The premise of a haunted school/classroom and the individuals caught in it is intriguing. Who hasn't heard ghost stories from their town or school? The potential for scariness is highly promising.
"A Thesis On Ghosts" main weakness is in its characters. The protagonist, Abby, is relatively bland. Her journey starts with a school assignment, a kind of investigative reporting, but her character never really does anything to stand out. Perhaps giving Abby something more personal at stake in this ghost story would enhance her character. Why is Abby taking this class and going through so much effort? Why, when she does encounter a ghost, does she simply not run away? If she is either scared or a skeptic, why does she stick around? The portrait of her does not show her as one of much intellectual curiosity.
Professor Goldman was a character I felt that was terribly inconsistent, and his own viewpoints seemed to make me wonder why he was there in the first place. There are individuals and scientists who make efforts to debunk urban legends & myths, or those who consider paranormal research a "pseudo-science." However very few of them go to such links as to hold entire college courses on the paranormal debunking. His reluctance to accept any of it is painted so strong in the opening, I had a hard time believing this man would venture out to a "haunted" school over his semester break. Try asking these questions: why is he so skeptical? Why, despite his skepticism, is he obsessed with the paranormal so much to teach a class associated with it? Why
Additionally, the relationship between Abby and Goldman seemed to vary a great deal. At first he is painted as a lascivious professor who offers a quirky "blow off" class in the hopes of meeting young girls (that was the impression I got). Then he is presented as semi-wise professor who offered tutelage to Abby, and she was the one presenting herself to him sexually. While sexual dynamics go both ways, this either needs to be developed a great deal more to be effective, or scrapped altogether.
Albert, the paranormal scientist/specialist, was both underused and underdeveloped. It seemed a wise move to bring in the ant-Goldman to confirm the haunting. And dynamics between a believer and non-believer are always great. But this character showed up mid-script with little explanation as to how the character's knew him, or even his credentials or background. This resulted in (SPOILERS) his death seeming uneventful and non-emotional to the audience. Who is Albert? What is his interest in the paranormal? Why is he willing to come out there?
The young girl that appears early in the script - Porcher - seemed out of place the entire time. (SPOILERS AHEAD) At first it felt like she might have something to do with the haunting, then her next scene showed her to be a "red herring" - then she was dropped altogether, never to be heard from again. Knowing now the ending, that the ghost was a young girl of the same age who committed suicide, the character of Porcher could be utilized so much more as both foreshadowing, and a parallel character arc. Is Porcher considered weird? Is she picked on by the other children? Does this anger the ghost... or is the ghost even nice to Porcher, something that seems inexplicable to Abby, Goldman, or Albert, until the end? I recommend developing her character more.
The "ghost" was another character problem. You presented a situation where the supposed haunter was in fact not - something interesting, a great way to mess with the audience's perceptions. However, the frequent mentioning of all these four ghosts, plus the fifth one, seemed to make everything confusing. Especially when there were so many names bandied about - Frank Gee, the Chair Knocker, Chris Knocks, all the other kids. There was not good character delineation in the ghosts to make me very clear as to who was doing the haunting. This is fine from a mystery perspective, but knowing the ending, I should be able to go back through the movie and go "Oh! I see now how it was always _______ and not the other guy!" Come up with distinctive methods of haunting. I also recommend cutting down on the ghosts. 1-2 should be plenty. Having the professor go through every single name at the end seemed drawn out, especially since these character's were never present and therefore meant nothing to the audience. It is more dramatic if Goldman banishes the Frank ghost, thinking it is over - and it is not.
On other notes, your formating could use improvement. Your descriptions of action were teriffic, but could be broken down into smaller sections rather than large paragraphs. Those large paragraphs can seem daunting to a reader, and sometimes a well-punched up, active sentence packs more punch that many. I recommend some editing in that field, not to change the content, but rather to find the best form for it.
The story you took on presented itself with a challenge - tackling a haunting story in a manner to both honor the "ghost" story form as well as bring in the "ghost hunter" characters that are seen so much on TV anymore. The script never veered off into camp or parody, keeping focused on the situation with a healthy dose of wit when necessary. The weak points, as I mentioned earlier, came from a lack of strong characters. Take a look at them and ask yourself questions about their motivations, their conflicts - find out why they are so involved in this story, and the audience will be too.
Also, I would look into a new title. Yours sounds... well, like an academic thesis. The title could use a little more energy - "The Chair Knocker" is more effectual and descriptive of your script.
