Comments Made During the Contest

Adam Grage (Level 4)

I wasn't able to really relate to this story mainly because I felt there isn't any main character or characters in the story.

If the secret group of Jacobsen, Smith et al is suppose to be the main characters I felt no connection to them because they really don't do anything in the story but spout some exposition. All their actions take place behind the scenes and so the bulk of the story is mainly just reporters talking about a protest outside the White House.

I think if you can bring some of the action onto the screen surrounding what this secret group is doing or make a character who is getting to the middle of what they are doing the story will be more compelling. Good luck.

Aimee Parrott (Level 4)

I think it's hard to present something as a flashback when you start the script with it. A flashback is non-linear by definition. I'd recommend starting in the present day, then having the earlier scene, the bouncing back to the present day. I liked the fake-out with Dr. Chibolister saying "Mr. Prr..." That was clever, because it just as easily could have been Mr. Preston as Mr. President.

I also found the story a bit difficult to follow. I honestly wasn't sure what was going on. I understand that a misguided effort to "protect" people from biochemical attack was at the heart of it, but it's hard to imagine a vaccine that would be effective for every potential agent that could be used. It's an intriguing idea, but I think it's bigger than five pages.

Austin Bennett (Level 4)

I didn't like this at all. I don't even feel that I should rate it. You need to work on the dialogue. It's so technical and dry. I tried reading it two or three times and I still don't know what happened. Something about drugs and protesting.

Try again next time.

Austin Jones (Level 4)

Great conspiracy story! I like that the son is worse than the father. I do feel like there is some emptiness to what the "vaccine" is. Would it do the people good if it was completed or was it some DNA altering research to begin with? It might be nice to have...and I can't believe that I am going to say this...a touch more exposition? But over all nice structure.

Brian Wind (Level 5)

It was well written, formatted, and free of technical error. The story itself was intriguing but it seemed to me that it could have been executed a little better if the protestors were all fired up over the one main issue instead of several different issues. All in all, nice work though. I enjoyed it.

Caroline Coxon (Mod Emeritus)

Hey hey, the different font on the title page again...I wonder?!

Funny to start with 20 years earlier! Twenty years earlier than WHAT?! I think it needs something physical to denote this, as well as you just saying. I can't see how we'd KNOW. Then you go to 6 years earlier...the same concern. How do we know?

How can we tell that Smith the Second has any connection to Smith the First?

It was a brave idea but I think was way too complex for a 5-pager. Simplify!

Chris Messineo (Founder)

You have a great twist. The reveal of Mr. Smith as The President is a wonderful ending.

However, the story feels a little cold and unemotional. I wish I knew more about these characters. Instead of a news reporter, perhaps you could personalize the tragedy through the eyes of one family. Find a way to connect the audience with the characters, so we are either rooting for or against someone.

Dave Kunz (Level 4)

The characters appeared to be cardboard cut outs designed for the purpose of reciting conspiracy theory rhetoric. The story line felt unwieldly and cumbersome. Stilted dialogue. Abrupt ending. It seemed to me the writer was more interested in giving the government a black eye than in telling a story. Agitprop is always tricky; if you're preaching to the choir, no problem, if you want to move people who are on the fence there needs to be more subtlety and entertainment value.

DW Pollard (Level 4)

Looks like you squeezed the margins a bit to get it to meet the five page requirement. Flashback was used effectively. Story seemed almost a little preachy. There was no main character to really be interested in.

Fahim Huq (Level 3)

I'm sorry,i didn't get it.
i mean ,ok,it's about half-assed govt.project backfiring,your formatting and dialogue are both very polished but i missed the excitement of the story and felt like i was reading transcript from a news.
Good effort though,keep writing!

Jacob Schantz (Level 3)

Not very compelling for the subject matter. The piece felt more like a PSA.
The final reveal didn’t feel funny, or poignant. More arbitrary.
So much time is spent in exposition, that by the time everyone’s done explaining, the story’s over. I think this would’ve worked much better if we could’ve followed someone else other than the Illuminati. A human perspective to make the story stronger.
Maybe not a victim, but an individual making a choice. That does seem to be what you’re trying to do here. Get people thinking and making better choices. The mob outside obviously made their choice, but that didn’t really lead anywhere. There was no confrontation between good and evil. Just mass numbers of people agreeing. Either protesting or around a conference table.
I agree with your politics, and with a lot of your assertions, but there wasn’t much covered here that I couldn’t find out on a website.
I liked the scope of your vision, but ultimately, it just didn’t work for me.

Jason Goldstein (Level 2)

In terms of the story, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The vaccination was ordered was to protect against bioterrorism, but at no point in the script is bioterrorism mentioned as a threat or even why this vaccination has to be developed and distributed in secrecy.

I'm assuming the President in the present is the same as the President/Smith II 6 years in the past. If this is true, the scene in the oval office would kill the surprise at the end when it is revealed that that Smith II is the president.

