. EXECUTION OF NEW PLAN

This part of the story was supposed to be a monster in the house, contained thriller. Only from a different POV.

Character Arc:
Victor - Protag - does have a character arc. It's downward. Who says it has to be upward. He goes from being a person of the law to breaking the law. He skirts the justice system because it failed him. He goes from inaction to action based on his backstory.
What better character to go from good to bad than a Sheriff?

Dawn - The attractor - Act I - Love (wedding) Act II - Hate Act III - Creation and Death
She pays an ultimate price for her decision. She doesn't die.

Everyone doesn't die at the end. Only one bad guy gets away. I'm sorry if I didn't give you a traditional Hollywood ending. Braveheart and the Gladiator didn't have happy endings.

[roadrunner650]

Hi Michael,

Just wanted to answer your questions you mention in your notes. You seem really aggravated about my story.

Page 4: okay, we have a story logic problem here. The sheriff is the one who delivers eviction and foreclosure notices. So it doesn’t make any sense that two complete strangers are the ones to do it. Also, seems odd the sheriff doesn’t ask these guys who the hell they are when he arrives on scene.

No story logic problem. The two men delivered the notices.

"Victor glances at papers lying on the floor. The words "EVICTION" and "FORECLOSURE" highlight the pages."

Show not tell. Victor sees it on the floor. You're the first person who thought Victor delivered it.


Page 13: what is Victor doing on the golf course? Caddying? Give him a reason for being there.

I wanted to make the scene better. I could have had the scene in a conference room, but that
would be boring. How many cliche' negotiations happen in a conference room?
The golf scene is used because it provides subtext.
The golf game is used as the negotiation process. The Prosecuting Attorney wants to win.
The Defense Lawyer wants to plea bargain.
Victor interferes with their negotiation process. He's there because he's concerned for Owen.

Page 13: again, NAMES!! FEMALE MANAGER doesn’t get it. This is LAZY writing!

FEMALE MANAGER never appears in the script after this page. What's the point of giving her
a name? I'm not to going to give a minor character a name. Then you don't have to keep track of
a minor character who never appears again. A person can only really keep track of 6-7 names at a time. Why should I confuse the reader?

The lawyer names I will change however.

P. 14 & P.21 - TIME CHANGE for SLUG LINE.

Ok. Point taken. I'll add that.

Page 28: why is Victor in this scene?
This is between the drug company and Tim’s family. And where is the family’s attorney? Story logic!

Victor is there because he suspects a cover up. He's there because he's looking at a criminal case.


Page 33: too convenient. Why was there a gun case in the backseat of Eric’s car? No one drives around town with a gun case out in the open.

Not if Brandon brought the gun case without his parents knowledge.
Here I'm doing a show not tell. The parents don't know he brought the gun. The gun case is there for effect.

I could have made a scene where Brandon goes to the car and pulls out the gun, but I wanted to have a setup and payoff.

Page 35: where the hell did Nick come from? You only had the Defense Attorney; the CEO; a Legal Assistant; and Brandon in the scene!

Noted. I'll just add Nick coming out of the SUV.

Page 37: okay, why did the woman give Victor map coordinates for Nastfaro’s new world headquarters? No secret. Something this huge would have to have been in the business news at some point. Also, in your SLUG, tell us where we are at. Obviously not Boring, Oregon (and, by the way, please change the name. when I read the initial SLUG I though EXT. BORING OREGON – DAY was a comment on the state of Oregon in general).

Sure. It would be in the business news of the new county. However it may not be picked up by the Boring's newspaper.
Now you're splitting hairs.

Page 42: story logic. You have the Sheriff stating:

VICTOR
Look, I need to speak to someone
about the accident last month. I
was given his name as the contact,
but he keeps giving me the run
around.

But obviously it has been longer than a month since Tim’s accident. Dawn has been married. Brandon has been killed after what had probably been a lengthy trial (months??). Might be better if the Sheriff says: ‘…the accident last year..’.

Good point. I'll look into this.

