All screenplays on the simplyscripts.com and simplyscripts.net domain are copyrighted to their respective authors. All rights reserved. This screenplaymay not be used or reproduced for any purpose including educational purposes without the expressed written permission of the author.
Most of the articles on screenwriting online contain nothing new. They don't have a new or original point of view. They just regurgitate stuff that has been said over and over again. Presenting stuff as fact and written in stone, when its not.
#9 from above, I think the point is -- don't have characters ramble for no reason.
#10 from above. Makes sense, you have to establish what "now" is in order to flashback. If you start your very first scene of "John in 1989" and the story takes place in 2015, then just start in 1989 and flashforward to 2015.
#12 why would you want to see coffins? It means nothing.
#9 from above, I think the point is -- don't have characters ramble for no reason.
#10 from above. Makes sense, you have to establish what "now" is in order to flashback. If you start your very first scene of "John in 1989" and the story takes place in 2015, then just start in 1989 and flashforward to 2015.
#12 why would you want to see coffins? It means nothing.
Other than that, good opinions.
# 9 - yes, don't have characters ramble for no reason. And apply that ramble rule if the dialogue is one line or ten. IMO - the issue is not the length of the dialogue. It's whether the words in it are needed. So - I agree with your rule - not his.
# 10 - some films begin with flashbacks and they are perfectly suited. GoodFellas comes to mind. Memento as well. I think they are referred to as prequel flashbacks but they are flashbacks nonetheless. IMO - rule # 10 should be - use flashbacks when appropriate (regardless of where they appear in the script)
# 11 - a coffin could mean everything depending on what story is being told. (A vampire film perhaps?). The death of a father - anything. Anyway - his point was more about props then it was about coffins and I still think it was a silly one and only added to give some pop to his own article.
You know, I think once a screenwriter understands basic, smart principals about screenwriting, all this "how to" do-it-by-the-damned-numbers stuff gets tired and moot. (Not to mention results in cookie cutter scripts ala Blake Snyder.) Most of the peeps at SS already know the really important stuff:
* Start with a catchy scene * Make every word count (ie: cut out all extraneous description and rambling dialogue). Be exciting with the words you leave in. * Go into a scene (a bit) late, leave (a bit) early * Have lots of conflict and/or mystery * Have character arc * Give your characters and story authentic, organic personalities and intelligent depth * Rewrite, polish, and be open to smart coverage suggestions. * Try to write everyday. Practice makes (closer to) perfect.
Do all that, and anything you write will be worth it.
1. The script is short – between 90 and 110 pages: -
Seems to be the usual format expected, so I agree here, but I understand there might be exceptions like historical or monumental movies.
2. The front cover is free of WGA registration numbers and fake production company names
I like to add the registration number on the front page, just because it is easier for me to find it that way. I do save the registration confirmations with my scripts, but if I put it on the cover I got both together everytime I send it anywhere. Fake production company names are laughable, whoever does that is an idiot imho.
3. The first page contains a lot of white space
That's an interesting one. The first TV pilot I wrote in english language starts with a long speech of the main protagonist (which is a lead scientist) to his scientist colleagues. I entered that script into several contests just to get some feedback, and while it got good critics and made it through the first round of several contests like PAGE for example and ended up in the semi finals of CWA2015, practically all notes included the first few pages with large speech blocks as a point of critique.
So I'm not sure what to make of this. A crowded first page seems to turn readers off, but given my script ranked quite well, I doubt it's a sign of quality for the rest of the script.
4. I know who the protagonist is by page 5
Fully agree.
5. The premise is clearly established by page 10
Fully agree. There's nothing worse than a script where nothing essential is happening in the first few pages.
6. Something interesting/entertaining happens in the first five pages:
Fully agree, we need some inciting moment which gets the story rolling.
7. The first ten pages contain plenty of action
Fully agree. If all your character does is waking up in bed, drinking coffee, taking a shower and watering his/her plants, I won't continue to read.
8. I can tell what’s going on
Tend to disagree here. Many good movies leave the audience in the dark for the entire movie to build up to that final reveal which explains everything in the end. Think of Sixth Sense for example.
