by Luis Rivera
Here were my thoughts on this script: 1. Concept - Although the concept itself isn't original entirely, I did like the fact that you took a comedy approach instead of the overdone horror approach. 2. Story - I thought the story was easy enough to follow, albeit a bit predictable. Despite it's predictability, the story felt like it was at a good pace which is always nice. 3. Structure - Formatting and structuring were good for the most part. I think the only real thing that needs edited would be pauses in between dialogue and shorter action lines to avoid tediousness. 4. Character Development - I only put Fair for this one because we only learn about 3 characters, two of them slightly more in depth. I feel like if we got more from the father or at least a tad bit more from Ambri, that'd be good. 5. Dialogue - Most of the dialogue was good, although you don't necessarily have to put screams and extended shouts and that kind of stuff in lines of dialogue. Those can simply be put in the action lines. As far as comedy goes, the comedy was written good in terms of using dialogue, especially the opening scene. 6. Conclusion - I think your script is pretty decent so far but I think it could be even better, especially if you focused a bit more on character development and shortening the action lines, that way the pacing of the script can be more consistent.
I like how this imagination land is filled with the kids, I think it might be even funnier if you have us spend more time with the kids before they go to imagination land. Are they quiet, loud reserved, etc. Maybe there's a really quiet kid in the class who becomes incredibly loud and chaotic in the imagination world. Spend more time establishing the world before you subvert it. Like the goofy energy of your script. Reminded me of Rugrats, how something very mundane seems intense from a child's perspective. Pg. 4. When Aaron sees the third graders, I think you should have them do a funny actions. Maybe they're screaming, picking their noses, doing something a child would, except now they're in these cool motorized death cars. Pg. 6 Show Jake being a selfish jerk, don't just tell us about it. Maybe he was cheating on his test or hocking spitballs at another classmate. Pg. 16 Cute how Jake sabotages himself by yelling out his master plan. I really like your story, but it might be more effective to chance the setting from a school to a local playground. The kids have lots of toys and equipment that you wouldn't normally see at a playground for elementary children (especially the tape, shopping carts, and nerf guns). You'd be able to get away with a lot of wackier items and props for the kids if you're somewhere besides a school. I think you have a set-up for a great series. Constantly jumping between a mundane world and the imagination of a child sounds very entertaining. You'd be able to to create and parody a lot of really interesting scenarios.
It is clear you've spent a lot of time working on this. I think you did a great job in character development and everyone fits perfectly their role. We have a victim, someone who's a threat and someone who is here to help. So everything is here. Maybe the dialogue in the hospital could've been just a little bit longer in the sense of that it seems to me quite unusual that a suicidal girl agreed to a deal so easy and Jane didn't have to insist more. I think in the hospital, their first moment together should be something meaningful. Jane needs to get to Mary. Each of them needs to share something. To open up so that Mary can trust Jane and believe that she can help her. That's how I see it. When making descriptions cut them shorter or don't put big pieces of text together. What I mean is if you have a big piece of text, cut it into smaller ones made up of 2 sentences each so that you won't have a giant piece of text which appears unpleasant to the readers. At least to some. To me it's not a problem but try to either make it shorter or cut it into more sentences so that it would be more pleasant to read. The idea is good and it suggests a great upcoming story. Good luck!
It's been a long time since I read Lewis Carroll's two classics, as it has been since seeing the two successful versions Disney has made of the tale... the animated 1951 classic and the Oscar-winning Tim Burton live-action film. As such, I am familiar with the world and characters, but only passingly so. My recollection of the books is that they were full of weird quirkiness and wonderful language... "The Jabberwocky" remains a favorite poem of mine. The old 1951 film was weird absurdity made accessible for a '50s Disney audience... so long as Alice remained a relatably normal surrogate, they could get away with a lot. And the 2010 version... I remember it won Oscars for Costumes and Art Direction and very deservedly so. I remember little about the movie other than I wasn't bored and it was a fun feast for the eyes, in other words, a mid-range Tim Burton movie. I say all of this because you have taken on an intellectual property, so I think it's important to give context of the strengths and weaknesses of that property. I like Alice in Wonderland, I expect kid-friendly weirdness, verbal wit, quirkily absurd characters, and lots of imagination. The weakness of the property is that it has always been light on plot or deep characterization. As such, no one really remembers what the story was about. These are the elements which I would want to see and the issues that would need to be fought for a successful update to occur. The first scene of the script gave me great hope that this would occur. A wrap-around involving Lewis Carroll and his precocious niece Alice is a great way to get us into the story. I am reminded of the opening to 1935's BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. This scene has charm, wit, character... and then we go into Wonderland and the goodwill built up by that one scene is quickly gone. My complaint with the bulk of the script is that it is not a film script. It might well be a viable stage production, but tit is not at present a movie. This is made obvious because it is formatted as a play. In a film script, we would have description of what we are seeing, which is important because a script tells the craftsmen what to make and the audience what cool stuff they are going to see, which is a big part of what an audience wants from an Alice in Wonderland movie. Next, the script is dialogue-driven to the point wherein I'm not watching a movie, I[m reading a play. It si not structured like a film, in the sense that I don;t get a driving narrative. It just goes from one character to the next, without Alice having any driving motive. Now, this is a drawback of the initial property, as Alice is a pretty passive protagonist on paper, but it is also a flaw of the property that would need to be conquered to make a good movie. On stage, or in print, not such a big deal. On film, deadly, not to have a central driving motive for the lead, or at least to be aware that you'll have to get around this issue. Another issue for a film is that I didn't feel we got introduced to any of these characters she meets. Of course, we all know them in concept, the Caterpillar, the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts, but we don't know your version of them. As a result, my investment is minimal. Final problem is one I imagine any musical will have, I don't know what the music is for the songs, so that makes the whole thing hard to grasp. Ah, well, nothing I suppose that can be done about that. Final analysis: good opening. But is this a stage musical or a film. If it's the former, fine. I'm not the person to judge that. If it's the latter, then this needs to be rewritten as a film script.