Page 62: Lance is in is 50s and you think that is old? You have Owen say ‘… we don’t need this old relic…’. That is something you would say about a person in the seventies or eighties – not fifties.
Ok. I'll change it to 60s. No big deal.

Page 77: think you meant RICHARD instead of JAMES:
Thanks. Good catch.

Page 86:

GRANGER
Sniper! It’s gotta be one of those
windows on the 5th floor!

Because the action that Lance does prior to this. P.77 Lance breaks the windows on the 5th floor.
Wouldn't you think from the outside that's where the bullets are coming from?

Page 90: story logic: how the hell does John know to fire at Dawn six floors below.

John sees a person in a ski mask. He shoots at the person in the ski mask who's hiding from the police.
He doesn't know it's Dawn. He just thinks it's an armed gunman.


Page 97:
What's wrong with the ending? Because John got away? There should be two outcomes for the ending.
The protag gets to their goal. Or the protag doesn't get to their goal. The movie ends when this happens.

A story should be plausible. There's always going to be something someone doesn't like about a plot point or an action. I work in the high tech industry, but I don't get mad if I watch a movie where some hacker can crack a firewall in 10 seconds or some agency can trace an ip address in 2 minutes.

[oz]

You might want to grow some thicker skin, roadrunner. We all know it's tough putting your work out there. But getting defensive and borderline rude discourages others from reading your pages and, perhaps, getting differing opinions.

I haven't read your script. After reading your response to Mike, don't know that I want to put myself out there only to be on the other side of your next rant.

Put your pages up and take it like a man. If three people agree that something's wrong, there's something wrong and it needs changing. If three people have three different opinions, you probably don't need to change anything if you don't want to. But you might get some clarity after being too close to the project for so long and when you put it out there, you'll get that kind of feedback. Good, bad and ugly.

Thicker skin. Grow it or go insane in this line of work. Good luck to you, my friend.

PS---reading and critiquing others' scripts will also help you in understanding these critiques with a bit more grace. Doesn't look like you show up around here unless you want someone to read. And that's fine, but, well, now I'm just going to repeat myself. *see above*

[mscherer]

roadrunner650,

I have never, in the past, responded to criticism of my criticisms. But in this instance I will make an exception. Ready?

My comment:

Page 4: okay, we have a story logic problem here. The sheriff is the one who delivers eviction and foreclosure notices. So it doesn’t make any sense that two complete strangers are the ones to do it. Also, seems odd the sheriff doesn’t ask these guys who the hell they are when he arrives on scene.

Your response:

No story logic problem. The two men delivered the notices.

"Victor glances at papers lying on the floor. The words "EVICTION" and "FORECLOSURE" highlight the pages."

Show not tell. Victor sees it on the floor. You're the first person who thought Victor delivered it.

Nope. You missed my point. My point is that the Sheriff (anywhere in the USA) or the Sheriff’s department are the folks who evict people. I never once thought Victor delivered the notices. Just thought you had the wrong folks doing the eviction.

My comment:

Page 13: what is Victor doing on the golf course? Caddying? Give him a reason for being there.

Your response:

I wanted to make the scene better. I could have had the scene in a conference room, but that
would be boring. How many cliche' negotiations happen in a conference room?
The golf scene is used because it provides subtext.
The golf game is used as the negotiation process. The Prosecuting Attorney wants to win.
The Defense Lawyer wants to plea bargain.
Victor interferes with their negotiation process. He's there because he's concerned for Owen.

All well and good, but you just don’t plop characters into scenes for no STORY reason. You may have thought it would make the scene better, but Victor better have a good reason for being in the scene. He doesn't.

My comment:

Page 13: again, NAMES!! FEMALE MANAGER doesn’t get it. This is LAZY writing!

Your response:

FEMALE MANAGER never appears in the script after this page. What's the point of giving her
a name? I'm not to going to give a minor character a name. Then you don't have to keep track of
a minor character who never appears again. A person can only really keep track of 6-7 names at a time. Why should I confuse the reader? The lawyer names I will change however.

