| Author | Post |
|---|
IanFraser
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 12:23 am |
|
(REMOVED - tried to add a new segment from the piece, but after half an hour of adjusting page layout, gave up. Life's too short :)
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 10:49 pm by IanFraser
|
cou122
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 01:03 pm |
|
| I think the scenario and potential risks are interesting and original. However, I don't get the tone from the first one. It's possible that in context it makes more sense, but offhand I don't get the humor or stakes in their situation. It's rather Vlad/Estragon-ish, but the style isn't polished maybe?
|
IanFraser
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
Well its an odd opening - as it kind of opens, as the first 'initial' conflict occurs - namely, a soldier in a missile silo, seemingly going off the rails.
There's some cat n mouse tension with this - then we find out that the truth
is something else entirely - and then what appears to be a simple war game+psychological stress test of personnel, turns out to be part of a more covert agenda.
Then we're into false flag terror operations, deconstruction of what happened on 911, and increasingly rising stakes..
So the story kind of starts in the third act, and then various events occur - and the head games (of characters unsure of what is 'true' and what is 'real') start happening, amidst quite a lot of politics and dissection of what constitutes modern American politics and policy..
But it starts like this - using the old hoary traditional drama of 'two guys, one gun, confined space' and rising tension, and moves into the meat and (hopefully) increasing rollercoaster rides..
Last edited on Mon Apr 14th, 2008 02:06 pm by IanFraser
|
Edd
Moderator
| Joined: | Sat Jun 10th, 2006 |
| Location: | Denver, Colorado USA |
| Posts: | 872 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 02:34 pm |
|
The title and the characters' names pretty much says it all, doesn't it? Oh well! America deserves a bad day every now and again.
~Edd
|
IanFraser
Member
|
Posted: Mon Apr 14th, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
Edd... damn! - re the character names saying it all ..
I honestly never even saw that!!!! ('ash and bones')
DAMN!!!
Well spotted!! Never thought of it like that.. weird to see my unconscious
mind at work.. (I just chose 'bones' because it seemed like a nice old style
African-American name - as well as the Star Trek character.. and 'ash' came
from the lead character in 'The Evil Dead') Meantime, the names together,
clearly show my intent).
Last edited on Wed Apr 16th, 2008 06:14 pm by IanFraser
|
IanFraser
Member
|
Posted: Wed Apr 16th, 2008 06:14 pm |
|
| EDIT: reposted, sorry about the delay, had a day of chores which took over...
|
Corerro
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jun 9th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 55 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 01:54 am |
|
| Interesting.... I too am missing the stakes throughout most of this. There are some moments of tension that the jokes sort of band-aid but I'm not sure the explosion ever comes. I also wonder how much of the stage directions can be trimmed to necessary action. I began to wonder what would happen if you had a great actor playing one of these roles and his discovery/acting choice was more interesting than what was written. There were a few instances where you have (to so-and-so) and the person's name is in the dialogue, so that might be a start on stage directions to trim. Trust the intelligence of your actors and audiences. Other than that, I commend you taking on such a risk.
|
IanFraser
Member
|
Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2008 03:21 am |
|
thanks for the feedback, it's made me relook at this piece, and see some initial weaknesses, and take more effort to fix 'er up.
that said, with this particular one, I was aware that initially, for quite a while, without stage directions of one sort or another, to break the back and forth dialog, and indicate 'thought pauses', it would just be almost a nonstop back n forth conversation for pages and pages.. so I definitely take your good point about trimming some of the script directions down and stripping out the 'editoralizing'..
but as regards 'the stakes' and tension, that's still coming.. for now its vaguely setting the scene, two guys chatting who're on duty and in charge of nuclear weaponry..
no guns have been pulled yet, and its all still staying 'civilized' - although 'something' might be approaching..
trouble is its a long piece, in escalating 'conflict scenes' - as characters (and audiences) assumptions are played with, and then shown to be incorrect - and these 'assumptions' get bigger and bigger, along with the apparent unfolding nuclear 911 situation.. this opening just sets up the basics.. not a good way to sell the overall rollercoaster ride..
Last edited on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 11:33 am by IanFraser
|
Current time is 05:37 am | |
|
