NOTE: This is a composite sample of the type of coverage I provide to screenwriters. In order to protect my clients, bits of different coverage has been combined, with names and plot details redacted. It includes the Basic Service, Detailed Analysis, Scene-Specific Notes, Follow-Up Coverage, and a Resubmission. This is more coverage than an individual script would probably require, but it does offer a good representation of the different services you can combine into a package that is right for you.

DETAILED COVERAGE

OVERALL REACTION

With its emphasis on lesbian sex, sprinkled with violence, this script comes across like a bit like a blueprint for an exploitation movie. After the recent box office disappointment of GRINDHOUSE, this may not be commercially viable as a feature film, although there may be a market in direct-to-video. Also, the writing style provides more detail than absolutely necessary, which slows down the pace.

WRITING STYLE

Much of the writing in this piece reads too novelistic for the screenplay form. In a book, it may be necessary to provide intricate descriptions of settings, costumes, and characters, but in a script the only necessary details are those that relate directly to the plot or reveal some important character detail.

For example, on the opening page, the green friendship bracelet that A—– wears is going to recur throughout the script, and it relates to an important time in her past. That means this detail is worth mentioning. The fact that her ponytail reaches down to the middle of her back, on the other hand, is not.

There are similar descriptions throughout the screenplay: T—— with shaggy hair, an orange t-shirt, dry swim trunks and a Computer Science magazine; M—-J— T—- with long hair draped over her lilac colored blouse. These are details that the costume designer, the hair stylist, the actor, the production designer, and the director should handle. We don’t need to know that Mary Jane is wearing Lilac unless (for example) the plot is going to hinge on a witness having seen a woman in lilac leaving the scene of a crime.

This style extends not only to character descriptions but also to action. For instance, on the top of page 5, it takes nearly half a page just to get the family into a car. The scene could just as easily have read:

A—– puts her sons in the car, and T—— hugs her from behind.

We don’t need to know that T—— “watches as A—– walks around the front of the car to the passenger door and gets in.” End the scene on a strong moment – a mini-climax – what some call a “button.” On a similar note, the SNAP (!!!) CRASH (!!!!) ROAR (!!!) during the climactic fire is okay once to set the scene; after that, it just distracts us from the main action.

Deleting this kind of verbiage improves what’s left behind. The remaining material looks strong for standing alone, forcing the reader to pay attention because there’s no fat to skim over. When someone’s reading a script, they want to see action and plot – how is what’s happening move the story forward?

This strategy has the added benefit of picking up the pace without deleting any scenes or sacrificing essential plot points or character details. Tell the reader only what he needs to know. Go into detail only when it’s necessary to make your point clear.

Ironically, one place where the details are not as clear as they might be is near the end. With all the fighting, fist crashing, and ax swinging, we don’t really see how A—– has had a chance to get herself and M— J— far enough away from the fire to be safe. When A—– collapses on M— J— and we see the fire in the distance, for all we know, the scene reads as if they are too exhausted to escape from the encroaching flames. When the T.V. Voice over tells us that two survivors were found, we think it’s the two women, until they are identified as men (presumably G——- and A——-). So, what happened to A—– and M— J—? Did they make it, or did they die in each other’s arms?

PLOT

The story gets off to an intriguing start with A—– washing blood from herself. This plants a seed that we expect to see grow throughout the story. However, most of the rest of the script does not have much to do with this; only at the very end do we get around to learning the secret behind the mystery. (To be fair, you do have a couple of investigators asking questions, which keeps the plot thread growing, but it’s still a small piece of the overall story.)

The way the story is structured leaves your audience in some confusion throughout the first two-thirds of the script. Yes, we know there is some mystery, so we don’t expect to understand everything, but we want to see how the sequence of events is bringing us toward an explanation of the mystery.

Instead, the script turns into a story about the love affair between A—– and M— J—. Since we don’t know what happened on the mountain until late in the third act, we cannot tell what connection – if any – exists between these two plot elements. When the revelation finally comes, it doesn’t really clear the matter up.

