shall we dance?

Set in stone

The screenplay for the production has been written and has gained a positive approval from the group. Feedback was given via our R'nD group on facebook and conversation went as followed:

Alex McCarthy wrote
at 15:02 on 07 October 2009

I read the screenplay and love it, I can't really think of any criticisms. I think it has all of things it needs to tell the story. Just one question, how old are the kids? The concept sketch Phil did shows them at late teens or early 20's, which in a way would be good because it will allow a more effective animation, the zombie style walk etc. But then I also like the idea that their a bit younger like in the first sketches of this group (in the Photos bit), because its more messed up, hehe. Also that would be better for the story I think, if they where younger. What does everyone else think?

Phil Paris Zarcilla wrote
at 16:00 on 07 October 2009

Thats great to hear Alex, much appreciated. In regards to the age of the kids, I wanted them to be around 12-15. Kids that age tend to vary in size but these aren't normal looking kids, features like their arms are longer then usual and since there head banging on a nightly basis muscles around there neck like the trapezius and sternocleidomastoid (neck muscle at the front) are well defined. But i will clarify this when it comes to the character concepts. muchos thanks for the input!

Steve Kimbrey wrote
at 11:16 on 08 October 2009

Still not had a chance to check the screenplay. Will do tonight.
My image of the kids is for them to be late teens early 20s. My original thought for this was because I think people that ages are more subjectable to influences from consumer products. But thinking about it, the younger they are the more subjectable they are. I think 12 might be a bit young. Some kids at 12 can still only be about 3 1/2 foot tall which I think will limit the characters a bit. I think 15-23 might be a bit better. Plus kids around that ages are starting to/already have jobs to buy things with their own money and they have more of a freedom in what they buy. Plus because its a relatively new experience to buy their own stuff at 15 I reckon kids are more likely to be reckless in what they buy so advertising etc is going to have more of an impact on them.
Let me know what you think about that idea.

Dan Grover wrote
at 02:00 yesterday

I just had a read, I really like it. (Sorry for the delay - it ended up in my Spam box, for some reason! Turns out I did get it the first time.)

I think it'll really, really sell the concept if we make the final shots breathtakingly beautiful. That is to say, that when the environment looks nice, the children aren't there. And by "nice" I don't mean all painted up like a baby's bedroom; I mean just as decrepit and horrible as before, but with the soft light, warm colour palette, mad detail and almost a sense of the unimpeedable power of nature to overcome even such a place with light and warmth - but again, the kids aren't there when it's like this, only when it's cold and dark. But I think we need that contrast to be there to really sell the concept, as opposed to it just being like mental-anguish porn.

I think? As a little example of what I mean above, take for example this lovely image:

http://www.interstation3d.com/maya/gallery/it_was_you.html

Dirty, gritty, yet beautiful.

Phil Paris Zarcilla wrote
at 13:45 yesterday

Completely agree. I was looking for the same picture you posted to post in the other feed but glad you found it! The image really conveys the lighting i'd like for the final shots and the detail is fantastic. Dirty, gritty, yet beautiful pretty much sums up the film and its something i'd like us all to keep in mind when making this short. After giving the age range a long think, i'm beginning to think 15-23 is a good age just for asthetics and animation purposes. So, i'm down for that, hopefully by late tonight i'll have some concepts finished to post up. Thanks for the feedback dudes

The conceptual stage is now on the way.. woop!