I work at a news station, so I'm going to nitpick your broadcasting scenes a little. Chris says, "I have just received word that we are ready to take you live to the
White House for the press conference." Instead, he should say "We now join Rebecca Reyes live at the White House." Then have Rebecca start right into her story. This avoids the two saying basically the same thing. Also, when talking about people, such as Shapely, I would use the first and last name the first time he is referred to, then just last name after that, unless there is a title first such as Director Shapely.

Jomo Merritt (Level 2)

I enjoyed the story. The flashback scenes were okay. I felt thier could have been a little more drama in the flashback just to keep the story moving along but other than that, it kept my attention and I liked it.

Kirk White (Level 5)

I like the idea but the script was a bit clumsy. I'm not sure it's wise(or even acceptable) to start with a flashback...I think you have to establish the present before you can flashback, so the slugline is a bit confusing. Maybe just say 20 years ago or give the date. 20 years earlier is confusing. I wasn'te 100% sure what exactly they were being vaccinated against...was it possible bioterrorism? I wasn't sure.

Liz Messineo (Level 4)

While the subject of bioterrorism and lack of government testing is interesting, this script is a little over the top. It needs a little more subtlety and subtext.

Margaret Avnet (Level 4)

Though there were a few typos I found the rest of the script to be very well put together. You made good use of the flashback in both instances. And it was a nice twist that it was the President who was behind it all. I thought you captured the newscasters very well.

Matias Caruso (Level 5)

There are some interesting angles hinted here: bioterrorism, government’s cover up, secret meetings, etc. My kind of stuff. The story didn’t do much for me though. Got a couple of suggestions in case you plan a rewrite.

The timeline is so confusing that I'm not able to tell if you have a flashback here or you don't. In the first slugline you write: 20 years earlier. Earlier from what? This is the first scene. I didn’t know what to make of this bit of information, and the same happened when I read “6 years latter” in another slug. Try to clarify things a bit.

And on a side note, remember that including this kind of information in sluglines is useless. The audience can’t read the script when watching your movie. You could do a SUPER: 6 YEARS EARLIER for example. In that way, both the reader and the viewer can get the information you are writing (it should always be like that, since the script is just a blueprint for a movie).

Try to dramatize things a bit more. Having a reporter filling the reader with exposition is cold and unemotional. Choose a main character. Make him/her have a problem that the audience could relate to. Tell the story from his point of view. Let the audience jump into his shoes instead of listening to a reporter.

Michael Cornetto (Level 5)

You did well with the flashback. I thought the story was interesting but the script seemed a bit heavy on dialogue. It seemed like you were doing a bit more telling than showing.

I think this script is a bit much for the 5 pages and you should expand it to show us a bit more of the flu's effects.

Michael Thede (Level 4)

A lot of talking in this script and not enough showing. This is a plan for a film, something visual, and people want to SEE something happen, not just hear about it. Alfred Hitchcock famously said, "If it takes to long to say it, show it." In this case, I think the story you are trying to tackle is, by virtue of the amount of information you're trying to get across, too big to be developed well in 5 pages. Furthermore, by not showing the consequences of the government tests (and I don't mean the protests, but the actual effects they've had on the people who have become sick as a result of it), you're robbing the story of an emotional connection with it's audience. Sure, all the information you've thrown at us is great to give some thought to, but if we don't leave the theater FEELING something, we aren't going to be changed by what we've just seen. Making your audience feel some kind of emotion isn't easy, but it is necessary.

Moorel Bey (Level 2)

This seems to me more like the beginning of a feature rather than a completed short. If this is the beginning of a feature I'm not sure that I would buy it. I'm sure many people believe that the government is corrupt or at the very least conducts actitivity that we citizens don't know about, however I don't know how many people would buy the president giving orders to knowingly harm people.

I was confused on page 4. Smith the second says he would like to complete the work of his father that he came across 12 years ago. If he came across it 12 years ago why is he just now deciding to take action? Are the pesticides being used really a biological weapon and so the president must take action? Did the president's father test biological weapons on the unsuspecting public and now the president must right his wrong? I'm trying to figure out the link between the pesticides and the vaccination and also why the public thinks the government is poisoning them.
On page 3 the president says "We shut that website this morning." Missing the word down.

Overall the script is well written and the use of the flashback works, however I'm not sure that I buy the story and the dialogue on page five of the president is not believable. I also think (beat) is overused.

Paul Pengelly (Level 2)

Don't really have any technical or style problems with it, it's just that I knew it was the President the whole time (Mr. Prr - ) and so the only payoff in the script was gone right at the start.

Choblisters one line that follows (concerned) is obviously him speaking concerned, you don't need the wrylie for that.

I don't know about underlining and italicizing - what does this mean?

Pia Cook (Level 5)

This was okay.

My main problem was Smith II. I think if you called him something else there might have been a little bit of surprise at the end, but I knew all along that Smith II was supposed to be the current president. Therefore, there was no surprise and no twist.