9. The dialogue is short and to the point:
Dialog is probably the weakest part of my own writing, so I'll take that blame, but when I read a script, I seem to prefer those with shorter dialog.
10. The script doesn’t begin with a flashback
10000000% agree. It's so stupid if a script begins with a flashback or an endless voice over (I hate voice overs in general, because they are a cheap way to TELL instead of SHOW). A flashback at the beginning means stop reading instantly for me.
11. There are no camera directions, shot descriptions, and editing instructions:
I guess I got to take this and I've stopped using any of them in my newer scripts because it is always a point of critique. Personally, I still think they can be useful to highlight something or to give a scene a different meaning, but it seems like it's not accepted from readers/judges, so I'll obey to that.
12. There are no coffins
No idea here. I recently read an article written by a literacy agent who complained about series bibles being way too long. She said bibles they get are 60 pages or longer, with lots of dull material, paintings, concept art and so on. She said she probably only has time to read 4-5 pages and that should be enough to catch her interest.
So I guess 'the more the better' doesn't count here.
Well, good thing there are no new people coming to this board who may benefit from the articles. At least, not that would benefit from two charming people I can think of.
First of all, I'm not upset. So, you got that wrong.
I am, however, curious as to why you two take a stance on something but offer absolutely no reason(s) as to why the article's authors advice is "worthless".
No, I don't see cynical practices at work, maybe you can explain them to me?
I don't have an agenda other than hoping to have discussion or additional tips from fellow writers added to the thread. Which, btw, are missing from at least 2 recent trolls that I can think of -- ya, that's you Demento and CJ Walley. Good job helping people.
Perhaps, some should inspect their own agendas, I dunno, maybe?
First of all, I'm not upset. So, you got that wrong.
I am, however, curious as to why you two take a stance on something but offer absolutely no reason(s) as to why the article's authors advice is "worthless".
No, I don't see cynical practices at work, maybe you can explain them to me?
I don't have an agenda other than hoping to have discussion or additional tips from fellow writers added to the thread. Which, btw, are missing from at least 2 recent trolls that I can think of -- ya, that's you Demento and CJ Walley. Good job helping people.
Perhaps, some should inspect their own agendas, I dunno, maybe?
The core problem with these tips for me, is they fester an obsession with the superficial in a bid to convince writers the business of script reading is like some form of secret handshake rather than something far deeper and subjective.
I agree. I often feel these articles are written for people who want to learn how to write a movie by reading articles and cheap books found on amazon, instead of actually watching a lot of movies, reading a ton of scripts and to some degree reading novels
You can't learn how to be a good storyteller by knowing a few rules. Introduce a character by page 5, have something happen every 2 pages, the inciting incident happens by page 10 and other nonsense like that.
People become good storytellers because they have life experience are well read, intelligent and so on. They understand the complexities of the stories they are trying to tell. And each story is its... own story Its different, requires a different approach, a different build up, tone, pace. If we all stick to some stupid guidelines we'll all end up writing the same narrative structure and all our stories will become the same, boring, predictable. There is no one way of doing things, especially when it comes to some kind of art form which is entirely subjective. This is why these kinds of articles are destructive, they conjure up guidelines about how something such be done. People then read them, think - "huh, these are the rules" and then search them out and judge other peoples work by them and write with them in mind.
You ever find it strange that articles such as these and so called script gurus, teacher are all failed screenwriters. In essence they are the same as all of us, here. They have never gotten a major break and nor have most of us. So, why should you take advice from someone who hasn't exceled at their own profession following their own rules? It's quite obvious they are doing something wrong. They show you answers, guideline yet they can't seem to apply them to be successful. Everytime you hear a succesful screenwriter talk they never go into things such as these.
If I where to write an article about "water being wet" what would be the point of it? It's something that's obvious, something we already know. You can find hundreds of articles saying the same thing like in the ones you just posted. So you know it's a person who has read a few and now is repeating the same thing over. It has no real value but for him to get people to click thinking they'll learn something, when what he's presenting is something of very little value that can be found elsewhere. With such duplication of the same gospel these people are preaching in order to appear as they know what they are talking about, others, novices who are not very well versed on the subject start taking it as fact. That's very destructive.
Plus some of the things in the article you posted are obvious and ridiculous to point out.
