I really enjoyed reading Panic Room. It's a great script start to finish. great set-ups and payoffs, conflicts, tension, suspense and reversals. It grabbed me from the first scene. I can't wait to see the movie. Hope it's as good as the script. Did anyone notice the recurrence of the number 14? - 14 days to find an apartement (p.4) - 14 days escrow (p.18) - 14 million dollars. (p.22) - 14 steps to the Panic Room door.(p.94 - p.97) - 14 individual one million dollar U,S, Treasury Bearer Bonds. (p.99) And I loved Burnham's character (more on character day)

BURNHAM: I spend ten years building those fucking rooms to keep people out, now I gotta figure out how to get in. God, man, He just loves the irony.

Anna, I did not notice the 14 thing so here's an additional 5% net profit points for you on the sale of your next script.

What struck me most about this script is two things: * Efficiency: Everything that happens -- all the scenes, the characterizations, interactions, pacing, description -- is done with incredible efficiency. Lean, tight, taut, everything just moves -- boom, boom, boom. There's a 10 page opening, then it's off to the races. * Structure: Obviously a lot more on this tomorrow, but per the Whammo theory of filmmaking -- every 10 minutes, something has to go Whammo -- writer David Koepp gets a major gold star. In fact during Act Two, something goes Whammo every 7 pages. It's like clockwork. It's one of those situations where you wonder did Koepp consciously strive to do that or did it just happen organically? I'll search the web for some interviews with he and Fincher about the movie to see if they shed any light on that subject, but if you haven't read the script yet, check it out: Every 7 pages, Whammo! If ever someone asks me to recommend a professional quality screenplay in the action-thriller cross genre, I will have no problem suggesting this script. As you read it, clearly you know you are in the hands of a screenwriter who has deep experience with the craft and knows their way around a script.

I really liked the character introduction, especially Meg, a person with a beaten up confidence. Her subtle struggle to be independent makes it so real and relatable. As an aspiring screen writer, I am always studying how people write action sequence and this script was really helpful in that aspect. Structure wise, it hit pretty much all the beats, the all is lost was very prominent. I thought what she did for resolution in the script was clever but I felt it was over the top, but they changed that in the movie. I would like to see the character analysis for this script. Question: Does panicroom itself should be considered as a character?

Yeay! Thanks Scott. It would be great though if we can find out the significance of the number 14 in this script. And now that you mentioned that something goes Whammo! every 7 pages (14 being a multiple of 7), I'm more curious about numbers in this script.