I'll vote GOOD on this because the writing was nice and the story okay, even if a bit predictable. :-)

Randy Bigger (Level 4)

Story about the government doing secret research and inoculation of the American people.

The writing flows ok.

How does the flashback work for me? I would not label the first scene as a flashback, only a prolog to the main story. So in my estimation, the only real flashback is the end scene with Mr. Smith II. Take it out and you still have a story. The flashback really adds nothing that isn't already set up and paid off from the first secret meeting to the public outrage and protest. I think what the flashback is supposed to say is that the drugs could really harm people. However that point is already made without saying so by having sick protestors.

The story itself does not grip me. There are so many conspiracy theories out there that you really have to do something unique to knock my socks off.

Rick Hansberry (Moderator)

I guess this is thinly veiled political statement but there's not much a plot to the story. You seem to want to portray President I and II as smug, thoughtless and arrogant but the secret meeting room dialogue rings very fake and there is no real plot to advance. You don't even show the press conference alluded to in the set up. The closing line doesn't bring any closure -- we meet again in two weeks? What does that tell us? I didn't get the point of the exercise. There was a flashback but there isn't much else that I suggest to change other than to insert some dramatic element -- such as -- what happens if one or both of these guys leaked the information obtained from the secret meeting room.

Rob Gross (Level 4)

Good story. I liked the setting you described at the beginning. Very mysterious. Your story unfolded at a good pace.

The newscast gave some intensity to the story.

I thought the story had good beginning, middle, and end.

Good use of flashback to twist the story and move it forward.
Good job.

Rustom Irani (Moderator)

The scene on page 4 where he watches the news report and prepares to leave establishes his identity. So is he Smith II or was it a different president?

You give this a nice conspirational air through your dialog and descriptions and the pacing is good. But there isn't enough action. It's usually protestors, or reporters talking.

I wanted to see secret government military types actually perform clandestine water poisoning activity, or introducing the "vaccine" into the crops, at the same time taking care of any witnesses.

The comedy works better through your descriptions rather than on the nose dialog like "govdontcare.org" which seems forced.

I don't think you need the newsroom scene at all because all it does is set-up the protest scene, which already had green peace type protesters holding placards proclaiming why they are here.

The bookend technique was used well with both flashbacks and reminded me a lot of Dr. Strangelove. In fact, reminded me of "the Russians poisoning our water supply and stealing our precious fluids" ;)

Technically you were fine.

Sabrina Dubois (Level 2)

Interesting (and haunting; I'm glad it was based in USA not Australia) story - I think you can keep going with this and turn it into a feature!

Yet another 6 pages squished into 5.

"Watching the news on television, he prepares to leave for
the press conference." Who? :)

Spencer McDonald (Level 4)

I sensed a touch of some political bias or bitterness in the writers tone. Maybe I am just paranoid.

Anyway... on to the story element. Hmmm. I didn't see any real story arch in this story other than we find out Mr.Prr, er eh, Smith is actually the President. Would like to have seen some more twists and turns.

You use BEAT a few times in your script. The first one is timely and used well, the next two seem out of place.

This was just okay for me.

Sylvia Dahlby (Level 5)

Show don't tell. The characters "tell" the story to each other rather than experience events as they unfold. The use of reporters to tell the story exacerbated the problem. Who is the protagonist? Why do we care what happens to him? Suggest rethinking a worthy premise in terms of how the "flu like symptoms" affect the characters and their lives, rather than focusing on an unsympathetic government & the media.

William Bienes (Mod Emeritus)

Tough subject to try and get done in 5 pages -- too tough, actually, in my opinion. Because of the grand scope of the subject matter, I felt it was lacking in build up due to page limitations.

The news reporters and activists need to be hit quicker and shorter, leaving room for Mr Smith X 2 and the good doctor.

Solid effort and I feel this has more possibilities as a longer script.

William Coleman (Level 5)

Actually, you're using a flash forward since you start in the past. Formatting: you fudge by making your dialog twoo wide. You'd come in over five pages if you did it the accepted way. As for the script itself, I think you are cramming too much into it. As a result it lacks clarity and impact as to exactly what is happening. This strikes me as an early draft. You're dealing with a nightmare situation that could easily happen.
I wish this worked a little better. It could with a little more focus, trimming, and honing.

Comments Made After the Contest

Stephenie Ruffin (Level 4) ~ 10/2/2007 6:48 PM

Thanks for the comments made. First I'd like to say, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. The story came to me while conversating with a co-worker. I totally understand where I missed the mark, thanks for pointing that out. As a few commenters suggested, maybe I will work on this as a feature.

Chris Messineo (Founder) ~ 10/3/2007 8:55 AM

While a story like this could certainly work as a feature, I would strongly suggest you polish it as a short first.

Find a character you want to tell the story through and work on finding their unique voice. I think if you can do that, you will have a very compelling little thriller.