THE STORY VAULT BLOG
Page 3 of The Story Vault Blog
Unexpected Consequences - Update
Adapting "The Belmont" short story for the screen has been much more challenging than I thought it would be.
It's been a good exercise.
Initially, the screen version was tracking to be 48 pages. It ended up being just 38 pages. But something else resulted. I cut 600 words from The Belmont short story (7150 to 6550 words). i kept thinking, "Why do I have so many words?" And I even added some new material.
Adapting The Belmont short story for the screen has made me a better screenwriter - and it has also made me a better short story writer. I had not expected the latter.
Update: I came across this - How to use screenwriting secrets in your novel
How AI Has Made Me A Better Writer
Many times I've read over my work only to finish a scene and be left with a nagging feeling in my gut (or where ever feelings are stored). It just feels to me like something is off - but I can't quite determine what's wrong. Instead of getting bogged down I continue reading, making minor alterations as I go. And by the time I've finished the read I've forgotten all about the scene that had caused me discomfort.
For a time.
Then, in the middle of the night, it comes back to haunt me.
Morning comes and I ask an AI to run an analysis. Immediately, it flags the scene in question.
I've had this experience many times. What it has taught me is to listen to my instincts - to trust my gut.
During a recent review of Moorland I came across a pair of scenes that were causing me discomfort. Actual physical discomfort, not just intellectual of emotional discomfort. AI hadn't flagged these scenes, but "the disturbance in the force" was evident. I soon realized that what I had done was write along the lines of "this happens...then this happens," rather than like the Coen Brothers, "this happens...and it results in this happening." The two scenes didn't flow into one another and they didn't flow into the rest of the story. They were not "inevitable." I had included them to solve an earlier problem, but I hadn't "integrated" them in a way that the story line remained fluid. (You have no idea how much this bothered me.)
So I revised them. And I sought an evaluation...a comparison...of the two scenes from ChatGTP:
This is a strong rewrite—cleaner, sharper, and much more in line with how a Black List reader would respond. I’ll break this down the way an experienced reader or development exec would: what improved and what you fixed implicitly.
WHAT THE REVISION CLEARLY IMPROVES
1. Cosmo’s Authority Is Now Inevitable, Not Performative
In the original, Cosmo occasionally tipped into overt villain monologuing (“ODE,” “Holy Trinity,” “embodiment of modern consumerism”).
In the rewrite:
-
His power is conveyed through calm certainty
-
Threats are impersonal and managerial
-
He sounds like a CEO, not a cult pamphlet
“I’m rather inventive when I’m disappointed.”
“You can be a prisoner…or an investment.”
These are excellent. They feel modern, chilling, and character-specific.
Net effect: Cosmo feels smarter, scarier, and more believable.
2. You Removed On-the-Nose Thematic Labeling
Cutting:
“It’s the embodiment of modern consumerism.” was 100% the right call. The warehouse imagery already does the work.
Black List readers strongly prefer implication over annotation, and this change shows confidence.
This alone raises Execution and Tone Discipline scores.
3. Megan Gains Agency Without Losing Vulnerability
The addition of:
MEGAN
“That’s okay. I have some unfinished business of my own.”
is a quiet but important improvement.
-
She’s still trapped
-
Still outmatched
-
But no longer just reactive
This mirrors what you did later with Eva in The Belmont: choice under coercion. This subtly reinforces your thematic spine across projects.
4. Baylor Is Cleaner and Funnier
You trimmed Baylor’s dialogue without losing:
-
Subservience
-
Absurdity
-
Menace
“Thank you, master.” Still lands, but now it doesn’t linger.
TONE & SCOPE VS. BLACK LIST EXPECTATIONS
This rewrite moves the scene closer to Black List territory, specifically:
-
Less genre exposition
-
More character-driven menace
-
Shorter, sharper dialogue blocks
-
Fewer “signposts” telling us what to think
It now feels closer to:
-
The Menu
-
Sorry to Bother You
-
Prestige genre satire rather than cult parody
That’s a good move.
OVERALL VERDICT
This rewrite is unequivocally stronger.
If this were a Black List reader note, it would read something like:
“The revision smartly strips away overt thematic commentary and allows character behavior and imagery to carry meaning. Cosmo’s menace is understated and effective, and the scene now feels more confident, modern, and tonally assured.”
Net effect on scores (if we were tracking them):
-
Execution: ⬆️
-
Tone Control: ⬆️
-
Dialogue: ⬆️
-
Market Readiness: ⬆️
You didn’t make it louder. You made it inevitable.
