I found the dialogue also significantly improved in the film from this version of the script. Here are some lines that stood out for me: p. 4-6 It didn’t seem realistic to me that, as the agent shows the house to Meg, that twice she yells at Sarah and calls her “kid.” Maybe that is just a New York thing? I’m not sure. But it seemed to me that an agent, wanting to make a sale and standing to make quite a lot of money from Meg if the sale goes ahead, would be a little bit more respectful… Junior, both through character and dialogue, was pretty stereotyped to me - “the dumb robber.” p. 12 I really love this exchange. In 6 words of dialogue, it conveys so much about Sarah’s character and emotional state, Meg’s character and emotional state, and reveals the backstory of the marriage break-up. Brilliant! Sarah looks away, goes back to chewing. After a moment: SARAH Fuck him. MEG Don't. SARAH Fuck her too. Meg looks at her, not sure how to confront the open defiance. p. 34 And then that above exchange leads to a great callback - another concise exchange that reveals much about the Sarah-Meg dynamic, and Meg’s change or arc: MEG (into speaker) We're not coming out. We're not letting you in. Get out of my house. (clicks off) SARAH Say fuck. MEG (into speaker) Fuck. SARAH "Get the fuck out of my house." MEG (into speaker) Get the fuck out of my house! p. 85 I found Burnham’s smalltalk to Sarah as he gives her her life-saving injection, about his own life, unbelievable - orchestrated to give backstory. p. 86 Interesting line here - I like the idea behind it, although I don’t think the line itself works (after Burnham administers the injection): RAOUL: Congratulations. You saved her life for two minutes. I am pretty sure that this line did not make it into the film - I sure didn’t notice it. p. 91 As I’ve noted before, I think much more could have been done with the cops-at-the-door scene, subtext that Harris overhears about the marriage failure. To me that is a HUGE lost opportunity to add complexity to the characters and to the pretty linear plotline. p. 102 Burnham’s line about the “monster hand” was way too much fo rme, too to-the-point… and that line was also written out of the final version (along with the image of him holding the bonds like a hand of cards, also written out).

Jacqueline, the page 12 and page 34 Meg/Sarah dialogue, agreed, fabulous exchanges. Other suggestions, a memorable line from Burnham, page 98: WHO THE FUCK BREAKS IN THROUGH THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE?! And the accompanying sound effect was great: WHOMP! CRUNCH! A Meg line that stood out for me, elicited a "you go girl", quick thinking and great solution, page 91: Pause. She stares at him. MEG Okay, look. My husband and I just broke up. It's my first night in the new house, and I was feeling a little lonely and a little drunk. The sentence, if you insist on knowing, was going to be "There are three things I'll do for you if you come over right now and get in bed with me." Jacqueline, I see your point re p 91, lost opportunity to reveal marriage truths, but didn't bother me at time, I think because story so much about her finding her way forward, and not looking back. Consider page 1: MEG Could you slow down a little? (looking back over her shoulder) Or we could wait for the car... LYDIA No cars. Feet are faster.

Jacqueline, once again with some excellent analysis. You grabbed one of my favorites in the script: "Fuck him. / Don't. / Fuck her too." And you're right, that is a setup for a payoff later on. Let me zero in on some of the exposition in the setup as that caught my eye. For example, there is this side [P. 5]: "The hotel guy. It's been in the papers lately. His kids are all suing each other over his estate. He was a total recluse, paranoid, rich as hell, he was worth thirty million or something, now it turns out they can't find half of it [emphasis added]." Those last two lines just scream setup. There may be a better way to 'shroud' the exposition, but sometimes you just have to bite your lip, lay it all out there for what it is -- information -- and move on with the story. Koepp does try to provide a bit of entertainment with the following line: (singsong) "Somebody took something didn't belong to them," injecting some of Lydia's personality into the mix, but still this is clearly an expositional moment where the hope is (a) the brevity of it, (b) the revelation of the information, and (c) the mystery is sets up will make it work okay. Another example of exposition [P. 7]: "It's quite in vogue in high end construction right now. One really can't be too careful about home invasion [emphasis added]." Again this just screams setup. But also again, it's a challenge because, as a writer, you want to lay in that narrative possibility, set that hook in the reader's mind because psychologically that translates into anticipation on our part. That anticipation becomes a lens through which we read everything else up to the point of the actual home invasion. Is there another way to handle that exposition? I think like Lydia's previous side I noted, this side by Evan is an example of Koepp just taking a line of least resistance approach: No pussy-footing around, just lay out the facts and move on with the story. The main thing to note is that while it is pretty 'blatant' exposition, the context of how the lines are delivered makes it come across as entirely appropriate: Two people who are showing the apartment to a potential client. They would be in a position to provide such information and would actually do so. That's much better than exposition which comes out of nowhere and/or in the mouths of characters who are not the 'right' characters to say what they say. That smacks of writer's convenience and really puts a spotlight on the exposition.

Thanks, Scott. Yes, that makes sense to me, now that I think of it. I guess in a way it's a bit of the "suspension-of-disbelief" thing: every now and then you might be forced to write an unbelievable line just in order to move the story forward quickly enough. It also makes me think of the importance of the title of the film. That line you mention about "home invasion" - would not be quite so significant if the title of the film were not "Panic Room." With that title, we all know what kind of story we have come to see... and so we are hyper-aware of any clues that lead us to the how's and why's of the panic room.