On some level, I think we’re supposed to believe that what happened caused some kind of big change in A—–, which opened the floodgates on her previously repressed passion. But the connection is a bit elusive. The attempted rape turned A—– off of all men, even her husband (who was not involved)? By having A—– trim her attackers to bits with a chainsaw, you come perilously close (no doubt unintentionally) to the old cliché equating homosexuality with homicide.

Your viewers are bound to be wondering what the love story has to do with the mystery – not to mention the other subplots that creep in. What does A—–’s newfound fear of fire have to do with anything? If she had really been nearly killed by a fire that flared up after she thought it was under control, her fear might have made some kind of sense, but instead it turns out that the only impact the forest fire really had was to erase evidence of her homicide.

Also, how does the subplot with M— J—’s abusive ex interlock? As far as I can see, he is just a red herring to distract us from suspecting that T—— will turn out to be the killer. But the revelation about T—— raises other questions. Why did he choose to attempt his crime near where A—– killed her attackers? Does he suspect what she did, or was his choice of location just a coincidence? And why was he hanging around in the woods just at the same time that the two inspectors were investigating, and why did he attack them?

Obviously, when A——- and G——- are attacked, we assume that Alexis was trying to hide something. Was this the original intent in the script? Right now, it feels like a movie where the ending was changed at the last minute, leaving a plot hole.

CHARACTERIZATION

The characters often feel as if they are being forced to do things in order to keep the mystery going. J—- is abusive so that we will expect him. T—— (it seems) attacks A——- and G——- so we will suspect A—–. A—– acts afraid of fire so that we will think she was traumatized by the blaze (as opposed to the attempted rape). Two firemen – comrades in arms yet – try to rape Alexis, providing the motivation for her to leave her husband. T—— arbitrarily will turn homicidal to provide an suspenseful conclusion that has little to do with either the love story or the mystery of what happened to A—–

This arbitrary kind of characterization is what makes the script feel like an exploitation piece. Things happen that are not justified by the characters or plot, in order to squeeze in some more action or sex. This can certainly be fun if that’s the intention, but the impression left by the A-M relationship is that the script is meant to be taken as a sincere romance.

To make this work, the characters have to behave in a more believable fashion. Sure, you don’t want them to be predictable, and they should be able to surprise us, but the script should lay some kind of groundwork to make their actions understandable, so that after all the revelations, we are not scratching our heads.

In more general terms, there is sameness to the characters, who need to be differentiated so that they stand out and make a clearer impression. For example, it seems that all three leads (A—–, M— J—, and T——) are given to copious teardrops. This gets repetitious and robs the tears of their ability to move us. You want your characters to be different: one cries at the drop of a hat; the other refuses to cry no matter what. And it’s best to use this kind of thing sparingly. Build up to it. Have a character who fights back tears throughout the story and only breaks down at the very end. The audience will eat that kind of thing up.

As with the tears, so with the sex. After A—– and M— J— first get together, there really is not much else you can do with them that isn’t just an encore performance. The script has made the point it needs to make about them dramatically; everything else feels gratuitous, and it becomes hard to tell whether this script is supposed to be a chick flick about two women who fall in love or a male fantasy about two hot chicks getting it on.

I suppose it could be both, but my larger point is that whatever the intent, the action gets repetitious. Using word search, I find fourteen instances of “tongues caress” – in some cases, multiple times in the same scene. The script would be better off saving something like this for one climactic moment. If you’re going to repeat it, there has to be something different (e.g., after the initial excitement, the thrill is gone or some such thing).

Sometimes, the characters’ actions seem a bit incredible, making us wonder what they are up to. This can rob some plot developments of their effectiveness. For instance, immediately after surviving a near-death by fire, A—– leaves her family to be with M— J—. We immediately assume that she and M— J— are already having an affair, and we wonder whether T——-is too blind or naïve to see it. (This reaches humorous proportions when the therapist suggests that Alexis spend some time with M— J—, and T—— doesn’t bat an eye.)

This leads to two results: 1) When T—— finally gets a clue late in the script, we wonder what took him so long. 2) When A—– proclaims her love for M— J—, we’re surprised in the wrong way – what she says is so obvious that we can’t believe it has not been said before.

