Jeff, you do understand that every time, when you review a script, you say something is "not correct", you are invoking a rule, right?

When I say "McDonalds or someplace similar", it conveys what I want in the clearest way.

It doesn't have to be Mc Donalds

But it is someplace similar.

In a different story, the McDonalds location could be essential to the story. Maybe there's a Ronald McDonald clown that pops in. Maybe there will be crispy french fries later!

But in this story, it can be any similar bathroom. IHOP, Dunkin's, Hooters.

Why not just describe a dirty bathroom?

Well, McDonalds bathrooms are not that dirty, but they're not exactly the Ritz. Not that I've ever shat in the Ritz! The important thing is that McDonalds conveys the image in the simplest and most visual way.

And there is simply no reason NOT to do it this way. Can you cite a reason other than saying it's not correct?

I've never used a slug like this before, and obviously I did it to have a little fun with you in particular. Mission accomplished! But I do see nothing wrong with it other than it doesn't look professional, which is the only reason I would not nornally use it.

Kevin, my fine feathered friend, when I say something is not correct or something is awkward, etc, it has nothing to do with these rules you love speaking of...unless you feel that everything that is right and wrong is governed by rules.

If someone writes a Slug like..."INT CLOSET - BEDROOM - HOUSE", I'll say that's wrong, because it only makes sense that you start with the largest "thing" and go down from there.  I'm not citing any rule.

If someone writes, "He sure didn't see that coming!", I'll say that's a mistake because it's a complete waste of space and takes me out of the read.

If someone writes, "INT MCDONALD'S OR ARBY'S OR BURGER KING OR WENDY'S OR JACK IN THE BOX", I'll say that's really dumb - which one is it, because you're the writer and only you know.  Just tell me which fucking fast food shithouse they're in.

C'mon, MAN!!!  

FAST FOOD RESTAURANT would probably suffice?

IF I was going to film this, I would rather the writer not call the exact restaurant but with his slug I would know what type he wanted the scene set in. I think it is perfectly fine the way it was written in the slug. If all writers would just film something they would understand that a lot of these rules and things writers have a problem with mean nothing at all when it comes to shooting the script. THE STORY....the STORY....THE STORY.

Jeff, when you say something is not correct, you are generally citing a rule. For example, let's say we begin with a courtroom scene. The defense is questioning a witness. The prosecutor objects to a question. The judge overrules it.

If the script introduces the character JUDGE in the sentence after his first dialog, you would say this is not correct.

But other than some sense that this is a rule, there is no reason one can't do this.  Normally we intro the characters before any dialog, but there are times we might choose not to, usually to improve narrative flow.

For example, in the court scene, there are many characters: the bailiff, the judge, the jury, the lawyers, the spectators, the clerk, the stenographer, court reporters, the accused, witnesses. Obviously it would be tedious to intro them all. Even you wouldn't do that.

So let's say the heart of the scene is the defense attorney questioning the witness. And you achieve some dialog flow with that. Stopping to introduce the judge might...might...interrupt the flow. Why would you do it then?

Let me try to concoct an example.

MR. BUSH, the defense attorney, handsome in a way that only his mother could appreciate, towered over the witness on the stand, DUSTIN.

BUSH: "So you admit you know nothing about sharks?"

DUSTIN: "I've watched the Discovery Channel."

BUSH: "But you've never been in the water with one."

DUSTIN: "I've played eight ball with a couple."

The spectators laugh.

BUSH: "Have you ever been in a small boat?"

DUSTIN: "I've had a full boat."

BUSH: "Did you win the hand?"

The PROSECUTOR, her long legs distracting the jury, shifts in her seat.

PROSECUTOR: "I object."

JUDGE: "Sustained."

JUDGE STEVIE seems like his mind is on his afternoon tennis match.


There is no reason to call this "incorrect" other than some unwritten rule. It's a trial, we know there is a judge present, just as there are jurors and reporters etc, So it's not like the judge materialized out of thin air when he spoke.