"A Thesis On Ghosts" main weakness is in its characters. The protagonist, Abby, is relatively bland. Her journey starts with a school assignment, a kind of investigative reporting, but her character never really does anything to stand out. Perhaps giving Abby something more personal at stake in this ghost story would enhance her character. Why is Abby taking this class and going through so much effort? Why, when she does encounter a ghost, does she simply not run away? If she is either scared or a skeptic, why does she stick around? The portrait of her does not show her as one of much intellectual curiosity.
Professor Goldman was a character I felt that was terribly inconsistent, and his own viewpoints seemed to make me wonder why he was there in the first place. There are individuals and scientists who make efforts to debunk urban legends & myths, or those who consider paranormal research a "pseudo-science." However very few of them go to such links as to hold entire college courses on the paranormal debunking. His reluctance to accept any of it is painted so strong in the opening, I had a hard time believing this man would venture out to a "haunted" school over his semester break. Try asking these questions: why is he so skeptical? Why, despite his skepticism, is he obsessed with the paranormal so much to teach a class associated with it? Why
Additionally, the relationship between Abby and Goldman seemed to vary a great deal. At first he is painted as a lascivious professor who offers a quirky "blow off" class in the hopes of meeting young girls (that was the impression I got). Then he is presented as semi-wise professor who offered tutelage to Abby, and she was the one presenting herself to him sexually. While sexual dynamics go both ways, this either needs to be developed a great deal more to be effective, or scrapped altogether.
Albert, the paranormal scientist/specialist, was both underused and underdeveloped. It seemed a wise move to bring in the ant-Goldman to confirm the haunting. And dynamics between a believer and non-believer are always great. But this character showed up mid-script with little explanation as to how the character's knew him, or even his credentials or background. This resulted in (SPOILERS) his death seeming uneventful and non-emotional to the audience. Who is Albert? What is his interest in the paranormal? Why is he willing to come out there?
The young girl that appears early in the script - Porcher - seemed out of place the entire time. (SPOILERS AHEAD) At first it felt like she might have something to do with the haunting, then her next scene showed her to be a "red herring" - then she was dropped altogether, never to be heard from again. Knowing now the ending, that the ghost was a young girl of the same age who committed suicide, the character of Porcher could be utilized so much more as both foreshadowing, and a parallel character arc. Is Porcher considered weird? Is she picked on by the other children? Does this anger the ghost... or is the ghost even nice to Porcher, something that seems inexplicable to Abby, Goldman, or Albert, until the end? I recommend developing her character more.
The "ghost" was another character problem. You presented a situation where the supposed haunter was in fact not - something interesting, a great way to mess with the audience's perceptions. However, the frequent mentioning of all these four ghosts, plus the fifth one, seemed to make everything confusing. Especially when there were so many names bandied about - Frank Gee, the Chair Knocker, Chris Knocks, all the other kids. There was not good character delineation in the ghosts to make me very clear as to who was doing the haunting. This is fine from a mystery perspective, but knowing the ending, I should be able to go back through the movie and go "Oh! I see now how it was always _______ and not the other guy!" Come up with distinctive methods of haunting. I also recommend cutting down on the ghosts. 1-2 should be plenty. Having the professor go through every single name at the end seemed drawn out, especially since these character's were never present and therefore meant nothing to the audience. It is more dramatic if Goldman banishes the Frank ghost, thinking it is over - and it is not.
On other notes, your formating could use improvement. Your descriptions of action were teriffic, but could be broken down into smaller sections rather than large paragraphs. Those large paragraphs can seem daunting to a reader, and sometimes a well-punched up, active sentence packs more punch that many. I recommend some editing in that field, not to change the content, but rather to find the best form for it.
The story you took on presented itself with a challenge - tackling a haunting story in a manner to both honor the "ghost" story form as well as bring in the "ghost hunter" characters that are seen so much on TV anymore. The script never veered off into camp or parody, keeping focused on the situation with a healthy dose of wit when necessary. The weak points, as I mentioned earlier, came from a lack of strong characters. Take a look at them and ask yourself questions about their motivations, their conflicts - find out why they are so involved in this story, and the audience will be too.
Also, I would look into a new title. Yours sounds... well, like an academic thesis. The title could use a little more energy - "The Chair Knocker" is more effectual and descriptive of your script.