Hello everyone - Well, first of all I have to say that I have not watched as many films as I wish I had watched in my lifetime (I have lived in some very remote areas, 100s or even 1000 miles from movie theatres, and without internet access). So sometimes, for our discussions, I am watching the film immediately before reading the script. I did this for Panic Room. Advantage is that I can see very clearly what changed wen going from the version of the script we are reading to film. Disadvantage is that my reading of the script is definitely coloured by having just watched the filmed version. My general comment of the film in general (both from my viewing and my reading) kind of spins off of Scott’s “whammo” comment. Yes, every 10 minutes/7pages something went “whammo.” Which is both good and bad… Yes, it keeps you gripped to the story. The same way a poorly written but strongly plot-driven novel makes you keep reading. You are so pissed off at the book that you want to throw it against the wall (for the poor writing) but you end up staying up all night reading it (to find out what happens). Well, that’s what I felt about this film. So, is that a success or a failure? I am not sure. It is a success, in that people want to keep reading/viewing to find out what happens. But a failure in terms of it being any work of significant meaning. I think the big thing that I felt - on viewing, because I watched it before I read it, but I think this applies equally to the script itself - is that the structure felt so very orchestrated. Half an hour or so in, I just suddenly had this feeling or premonition… we are early on in the movie, and the writers need to keep upping the stakes. How are they going to do this - mom and kid are in the Panic Room, bad guys are outside. I could almost hear the writers whispering to one another: “What if we lock the bad guys in the room with the kid?” And I think that that is what I felt about the whole story in general - talk about High Concept, where the title summarizes the whole story. Well, to me, this story epitomized that - it just felt so very contrived, like I could almost hear the writers asking one another “What ore can we do?” As I said - it still makes for a gripping story which, as it is unfolding, I want to keep watching. But, at the end of it all, I kinda feel like I wasted my time… A few changes I noted for going from this version of the script to film: - Meg is not quite as insecure in the film version - Meg’s claustrophobia and insecurities are very strong in the script, but a lot of this has been written out in the filming - so by the time you get to the final film version, these character attributes feel irrelevant, like they are unimportant info that is still “leftover” in the final version of the script. - p51, in the script it is Burnham who is burnt after the propane tank incident - but in the film it is flaky Junior, and his injuries eventually lead him to bailing out on the whole operation - a significant improvement to the script, I think - p65, in the film version, there is more complexity to the scene where Meg and Sarah call eg’s ex on the cell phone, much more hints of backstory as well as mention of the new girlfriend - also an improvement. p. 69 - to me, unbelievable that Junior, “mastermind” of the operation, just ups and leaves. It was barely believable in the film version, where he is burnt and suffering - not believable at all in the script. p. 80 - Burnham and Raoul get trapped in the Panic Room with the kid - in the film version, the writers “up the ante” by having Raoul have his hand injured by getting stuck in the door. p. 92-93 Sarah (kid) presses the intercom in the Panic Room so that Meg can hear what is going on - this does not happen in the film p. 96 completely different ending, where in script Meg breaks in to Panic Room via neighbour’s place, and in film it is all contained within her home, and Burnham is caught outside p. 103 BIG CHANGE in ending - where theme of what people do for money (the three robbers destroying their own lives for money) is echoed by Meg’s transfomation/learning curve - which is not shown in the script. In the film version, at the end, Meg and Sarah are looking for a 2br apartment. So it was not only the robbers who were motivated by money. Meg also was motivated by money - to get this gigantic expensive apartment that she did not need (agent in opening tells her “You can afford it:) - and that’s what led her to this terrible situation. I think the film ending is far more powerful - how the urge to get more money or to get more expensive things brought everyone down (not just the robbers). One other general comment - the whole situation between Meg and the ex-husband was so underplayed, both in the script and the film. I think there could have been so much more sub-plot and complexity t the film if the backstory or subplot relating to the ex-husband and been dealt with more. In particular, Meg’s whole conversation with the cops at the door - all within earshot of the injured ex-husband - could have so much more complexity, sub-text, meaning, symbolism...but it was all simple and basic and flat. No cutting back to the ex at all, no evidence of him hearing, and no double-entendre in Meg’s dialogue (things she is saying to the cops, but meant for her ex to hear). OK, so I am more negative than positive about this film - mainly because it just feels like an example of writers following “the formula” to the letter. Which makes it too predictable (even while gripping at the same time). However, some things that I really did like: - the relationship between Meg and her daughter Sarah - very realistic, close in some ways and conflictual in other ways. Complex, genuine and believable. And the kid’s diabetes or whatever it is - an interesting complexity t Sarah, her strength and her weakness. - Burnham’s character - only partially developed in this version of the script, developed much better in the film. Yes he is a robber and a “bad guy” but he still has a heart and looks out for the kid. And the irony of who he is - robber yet humanitarian/caring person s showcased on so many levels - including the quote that Anna noted, how his job is making these Panic Rooms fail-safe and that he has been so good at that that now, as a robber, he cannot break into what he created.

If you're talking about Meg knocking down a wall to get back into the panic room, I also thought that was pretty unconvincing. I liked all the changes they made in the movie, especially dropping Meg's "dream sequence," which I thought compromised the great sense of claustrophobia the script and the movie built up.