The example above is not the best example, but I have seen situations where you just don't want to interrupt the dialog to pause foe a character introduction. Why should a rule...which is the only reason...force you to interrupt the dialog?

Kevin, your example is a bit redonkulous and I'm pretty sure you know that.

Sure, it's funny using these characters and the banter relating to old "fights" here on SS, but let's take a step back for a moment.

This scene wouldn't just pop up in a script, like it does in your example.  It would be "set up" properly, hopefully, and that's the whole point.

You wouldn't wait to intro a central character, like Judge Stevie until he speaks, because that is a definite mistake.

There would be no disruption to flow, if properly set up, because all characters involved in the scene would get a proper intro before they started speaking or interacting with other characters.

Now, if you can't find a way to "properly" do that, it's your issue, and your writing will suffer for it.  No way around that.

Obviously it's a hastily put together example, but why is it a mistake? Because of a rule? We know the judge is present.

What is "properly" set up?

This is the stuff that leads you down the wrong path. There is no such thing as "properly". This isn't computer code.

These are stories! They are spec scripts. Their purpose is the make a reader think they will make a good film. The first and most important imperative in that process is bringing a reader INTO THE STORY.

Nothing else really matters.

Which is why I say that you would not bother to list all of the characters in the court room. Nor would you describe the curtains, the light fixtures, the graffiti on the benches in the back, the cobweb in the corner, the run on the stenographer's stocking. Unless these things enhanced the experience of reading the story.

In this case, the heart of the drama is Bush questioning Dustin, The spot light is on that.

Everything else recedes into the background. Anything that takes our eye off the central drama is a handicap that waters down that drama, distracts us from it.

If the judge is a minor character, we wouldn't give him 4 lines of description, would we? Because it's a distraction.

The idea is to always focus on the central drama. Bring us into that as QUICKLY as possible. HOLD us with the rhythm of the dialog. Try not to distract us with things outside of that central drama.

You don't seem to understand because of these notions of "properly" and "correct". I'm only trying to provoke you to think outside the box.

There should be a central drama taking place in the scene.
Something with tension, intrigue, maybe humor.
Bring us into it as quickly as possible.
That's why you don't spend a page describing detail of the room.
You'll lose the reader.
Only include the essentials.
And for the same reason, don't interrupt the rhythm of the dialog.
All that matters is bringing the reader into the essential drama of the scene...
and holding his interest.
The rest is window dressing and no more than necessary should be used,

No more than necessary should be used.

CORRECT!

But...and this is what you continue to leave out, there are necessary things that SHOULD NOT be left out.

Every person in a scene does not have to be noted if they are not integral to the scene/story/plot.  That's common sense.

The color of whatever in the room or the clothes peeps are wearing should not be noted unless it matters in some way.  Again, common sense.

Note the theme here?  It's using common sense.  It has nothing to do with any rules.

Where do rules come from, anyways?  Well...if you stick to the theme here, you'll answer correctly.  They come from common sense.

Here's a quick example that's off topic...

My girlfriend, Teri, hates rules.  She despises rules of any kind and actually will usually do the opposite of whatever "rule" that's in place, because she hates being told what to do, and I guess is just a rebel at heart.

She always travels 10+ miles over the speed limit.  She doesn't use her blinker when she "should".  She doesn't get it, because it's not about the rules or laws, in this situation - it's about doing what's right or what's OK.

If you're one a few cars on a lonely mostly straight road, you can go as fast as you want safely and you're only concern will be if a cop happens to be waiting for you.  If you're going to run off the road, you rally don't need to use a blinker, because no one is there to see it...so it doesn't matter.

But, if you're on a busy street, where cars are exiting and entering at frequent intersections, your speed is important, as are your blinkers...not just for you, but for everyone around you.