One other point: Although there is no predicting human nature, and anything is possible, it’s hard to buy the idea that A—– and M— J— come to this revelation suddenly in adult life. Sure, they were only foster sisters, but still they grew up together with a strong familial bond. When it comes to finding a romantic partner as an adult (whatever the gender), one would expect A—– to go outside the family, not return to a childhood playmate.

DIALOGUE

As with the overall writing, the style of the dialogue sometimes goes too far in trying to hammer its point home. How many times do we need to hear A—– declare her love or say she wants to make love? Words like this become diluted through overuse. The attempt to ratchet up the emotion backfires a bit; the script can be in danger of sounding like a soap opera. It’s better to trim back and save these declarations for a few big moments that will have the intended, profound impact.

CONCLUSIONS

As you can see, the overall theme of these notes seems to be that the script is somewhat overwritten. Yes, there are some plot holes that need paving over, and some motivations could be clarified. But the important thing is to present the story in a readable form that hooks the reader and does not bog down in unnecessary details. The solution, in terms of both the scene direction and dialogue, would be to boil the words down to their essence. It’s not so much a matter of deleting material as of condensing the way it is described. It should not be too difficult to get this script down to 100 or even 90 pages, which should leave room for anything you might want to add to shore up the plot.

SCENE-BY-SCENE COMMENTS (typos, grammar, etc)

Page 1. “east indian man, wear and obvious wig” should be “East Indian MAN, wearing an obvious wig”

Also on this page, there is some confusion with the screen direction: The slug line tells us we’re outside the bedroom door; then with no indication of switching to another scene, we have a close-up of Ramu’s face, which is apparently part of the dream.

When the script tells us there is a close-up on a movie poster “WITH THE SAME FACE,” it’s not immediately clear that it’s R—’s face. (Of course, we can figure it out, but why not just say “R—’S FACE” and avoid any possible confusion?

2. “…blue eyes now quite awake looks at the door…” I think you need a period after “blue eyes.” Then start a new sentence: “Now quite awake, M— looks at the door…”

M—’s line about “If only I could find someone like you,” is probably unnecessary. We understand what she’s feeling from the way she looks at the poster.

3. D—-’s line “India is your home” should probably place the accent on “your” – that is, “India is your home.”

5. Scene description “She says teasingly” should be incorporated into the dialogue, like this:

M—

(teasingly)

Yeah. Growing up to be a big pain in the ass.

6. Description: “She says as she reaches for Mom’s hand through the window.” That sounds awkward. Why not use just: “She reaches for Mom’s hand through the window.”

At this point, I’m not sure I understand the significance of telling us that M— is just going along with Sammie as a last-minute thing.

Also, I’m not sure about the transition to ONE YEAR LATER. Presumably, M— is back from her one-year trip to I—-? Why start the script with her going on the journey if you’re not going to show the journey?

8. Am I reading the dialogue right? M— is back from I—-, but D—- hasn’t seen her since her return? Yet she drops everything at a moment’s notice to come visit?

9. I understand that M— would have to lie to authorities about the baby’s parentage, but why lie to her family? And if D—- has heard about the child, why is she so surprised to see him, and what makes this an emergency?

11. The newspaper clipping seems pretty flimsy evidence to conclude that L—— is the father of S—–’s child. I can see why M— would suspect this to be true, but she sounds too certain.

13. A page or two before, M— was suggesting she thinks there must be something wrong with L——. Now she says the baby should be with L——.

15-16. M—’s motivation is not clear to me. Instead of just filing a paternity suit, she wants to meet L—— through some kind of trick. Why? One minute she says she wants to know if L—— is good enough to raise the baby; the next she is saying S—– told her to raise the baby as her own. So wouldn’t M— be betraying S—– by giving the baby up?

24. I don’t get it. Maya has gone to all this trouble to meet L—— and learn more about him. When he offers to buy her a cup of coffee, she refuses – why turn down this opportunity to sit down and talk with him?

25-26: The “L—— adds quickly…” description clearly applies to L——’s previous line, so why put if after the fact?

29-30: I’m not sure why V—– is in this meeting. Does L—— just get to bring his personal friend into the boss’s office for no particular reason?

32: Now M— is waiting for L—— to call, when she could have arranged a meeting with ease earlier, when he offered to buy coffee.