You should give even minor characters a descriptive tag. You are a writer. Make the story enjoyable to read. Something as simple as changing FEMALE MANAGER to MATRONLY MANAGER goes a long way to adding character to your story (pun intended).

My comment:

Page 28: why is Victor in this scene?
This is between the drug company and Tim’s family. And where is the family’s attorney? Story logic!

Your response:

Victor is there because he suspects a cover up. He's there because he's looking at a criminal case.

All these are true facts, but it doesn’t explain WHY he’s at a meeting between two parties in the midst of a lawsuit / settlement. Like the golf course scene, you can’t just plop characters into scenes because you think it will be cool. There has to be a reason that makes sense to the reader/audience.

My comment:

Page 33: too convenient. Why was there a gun case in the backseat of Eric’s car? No one drives around town with a gun case out in the open.

Your response:

Not if Brandon brought the gun case without his parents knowledge.
Here I'm doing a show not tell. The parents don't know he brought the gun. The gun case is there for effect.

I could have made a scene where Brandon goes to the car and pulls out the gun, but I wanted to have a setup and payoff.

So Brandon had the gun case in the back seat with him and his parents didn’t notice?? Sorry, don’t buy it. And in order to have a set up and payoff we needed to see Brandon steal the gun case or remove the weapon. Showing us an empty gun case AFTER Brandon has used the gun is NOT set up and payoff.

My comment:

Page 37: okay, why did the woman give Victor map coordinates for Nastfaro’s new world headquarters? No secret. Something this huge would have to have been in the business news at some point. Also, in your SLUG, tell us where we are at. Obviously not Boring, Oregon (and, by the way, please change the name. when I read the initial SLUG I though EXT. BORING OREGON – DAY was a comment on the state of Oregon in general).

Your response:

Sure. It would be in the business news of the new county. However it may not be picked up by the Boring's newspaper.
Now you're splitting hairs.

No, I’m not. If Nastfaro is THE major employer in Boring you just gotta know somebody, somewhere is going to know about the new world headquarters. I guess no one in Boring watches the national news, or any of the 24/7 cable news networks.

My comment:

Page 90: story logic: how the hell does John know to fire at Dawn six floors below.

Your response:

John sees a person in a ski mask. He shoots at the person in the ski mask who's hiding from the police.
He doesn't know it's Dawn. He just thinks it's an armed gunman.

Don’t buy it. Dawn has taken cover behind a car after Will is shot. John just nonchalantly walks up to a window during a raging gun battle and shots into the parking lot? And the police don’t return fire? Nope, don’t buy it.

My comment (which you left out):

Page 97: WTF!

Your response:

What's wrong with the ending? Because John got away? There should be two outcomes for the ending.
The protag gets to their goal. Or the protag doesn't get to their goal. The movie ends when this happens.

A story should be plausible. There's always going to be something someone doesn't like about a plot point or an action. I work in the high tech industry, but I don't get mad if I watch a movie where some hacker can crack a firewall in 10 seconds or some agency can trace an ip address in 2 minutes.

But, and this is the BIG BUT.... what was the point of your story? What does the audience take away from watching your movie? Can you please explain?

Keep Writing!

[roadrunner650]

Hi Michael,

Look. I'm not trying to criticize your notes. I'm just trying to answer your questions and also explain things, because people are going to read your notes and think I'm a bad writer. When I see things like Lazy Writing or WTF! and some other people haven't even had a chance to read it, well that's putting things in their minds before they've even looked at it.

I'll answer your last question:

But, and this is the BIG BUT.... what was the point of your story? What does the audience take away from watching your movie? Can you please explain?

When I was writing this story, I heard an interview with Carl Ellsworth, one of the writers of "The Last House on the Left." It too was a revenge movie. When he did the rewrite, he mentioned that he wanted to make sure there was no sequel because these people did bad things and that the moral compass of the movie points true north.

So I wanted to make sure that my story also pointed true north. This ensemble team terrorizes, tortures and kills, but they don't get way with it even though they felt justified to do so.
You can't let someone get away with that.