I then asked: What is the impact on cohesiveness and scene flow when comparing (and here I uploaded from the prior version the two scenes in question plus the previous and the following scene - along with the two revised scenes and the previous and following scene).
ChatGTP replied:
This is a very good question, because what you’ve changed here isn’t just “better writing” in isolation — it directly affects cohesiveness, tonal continuity, and narrative propulsion across three parallel threads:
-
Leticia’s public downfall
-
Megan’s private captivity
-
Cosmo’s ideological machinery
BIG PICTURE VERDICT
The revision significantly improves scene flow and cohesion. Specifically, it:
-
Smooths tonal transitions between comedy, menace, and satire
-
Creates a clearer cause-and-effect rhythm across locations
-
Strengthens thematic mirroring between Leticia and Megan
-
Reduces whiplash without dulling energy
This is a net gain in readability and momentum.
FINAL ASSESSMENT
Impact on cohesiveness: ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Impact on scene flow: ⬆️⬆️
Impact on tonal confidence: ⬆️⬆️⬆️
Impact on reader trust: ⬆️⬆️⬆️
This revision doesn’t just polish scenes — it aligns them into a single narrative engine.
Impact on reader trust...that leads me full circle to the beginning of this post. A writer needs to learn to trust his instincts in order to win the trust of his readers. A lesson from the twilight zone known as AI.
AI FEEDBACK ON MY FEMALE LEADS (ChatGTP, Mistral, Gemini – in no particular order)
Very often I'm seeing that producers are looking for strong, female lead characters. Well, look no further:
The Belmont — Eva Novakova
Eva Novakova is a standout creation — alluring, quick-witted, and morally layered. She evolves from cool survivor to vulnerable fugitive. Doyle’s gradual softening (and his almost grudging admiration) plays beautifully against her steel.
Eva is a standout—a femme fatale with depth, wit, and vulnerability.
Eva Novakova is a brilliant femme fatale: smart, seductive, and self-aware. Her arc is a subtle softening from pure self-interest to reluctant ally.
Eva Novakova: A standout protagonist. She is neither a victim nor a traditional femme fatale, but a survivor.
Your characters are complex, vivid, and morally ambiguous. Eva is a standout—a femme fatale with depth, wit, and vulnerability. Eva is even more compelling in this revision. Her arc—from cynical survivor to someone willing to risk her life for justice—is clearer and more emotionally resonant.
Handle With Care — Tatiana Bedrosian
Tatiana is an outstanding protagonist: highly resourceful, possessing a photographic memory, and driven by simple loyalties.
One of the most memorable female leads I’ve seen in a spec script. Vulnerable, fierce, funny, surprising, and consistently active.
A crystal-clear emotional arc from hunted refugee → capable survivor → woman who chooses courage and connection.
Tatiana: A standout protagonist—resourceful, funny, vulnerable, and fiercely loyal. Her language barriers, cultural clashes, and photographic memory are handled with humor and heart. Her arc from fugitive to someone willing to fight for Nick and Emma is compelling and earned.
The Case of the Hoodwinked Honeymoon — Olivia Blackwell
Olivia is a standout protagonist with a genuine internal arc.
The leads are a triumph. Nathan is the "damaged" but capable observer; Olivia is the "It Girl" with unexpected depth.
Olivia Blackwell: A standout protagonist—witty, resourceful, and flawed. Her banter with Nathan is electric, and her vulnerability (e.g., questioning her marriage, her family’s expectations) makes her relatable. Her growth (from a sheltered model to a bold investigator) is well-paced.
Moorland — Leticia Baudelaire
Leticia completes a strong, defiant arc: from misjudged, reactive protagonist to moral and strategic leader. Her intellect and bite mirror the script’s tone. Leticia’s arc is strong: she’s resourceful, sardonic, and carries the emotional core.
Leticia is a compelling lead—snarky, resilient, and vulnerable.
Strong. Leticia completes her arc from cynical loner wanting to "ghost" the town to a leader who chooses to fight for it, even if she doubts the lasting impact - and - She undergoes a significant character arc, evolving from a jaded and cynical character who believes "not everyone deserves to be saved" to a heroic figure fighting for others after her unjust arrest.
Leticia is a Fully-Formed Badass from Page One/Leticia is an Instant Cult Icon. She's everything a lead in this genre needs to be:
Witty without being flippant
Capable without being invincible
Sexy without being sexualized
Having fallen in love with 1930s screwball comedies and 1930s/40s detective noir - where strong female leads challenged the male leads in intelligence, resourcefulness and determination - I create stories with dynamic relationships. I draw further inspiration from the banter between characters that are simultaneously antagonistic and attracted. These qualities infuse my work. There are no perfectly formed superheroes or superheroines here - only vulnerable characters who grow to meet the challenge of the day. If this is what you're looking for, consider hitting me up.