35: The scene description tells us M— and D—- were not expecting any callers. Then the dialogue repeats the information. This is redundant; just use the dialogue.

42: Scene description tells us “L—— is impressed…” etc. How will the camera show this to the audience?

43: M— says a line; then the scene description tells us “She jokes.” Why not just write:

M—

(joking)

No cousins, aunts, uncles twice removed.

45: It’s taken D—- three weeks to tell M— that L—— did not recognize S—–’s photograph? And this information has no effect on M— – like maybe she’s chasing the wrong guy?

46: M— suggests L—— may have been “a bit of a playboy back then.” Back when? A few months ago? Does she really think he totally changed into a potential father and family man that soon?

Also: earlier M— told us that S—– asked her to raise the baby as her own. Now M— laments “…if I could, I would keep you.” Why can’t she? Isn’t she, essentially, the adoptive mother?

52: M— is planning to tell Lincoln he’s a father but decides not to because he’s engaged? What does this mean? That he could only be a good father if he were single? Wouldn’t his being married be much better for the child?

53: M— calls L—— a “liar and a cheater” – even though he has, technically, done neither.

54: Seconds after their anguish about L——, D—- and M— are all jolly over V—–’s call. A bit too fast of an emotional transition.

58: D—- refers to V—–’s “planted call” as if M— would know what she was talking about – but M— did not see V—– answer his cell phone.

61: I know D—- is embarrassed about her slip of the tongue while speaking to Mom, but would she really lie to M— at this point – when she knows it will probably only make things worse? Especially when, a few moments later, M— specifically says she wants to tell Mom about the baby before she finds out from someone else?

65: The baby is sleeping in her mother’s arms when M— comes home.” This sounds as if you mean the baby’s mother – when what you mean is M—’s mother.

71: With L——’s arrival, this scene starts to feel like the end of the movie: all the principle characters are there, and it would be easy to sort out the whole mess and explain the mix-ups and confusion.

74: Scene description: “He asks looking at D—-.” Should be:

V—–

(looking at D—-)

You’re not M—?

84: I don’t get why V—– needs to hide from Mom. As long as Mom doesn’t see V—– and D—- kissing, V—– can just say he showed up to see M—. I guess the point is to get V—– into the bedroom so he can find the folder. That’s rather a big stretch of probability, but I suppose audiences will buy it in a comedy.

88: V—– neglects to explain to Lincoln why he should “be careful.” Why the secrecy?

89: V—– finally takes the obvious action that Maya has neglected throughout the script: trying to match the DNA to prove paternity. But he does go about it in a rather sneaky, unpleasant way.

90: L——, trying to convince M— he is no longer a playboy, says he hasn’t had any “serious relationships” since his father’s heart attack. The effect is the opposite of what he intended; it sounds as if he is saying he’s avoiding serious relationships in favor of lots of flings and one-night stands.

90-91: M— is on the verge of becoming a very unlikable character at this point. Viewers are bound to be guessing she’s wrong about Lincoln being the father, so when she calls him a liar and storms out – well, she looks foolish and unsympathetic.

92: In L——’s bedroom, the scene description reads “V—–” when you mean “L——”

95: It’s incredible that V—– would be having this conversation with L——’s father, especially the part about changing Lincoln’s mind so he won’t go through with his wedding to A—-.

105: The detail about the cufflinks is not clear to the reader. What exactly is L—— supposed to be seeing in the photograph of S—–?

106: Scene description: “He walks over to his father” would be clear as “L—— walks over to his father.”

108: I guess the point of the last scene is that M— has given up her infatuation with Indian men with mustaches. I think the audience will have figured that out by now. What we really need is some indication that Maya has learned some kind of lesson from all this: that things would have worked out much easier and faster if she had simply told the truth up front.

FOLLOW-UP TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

As I wrote before, you are trying to convey something fairly complex, but I think you can get it across. Here are my responses to your additional questions:

I have been having trouble getting my picture of A—– across. This actually has something to do with my attempt at the theme “Good will triump over evil because it values life above all else.” Although he thinks himself good (always battle what is not “right” or not “the law”), A—– actually loves power and is evil throughout the film. His scene with the boy thief was supposed to show a part of this (he does not care that the boy’s family will starve, just that he has stolen something).