Jacqueline, thanks a ton for taking the time to (a) watch the movie and (b) note the key differences between the movie and the script. This type of information and analysis makes for a whole other level of understanding, major benefit to the process. I have not seen the movie, but from your observations, here are some additional thoughts: * Making Meg less 'deconstructed' at her starting point is quite typical of story development process in Hollywood. Writers like to push out character high and lows, but between studio and actor notes, those can get 'shaved down,' studio because they are so manic about making sure the audience will like the Protagonist [especially], actor for a variety of reasons one of which is discomfort for showing 'excessive' weaknesses in their character. So on the one hand, a writer is trying to create the maximum range possible for a Protagonist's character arc, but there are counter forces which pull back the character's issues. * The shift from Meg breaking in through the neighbor's wall sounds like a really big plot choice and a much better one at that. I thought what was in the script was far-fetched for a number of reasons. I think you can see this reflected by Koepp when the argument between Meg and the Old Lady takes place behind closed doors. I mean seriously, why would ANYONE allow another person to storm into their house and start bashing away on their walls? It would be one thing if Meg pointed a gun at the Old Lady and made her demands with that type of threat, but short of that, it's not believable. Then the actual bashing through the wall... really stretches credibility. * To me, Burnham is the most interesting character in the story. I will save most of my comments for our character analysis, but one thing the script does really well is pivot the point of narrative attack between inside the panic room and outside, specifically shifting between Meg's experience and Burnham. While Meg is clearly the story's Protagonist, there's a way in which we can enter into Burnham's emotional life almost as if he is a Protagonist, too. Of course, in his version of the story, he is. * Finally your point feeling the writer at work with this plot choice or that is a really critical one. It's the bane of our existence. In an ideal world, a reader enters into the story universe, and never once thinks about the writer. The fact your mind went there numerous times suggests a fault in the script. I'd be curious if any others experienced what you did in their script reading -- writer manipulating events to make this or that thing happen (e.g., getting Raoul and Burnham stuck in panic room with Sarah). Personally I didn't experience that particular plot point as inauthentic: It is R&B's goal to get into the panic room; it is [at the moment] Meg's goal to get drugs for Sarah. So Raoul's little Silence of the Lambs ruse [dressing up as Harris] works for me as well as the rest of it. And actually I wrote in the margins at the end of that sequence: "Nice twist." But I can certainly understand your reaction. Again curious to see who else might have reacted the same way. Again great stuff, J. So as with Anna K, I'll go ahead and offer you an additional 5% net profit points on the sale of your next script. [The joke here is that Hollywood movies almost never reach a point of achieving net profits, so that standard 5% clause in a writer's contract isn't worth the ink it's printed out with. Hence a symbolic gesture and meant to elicit a chuckle on everyone's part.]

Thanks Scott, for this. I have another super-busy week, but will try to pop in for the other discussions. Yes, Burnham is really interesting in the script - he is a completely different and much more complex and interesting character in the film. He is the one character who, from beginning to end, always is torn with every decision he has to make. At the end of the film (Meg has not gone next door - the whole ending occurs in the house) Burnham flees out the back with the money and Raoul and Meg are having their final battle downstairs in front of the injured ex-husband. Raoul is choking her, about to win... when a bullet stops him. Burnham has come back... he was free to escape with all of the $$, but his conscience brought him back to ensure that Meg and Sarah were not injured - his goal all along. He flees again, but is caught by the police. More later...

Finally got chance to read, wow, what a lean script, I'm in awe. Must read more David Koepp. Overall impression, there are as few moving parts as necessary, and every part is used so, so well. Examples, the learning about house through realtor, such an efficient, clean mechanism. And the slow reveal about diabetes, tiny detail used well. Neat observation about 14, Jacqueline. Two thoughts, when was 14 required, probably only re brownstone purchase, is that shortest possible time for real estate transaction. And fourteen days gives us chance to know Junior better (bit of an idiot). My guess is that the other 14s fell into place after that (14 mil a persuasive sum, 14 steps a believable distance). In design, you align and echo things for maximum impact and clarity, and my guess, this example of that, a streamlining that happened through Koepp's distillation process.