This story was inspired by what happened with the BP Oil Spill. I'm pretty sure there were quite a few people who wanted to act out against BP, Citibank, Govt. etc. People are really angry in this country right now. I wanted to write a story about what would happened if someone did act out. I also wanted to make sure that when people walk away from watching my movie that they don't try to do the same thing in real life. I want them to know that acting out is not without consequences.

Hopefully that answers your question.

[marc]

hi roadrunner,

so, I read your story. First off, congratulations on finishing a draft.

I liked Victor. He is introduced nicely and the donut craving, care for his daughter and easy going small town sheriff attitude made him likeable.

Dawn and Will were also likeable. And your introduction of Bobby as a somewhat pain-in-the-ass teenager is well done, too.

But unfortunately I have to agree with Mike on most of his complaints.
You already responded to it but I want to mention again the names. You also should give the DOCTOR a name. All the recurring characters deserve names and even last names. Otherwise it sounds all very generic and boring (Oregon).

remember your own dialogue (Quote):
CINDY
Saying their name is important. You
don’t know how excited the workers
will be when they think you know
them by name.
JOHN
How excited?
CINDY
Cream in their pants excited.

Ironically the CEO who would be rather generic to stand for a lot of CEO's out there and is referenced in the title does have a full name

And Boring, OR? Seriously? It's funny but that conveys the tone of a comedy. So does the title "Kill the CEO". Sounds a little comedic for a revenge thriller.

NOSTFARU sounds like Nosferatu, I like it.

What I really thought to be unnecessary was the Tim/Brandon storyline. Here is a suggestion (You might consider it or just crumple it up and throw it away):

Go into the scene at the point when Tim types his message. Cut the preceding stuff. Let Bobby be hit by the car and let it all play during the marriage scene. Let Will first be angry at his brother (for spoiling the wedding by not showing up) and then show his affection when he suffers and dies. Why not let it happen to Will's family right away? There would also be more personal motivation for Victor.

Think about getting rid of Brandon (Don't need him, replace him by Will). He appears for the first time on his brother's bedside has no interaction with any one of the main characters. I don't root for him.

Make Dawn Owen's lost love. Creates more conflict between him and Victor and Dawn and Will. When Will dies instead of Brandon let Owen and Dawn slowly find back together and let the ice break when Owen gets infected... (remember I'm just making suggestions, but I think there is more potential for some drama in this story).

Also the drug that is a biological weapon. Why not make it more mysterious. Don't tell the reader what it is in the first act.

I think Victor needs a stronger motivation for planning the showdown. Where are the stakes? A single red box, three peolpe dead doesn't get me invested in the story. Victor is not invested either in this thing. He seems tired and bored in Boring.

p.32-33 the court room scene needs more description. what is going on? who is in the witness stand, etc. I was a little confused.

p.46 Nick appears from nowhere for the second time.

p.50 until that point I don't have the feeling Victor has been through enough trouble to start drinking again.

when the short chubby man is Derek why not introduce him as "DEREK, a short chubby man", right away?


I don't want to sound too harsh. I think this screenplay needs some more work. But I also think you can make something out of it. Just rearrange some things and raise the stakes. You might probably concentrate on the drug storyline and finding an antidote. There is something here but it reads like you haven't found what really lies at the core of this story.

There were some interesting setups, e.g. the mysterious drug, the enigmatic company, Victor's investigation,... but none of it was wrapped up in a satisfying way.
Instead you spent 30 pages of your 98 page screenplay for the third act. You need to flesh out and beef up the second act.

So these are my notes. The title piqued my interest and some of the characters where well introduced. For the rest, it was rather Oregon. I'm sorry.

[roadrunner650]

Hi Marc et al,

Thanks for taking the time to read and review my SP. I will take your notes into consideration for my rewrite. Based on the feedback I will rethink my finale and work on addressing those issues.
There are quite a few things in addition I need to fix, cutting number of characters, beefing up the antag, etc.