A—–’s change at the end is that he realizes that he was evil and thus sacrifices himself to kill Ahriman. When he retrieves the weapon, the entrapped demon influences him enough to embrace his power and do what he wants regardless of “the law” or what is “right”. I tried putting enough tension between him and Thulin that his first act would be to get rid of that nuisance.

Do you have any thoughts on how I can make all this clearer in the story?

The scene with A—– and the boy is good in that it gives us our first hint that A—– is not as heroic as we would otherwise think, but we need some follow-up to bring the idea to fuller realization. Since H—-, like the boy, is a thief, I suspect the audience will expect some kind of (at least minor) confrontation here. He objects on general principal to teaming up with someone who does not obey the law, but A—— convinces him to continue with the quest, because the reward will be a “power he can use to fight evil.” This way, we’ll see Arwold make a moral compromise in order to acquire great power for his fight, and we’ll suspect his motives somewhat and be more prepared for what happens when he gets his hand on the weapon.

During the journey, you could have Arwold express his hard-line, black-and-white, “you’re with me or you’re against me” philosophy of good and evil, which (in his mind, anyway) justifies turning the boy thief in, and which also makes him consider Halia “evil” because she’s a thief. Perhaps you could contrast this with Xarun, on the other hand, who is less of a philosopher and sees things more simply: to him, Halia and Thulin are “weaker” and therefore deserving of his protection, because he feels an emotional sympathy – which he considers more important than Arwold’s strict but limited “idealism.”

The tension between A—– and Thulin didn’t come across strong enough (to me anyway) to make me understand why Arwold attacked Thulin first. You might be able to beef it up, but I would suggest going with antagonism between A—— and H—-: A—– thinks she is not on the side of “the law,” so he considers her a potential enemy and attacks her when he gets the chance; maybe Thulin simply gets in the way.

In this draft, I don’t think the idea that Arwold lusts after power ever comes through clearly. You can try to build this up, or you can take a different tack. For example, when Arwold and Ahriman team up after getting the weapons, you have Ahriman offering to help A—– gain power – which doesn’t really ring any bells based on A—–’s previous behavior. Instead, I would suggest that Ahriman’s “pitch” to A—– should be something more like Darth Vader’s to Luke Skywalker at the end of EMPIRE STRIKES BACK: “Join me, and together we can end this senseless conflict.” (Aren’t you glad I’m not referencing Lucas rather than Tolkien?) In other words, A—– would consider it “good” to join with A—— because together they could subjugate the whole of humanity to A—–’s strict idea of the law – a sort of Fascist ideal that would put an end to petty conflicts between the different peoples of the world.

Regarding A—–’s change at the end: From your question above, it’s clear that your intention was for the weapon to bring out the bad side of A—–’s personality, but you have him say, “I have been under a spell” after the demon in his weapon is dispersed – which gives the impression that he hasn’t really been responsible for his actions since he obtained the weapon. It sounds as if he isn’t taking responsibility for his actions; he’s blaming everything on A——.

A—–’s self-realization would be more powerful if it happened in a way where he was confronted with the evil consequences of his own acts. Rather than simply having his demon exorcised (so to speak), is there any way to contrive the climax so that he sees something really horrible that shocks him out of his spell? You know, his wife/lover/brother/bestfriend/homeland is destroyed by his own army because it refuses to become a part of his new world order, and he’s left staring at the rubble, realizing he caused it. And then, he turns against A——…

On a similar note, this theme was supposed to explain H—-’s character. She is a thief (we see that), but she is good not because of who she steals from, but because she values life above all else. Perhaps I should have her steal something from one or more of the companions to show that she will take what she needs from whomever? Maybe someone should confront her on her thieving ways?

I think this will tie in with question number one. Have A—– confront her about her stealing. He over-reacts, which makes the other members of the group (and hopefully the audience) sympathize with H—- and see that her crimes are relatively minor compared to her value for life.