Don't worry about rules, brother.  Worry about what's right, what makes sense, and why it's right.  That's what matters and that's what counts, and that's why I will always point out mistakes, and if necessary, why it's a mistake.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. You're about to finally have that breakthrough, you just don't know it. Push, push, push.

Yes...it is about what is NECESSARY.

But NOT for the CONSTRUCTION of the scene!

This is not a blueprint.

Sell the hamburger, not the hamburg.

Here's the thing: it's all about what is necessary to the CENTRAL DRAMA of the scene.

It is about what is necessary to bringing a reader into the STORY.

That's why you don't include unnecessary details.

That's why you minimize description of unimportant characters.

And here's the thing: a set up takes up space, and the reader's time. And you are not afforded much of that.

Compare two book forms: the thriler, and the literary piece. In the literary piece, you have the luxury of long ponderous set ups. You can wander through the scenery and wax poetic about the world and paint the character right down to his phobias.

In a thriller, you have to bring the reader into the story from the very first words. Later, once you've brought them in, you can explore character and scenery if you want. But you must reach off the page,  grab the reader kicking and screaming, and pull them into the narrative.

THAT is the type of writing you want in a SPECULATIVE screenplay. When the first words begin, the car engine is revving, and soon we're off to the races.

Description gets in the way of this narrative focus. It's a necessary evil, but it gets in the way of the story. The less you let it do that, the better.

That's the ONLY rule. Grab the reader and hold him.

Frankly, in the example I used above, I wouldn't even have a probem if the judge was never introduced. I wouldn't do that myself, people look at these and do character counts, but in theory in a spec script it would really be no problem. Same with a bartender taking your character's order. The only reason people care about this stuff is because of convention.

Jeff, there is a new movie with Amy Adams coming out, some alien thing. I read yesterday it was based on a short story. And this is increasingly the case...feature films that began as short prose.

Directors and producers are looking for STORIES. Whatever makes those stories read better is preferable. Stories that have rhythm and which keep the spotlight on the central argument read much better.

I want to add something:

Jeff's right in that some of the rules don't have to be that specific.

You saying it doesn't have to be McDonalds isn't needed.  You have no idea how many times that a location producer will get something and pretend it is something else.

In Die Hard, they say it takes place at one airport, yet, if you look closely, you can see signs for a different airport.  People do that all the time.

Unless you have specific landmarks, things will get shot anywhere.  Part of the new Ninja Turtles movie was shot here in Buffalo.  They passed it off as NYC I think.  

So, please relax on certain rules like locations.  I can guarantee you that if you write a story that takes place in a ranch house and all the director has to use is a split-level, than it now gets shot in the split-level.

The slugs are a guideline, not a fast hard rule.  There are literally thousands of things that have been shot at different times and places than was listed.

All they would do anyways is IF they got the okay to shoot at a McDonalds is do an establishing shot of the entrance of a McDonalds followed by a cut to the bathroom.  Unless your action was to have us follow the actress as she walks into it, then go to the bathroom as one continuous shot, than any bathroom that is set up for business can be used.  

Hope that makes sense.

Dan

Hey, Dan, thanks.

My point is that it's not a problem to write it that way. It would not bother directors or producers. They'd barely notice. Some might even prefer it.

The ONLY people that slug would bother are other writers. More specifically, non-professional writers.

They only people who would even notice it or debate at are other non-professional writers...like us.

That fact alone tells us something. Or should.

INT HOUSE/SHACK/CABIN/BUILDING/GARAGE/FAST FOOD RESTAURANT/STORE/ETC. - SOMETIME IN THE DAY OR NIGHT

The man, who is somewhere between 34 and 57, kind of big, but doesn't have to be, or could be on the small side, walks or runs, it really doesn't matter, as he could actually even crawl, if his legs are sore, through one of the rooms in this building (could be a kitchen or bathroom, or even bedroom).

Then the man looks at something on a wall, ceiling, or even floor (it could be anything, including a mouse, bug, stain from vomit, or junk/trash.