20. The ending sucks. I should have a good ending? Wow, who would have thought that was a good idea.
11.Your script has multiple grammar, spelling, and typo errors. Didn't know this was bad as well.
There ya go! Now you guys are saying something useful.
Some of your arguments are still wrong though. Why you find it necessary to reveal this "hidden agenda" of bias (if it even exists) or even think it's "worth it to expose" is quite interesting.
You could probably say this about just about everything posted on the internet, ever.
The only reason I can think of is that the "rules" or "tried and true guidelines" to screenwriting just don't agree with you. You both seem part of the bunch that want any writing style to be "accepted."
Good luck with that.
"You can't learn how to be a good storyteller by knowing a few rules. Introduce a character by page 5, have something happen every 2 pages, the inciting incident happens by page 10 and other nonsense like that."
??? You can't, but it sure is a start.
"This is why these kinds of articles are destructive." ROFL Ya, they destroy the craft. lol.
"Everytime you hear a succesful screenwriter talk they never go into things such as these." Don't you just hate absolutes? I hate em "Everytime".
If by "succesful, you mean to "sell a spec script," and the industry won't even read past page 10 without a "standard" then you had better adhear to the format, wouldn't you say that's good advice?
"Plus some of the things in the article you posted are obvious and ridiculous to point out." You should write an article on how to be as smart you.
"If you're not upset then you're doing a poor job communicating it. I also really don't think there's any need to go calling other users trolls, and you certainly have no basis to make sweeping assumptions about who does and doesn't help people. That's really poor show on your part."
I made no such assumption. But since you returned to "clarify" what you failed to do with earlier comments, then I give props. Good job. Now you're becoming valuable to me.
You both seem part of the bunch that want any writing style to be "accepted."
I for one never mentioned anything about writing styles but about narrative structure. The way a story is developed, constructed. There is an accepted writing format - slugs, action lines, dialogue. Aside from that if you read scripts, produced one, you'll see that there is an amount of deviation in how they are written. Screenwriter Billy Ray is a strong advocate for parentheticals, while most script gurus hate them. So while there is a general format, the way you actually write in it varies. There was a discussion here a while back about a Black List script which had a funky writing style yet sold. There was a 52 page script about wolves with no dialogue that sold last year. These examples go to show that you don't have to stick to anything to be successful. Sometimes people look at the story you wrote, then how you wrote it.
Quoted Text
"You can't learn how to be a good storyteller by knowing a few rules. Introduce a character by page 5, have something happen every 2 pages, the inciting incident happens by page 10 and other nonsense like that."
??? You can't, but it sure is a start.
Watching Tom and Jerry cartoons is a start on how conflict is developed as well. I'm not saying don't check out what a person has written. You asked what people thought about the articles in question. People should check out everything and then form their own opinion base on their acquired cumulative knowledge.
To me what's a better start is if one immerses himself in all kinds of writing. Anything that has a narrative structure. After one has consumed/ seen all kinds of approaches to different ways stories are told, he can have reference points, he can deduce what he thinks works based on previous works, etc. His level of critical thinking will be expended, because he has expended his base of comparison, he can tell what's cliche and what's not. Being told this is how you write something, this is the way it's done isn't as helpful as people think because it sets a thinking pattern in place. Someone reading Lost in Transaltion can say - nothing happens in the first 10 pages. Well, a lot of things are happening actually, just because no action or conflict is being presented does not mean that nothing worthy is being presented. It also won an Oscar for best screenplay.
Quoted Text
"This is why these kinds of articles are destructive." ROFL Ya, they destroy the craft. lol.
I was talking in a sense that it limits creativity by bounding it by guidelines. So, when you sit down to write something you already have certain boundries set on how things are done. Which is counterproductive when you find yourself in a creative endeavor.
Quoted Text
"Everytime you hear a succesful screenwriter talk they never go into things such as these." Don't you just hate absolutes? I hate em "Everytime".
You seem to have thrown a mini hissy fit over people not agreeing with a few articles you posted. One could easily come to conclussion that you hold what's in these articles as an "absloute truth". As shown by you getting upset in this thread.
Quoted Text
If by "succesful, you mean to "sell a spec script," and the industry won't even read past page 10 without a "standard" then you had better adhear to the format, wouldn't you say that's good advice?