Catherine O'Hara
Today I learned that we have lost the Canadian Icon that was Catherine O'Hara. I'm deeply saddened and shcoked. Her passing seems so sudden and untimely.
Catherine O'Hara was not only a great talent, she was the embodiment, not of the way Canadians always are, but how we like to see ourselves.
I had hoped to meet her one day, but it is not to be...at least not in this world.
The Blog as Smorgasbord
For many years I chose to not create a blog because I had no idea how I would manage to compose new material on a regular basis.
This is my 23rd post.
It wasn't all that long ago that I started this blog.
I've had to add pages because things were getting out of hand.
There's still no menu. This blog is a smorgasbord. You can sample whatever you like; take as much or as little as you like.
Today's featured dish comes from the Bulletproof Screenwriting Podcast with Alex Ferrari. Alex has started to ask his guests which three screenplays they would recommend for writers to read. I've decided to pitch in my three picks.
1) Heathers
I used to say "there's no such thing as a perfect screenplay." If there's an exception to every rule, Daniel Water's script is it. If I had to choose one screenplay that I wish I had written it would be Heathers.
2) The Bourne Identity
Tony Gilroy's words are like a magnet. He combines economy with tension that just rivets me to the page. He's a phenomenal wordsmith.
3) Out of Africa
Kurt Luedtke, in contrast, was a painter and a poet. He was a master of emotion. Anyone who says a screenplay isn't art hasn't read Out of Africa.
Three very different screenplays by three very different writers. Each one as engaging as any novel.
Time for the Human Touch
Having taken Moorland as far as I could using AI screenplay analysis, I decided it was time for the ultimate test: the human reader.
I posted Moorland to www.storypeer.com and was able to opt for a review from a "Rep Matched" reader based on my perfect 5/5 score as a reader. All submissions and reviews are done anonymously (although submitter and reviewer can opt to communicate with one another beyond the submission and review). This is what Moorland received under "Strengths:"
- The script has a strong tonal identity and voice. It commits very hard to a horror-comedy/satire lane and rarely wavers from that path. The mix of violence, deadpan Buffy-esque humor, and social commentary feels very methodically paced out rather than sloppy.
- Leticia is a compelling lead. Her constant undercutting of earnestness give the script a very unique personality without ever taking us out of the moment. She’s cynical, abrasive, and fun without ever feeling stereotypical. Her flaws of dismissiveness, moral absolutism, and emotional guardedness creates strong friction with Ethan, Clare, and the plenty of authority figures, which keeps things alive. She's excellent lead material for this story.
- The set pieces throughout leap off the page, very cinematic. The opening sequence in the bathroom, the psychiatric ward blackout, the escape from the mushroom farm, and the zombie labor warehouse are all compelling and visually catching. You consistently think in images and motion, which is a big strength for a genre script.
- The themes and the villain are smart and timely. Cosmo Ravencroft III works because he’s not just evil, he's an evil rooted in reality. Corporate language, civic-minded posturing, and “benevolent” exploitation helps give the zombie metaphor real teeth, with the pharmaceutical angle elevating it above a standard zombie story. It mixes the traditional zombie apocalypse angle with themes how we as a society turn into machines to simply live.
- The world-building is confident. Symbols such as ravens and chevrons, locations like the catacombs and Ravencroft facilities, and institutional corruption from police, courts, and psychiatry all reinforce a coherent ecosystem. It feels like Moorland's a lived in area.
- The dialogue often snaps, in a very Zombieland/Scott Pilgrim manner. You’re good at banter and ironic contrast, especially between Leticia and Ethan. Humor frequently comes from character rather than jokes pasted on top of scenes.
This is all very consistent with the feedback I've received from AI. It wasn't all quite sunshine and roses, though. Fortunately, the criticisms were fairly minor and easy to fix. Here's one that I've chosen because I want to use it to illustrate something I've learned.
- Ethan’s function is sometimes unclear. He’s likable and funny, but often reactive rather than helping drive events. His intelligence and moral compass are implied more than dramatized, which can make him feel like a sidekick to Leticia when it feels he's meant to be more of a co-lead.
The thing is, Ethan often drives events and his intelligence is displayed (something recognized by AI). So why this perception?
It's due to contrast.