I think that I am having difficulty relaying the exact properties of the weapons (which should explain some of the questionable behaviors of A—– and H—-). The weapons: a. are harder/sharper than normal (somewhat irrelevant to the story) b. offer enhanced stamina/power to the wielder c. contain an entrapped demon that use the wielder’s desires to take over his/her mind

For A—–, his love of power and his suppressed desire to rid himself of Thulin cause him to fall quickly to the weapon’s spell. For H—-, her conflict between an outward desire of riches and an inward desire of family/friendship cause her to have difficulty in controlling the weapon. For Xarun, his simplistic desire of protecting “his people” gives him near immunity to the demon.

This is a lot to put across without addressing the topic directly in the dialogue. I think the basic properties of the weapons (sharper, stamina, demon-infested) should be literally spelled out for the audience by M—— and/or K—-. After that, the audience may be able to figure out why the different characters react differently to their weapons; but even here, it probably wouldn’t hurt to have the characters address the issue. After all, you don’t travel with a man like Arwold, fight side-by-side with him, and then see him kill a helpless boy without at least asking the question: Why did he do that? Halia would certainly have an opinion, if she felt that Arwold had been antagonist to her throughout the story to that point.

COVERAGE OF REVISED DRAFT

This draft definitely works on its own terms, but it is hard to say whether it is quite what Hollywood is looking for. (You mentioned that the earlier draft was an attempt to write something more mainstream and/or commercial.) I don’t see much more that can be done to “mainstream” the material without changing the whole thing. With that in mind, here are some small points that might be worth polishing…

This is the kind of story where the audience has to jump into its weird world and accept all the strange things that happen; those who are not prepared may be taken aback. It might be strategically smart to do something obvious to clue viewers in to the fact that they are in for something unusual. It could be a bit of narration or a title, just to help set the scene for those who like everything spelled out for them. Some variation on: “Once upon a time…” or “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…”

Along the same lines, I “got” that T——- had to lose his powers in order to stick side-by-side with L—- for more than a few minutes at a time, but there was a brief initial moment when I wasn’t quite sure what was happening. Again, it’s clear enough for people paying attention, but you might want to consider whether to spell it out more definitely. It’s not so much even that you need a line of dialogue, but that up to this point it has not been clear that the elemental characters can appear only for a minute or two in human space-time. Could we see T——- trying to help L—- but getting cut off before he can accomplish his goal? That would set the stage for what C—- does to T——-.

Also, although it’s very funny to see the ways that C—-’s master plan so often seems to be going wrong, it would be nice to have a moment where T——-’s ability to remain on Earth proved a definite asset to L—-. Right now he is more hindrance than help. He does drive the truck at the end, which is helpful, but that’s the kind of thing where he could have just materialized at the crucial moment. I’m thinking more along the lines of something that shows a contrast between T——- and A——/S—–/O—–: they have to pop in, carry out some scheme, and pop back out, but T——- has all day and all night to undo their damage.

Structurally, the only two points when I felt a bit detached from the story occurred around halfway through: the first is when L—- is racing to catch E———-’s plane; the second is when L—- is trying to rescue T——- from the Ice Ice Ice Company.

As for the first: there is a line of dialogue when L—-’s boss more or less rehires him and wants him to finish his ice sculpture on location. One would assume that E———- knows about this plan – it seems like L—- is expected to be on the plane, so we expect E———- to hold the take-off for him. When this doesn’t happen, we realize that L—- was apparently just going to show up unannounced It’s one of those moments where we wonder, “What was L—- thinking – that he would just talk his way onto the plane?”

Whatever the confusion, L—-’s race to catch up with E———- builds a lot of momentum for bringing the two characters together. When L—- more or less abandons this goal in order to rescue T——-, it’s a bit frustrating. Yes, it shows L—- is a nice guy who doesn’t abandon T——- when he’s in trouble, but it feels like a detour from the main plot. L—- himself doesn’t express any concern about being distracted from his primary goal; he seems to forget that a few moments ago he was leaping through the air to get E———-’s attention. We need a little something to show that he’s frustrated by this diversion but feels he has to do it before he resumes his quest for E———-.

Finally, for all the trouble they cause, the villains get off pretty easily. Sure, S—–’s plan is thwarted, and J—— gets punched out, but that’s pretty mild. You don’t have to nuke them all, but it would be nice to have more of a moment of triumph when the villains get their just deserts – you know, S—– wailing in agony at the non-stop love and happiness that now fills the world.