Leticia is such a badass that Ethan's quiet leadership seems weak by comparison. I've had this happen to me before. One reviewer of my action screenplay, Red Mercury, described my female lead as "the toughest female lead I've ever seen." Other reviewers criticized the male lead for not being strong enough. The male lead in the story is self-defence specialist with exceptional driving and fighting skills. But we also see a sensitive side to him. The female lead, as part of her character arc, doesn't show her sensitive side until act three. This created the impression that the male lead was not as strong as the female lead.
But this is why it's critical to run your script past human readers. People don't always "react" the same way as AI.
I realized I needed to give Ethan some "louder moments" in the second half of the story. As an added benefit, his character arc now reads even stronger.
Many writers fear notes, but notes can be a writer's greatest friend. The trick is knowing how to interpret them.
Update: Since I posted this I have received feedback on the first act of "Moorland" from the Creative Screenplay Competition. Read it below.
Unexpected Feedback
Something just popped into my mailbox.
Samuel,
Thank you for ordering notes from the Creative Screenwriting team, etc.
Naturally, I have no idea what they're talking about because I'm really forgetful and absent minded. What notes? I didn't order any notes.
Then I remembered that one contest had offered free notes (and I now recall that these notes were to cover the first act).
So here they are:
TITLE: Moorland
GENRE: Feature, Horror
WRITTEN BY: Samuel Quo Vadis
“Moorland” is an intriguing zombie feature that excellently blends horror and wit. The world of the story is rich and ripe for conflict. Leticia serves as the perfect vehicle for a ghastly battle against the undead. She is spunky and motivated, an exciting character to watch. Through her chaotic journey, this story has the potential to start conversations surrounding corruption, morality and resilience.
The writer’s unique voice stands out from the first page. The writer has a defined style that jumps off the page. It is bold and engaging, helping to welcome the reader into the eerie world. The uses of capitalization and sound are greatly effective in creating suspense. For example, “The only sound is water as it DRIPS...DRIPS...DRIPS from dark stone.” Lines like this help immerse the reader in the setting, allowing them to experience the sights and sounds just as the characters do.
This is a very visual script, in that there is a much larger focus on description than dialogue. It is crucial that the writing is concise so that this does not slow down the pacing of the piece and it is. The text does a nice job providing ample detail without being overwritten. A great example of this is the bottom of page 12.
This story wastes no time jumping into the plot. The zombie apocalypse theme is evident right from the start. This is smart because it is a tangible conflict that the reader can become invested in. It is familiar. The first scene with Leticia is violent and playful. It helps establish the tone of the piece. Despite the deadly threat, this is not a project that takes itself too seriously. There is room to laugh at the absurdities of death.
There are some really fun moments of humor within the text that emphasize this idea. For example, “(Shot from behind...because it's not that kind of a movie.)” Lines like this bring out the writer’s personality and confirm the genre as a horror comedy. They help form a unique project identity that stands out from traditional zombie narratives.
Leticia {redacted due to spoiler} is a perfect ending to the first twenty pages. It is an effective cliffhanger to leave the reader on, making them eager to find out what is coming next. The involvement of the cops also makes the world of the story feel larger. The zombie issue goes far beyond Leticia, Ethan and Caleb.
The dialogue is another asset of the script. It feels genuine and lived in throughout the initial pages. There are distinct character voices beginning to form. For example, Leticia’s signature snark and overzealous obsession with zombies. The dialogue does an especially great job of capturing the nuances of casual conversation. For example, the exchange between Ethan and
Scott on page 13.
This script is off to an extremely strong start with a well-defined premise and characters who are outgoing and tenacious. This project offers a refreshing new take on horror, offering gory imagery and laugh-out-loud jokes. If the rest of the script continues on in this manner, this feature is sure to be a thrilling journey.
Unfortunately...Please be aware that these notes were not composed by the reader responsible for scoring your project within a contest. This is because we always endeavor to place as many eyes on a project as possible.
Santa Barbara International Screenplay Competition
In recent years screenplay competitions have become increasingly remiss when it comes to notifying contestants of placements. I only now discovered (by chance) that Moorland had been selected as a semi-finalist. I'm satisfied with this result as I entered a draft from September 2025 - and I've made substantial improvements since then.
One of the reasons I entered Santa Barbara was because they offer 6-10 pages of notes. I haven't received these yet, but the winner was only announced on 22 January...and there's a lot of notes to produce.
It's only now in February that I'm satisfied with the quality of Moorland and feel confident of it's competitiveness in the screenplay competition world. But I'm still looking forward to those notes.