Again, you can find many examples of scripts that have sold that haven't adhered to any standard in terms of style and structure. Thus showing that there are no absolutes, something you have made clear that you're not a fan of.
People will read all kinds of things if they think there's potential there.
The problem with these articles is they propagate rulesets. They spread, novices consume them and then you have script readers abandon scripts by page 10 because they don't seem to be up to "standard", thus not really seeing the story play out and not giving it a fair shake by allowing someone to present a creative or new approach to something.
Quoted Text
"Plus some of the things in the article you posted are obvious and ridiculous to point out." You should write an article on how to be as smart you.
If you need an article to tell you that your screenplay would be better without any typos in it and a good ending, well... I don't know what to tell you, buddy.
I'll follow CJ Walley's footsteps and abandon this thread.
You stick what you think works for you Tony. I'm not telling you not to. I'm just presenting my opinion on the subject. Hope it has been valuable to you.
First, I think you all agree with each other more than you realize.
There are some things in the article that a novice writer should be aware of and therefore have some value - but not anything that a writer should beholden to.
There are some things in the article that go without saying (e.g., typos).
Some things in the article that are just wrong.
Nothing in the article means you will sell a script.
I do agree with CJ's and Demento's angst is to how these articles tend to be interpreted. That being said - this site can be an excellent resource for debating the merits of all of the so called rules and there is no reason not to offer them up for discussion.
Just look at the scripts that come through here and the poor shape they are in -- if they used the help of just a fraction of these guides it would be for the better, no?
Just look at the scripts that come through here and the poor shape they are in -- if they used the help of just a fraction of these guides it would be for the better, no?
Hey, Tony: Your general premise is solid in that this site does have a lot of referenced material that can help a writer. In terms of "these" guidelines I happened to disagree with 8 or 9 of them so it's hard for me to endorse the specific ones listed - but in all cases any one particular guideline could be a good discussion because well intended knowledgeable people could disagree on them.
I've never sold anything and have only been doing this for a few years and my approach could be different. That is I tend to ignore everything that is in the "how to sell a screenplay" approach and focus on those resources dedicated to "how to write a screenplay" and generally only look at narrow topics there (e.g., how to format a scene heading, how to use SUPERs, formatting dual dialogue, etc.). The story rules you see can hamper a script, IMO.
I'll give you an example - the first 20 pages (one scene) of Inglorious Bastards violated several of this author's rules and I happened to have found it to be one of the more riveting openings I have ever watched/read.
Even the formatting rules have room for debate. I remember when I first joined here there was an extended discussion on one of my scripts about not using INT/EXT in a scene heading. I did my own research on it and found there are divided opinions but I concluded that it was perfectly fine and, IMO - actually made the script read better.
So, long winded way of saying that - yes, writers who come here (including myself) need help. But that help is going to be much better if it is directed a a single topic and has a healthy debate on the pros and cons and the writer ultimately decides what is best in terms of the story that he or she is telling.
of course there's exceptions to rules. But, basic organized storytelling has structure. Idea is to apply it to our work.
It amazes me when people use a Tarantino example to say... well. hey, look at what Tarantino did here... see, you just gotta be unique like him -- now that's destructive advice for a spec unkown hoping to get somewhere.
Tarantino doesn't even need to write a script for his movies. he can just hand out actors lines on diner napkins, his vision of how ultimately his screenplays will transfer to film -- are in his head, ready to go.
You think he had to prove the Hateful Eight project with a structured script that makes sense to investors? All he had to do was pitch, saying ya, it's called "The Hateful Eight," about doods stuck in a snowstorm.
"You're gonna have your doods do their usual Liberal-racial-antagonistic-shit so we can make money?"
"Ofcourse, I will -- it's who I am! Just look at me today in the news. My earlier scripts (littered with errors) and by my own admission, would never have been given a second thought as a spec -- if it wasn't for who I am deep inside and the words: "a film by..."
"Okay then, we're on board -- here's some millions! Make us some millions. Go get em, tiger!"
I don't believe he's a good example to follow at all. I'd suggest checking out some of Abrams' earlier stuff, Black, Cameron, with realizing: no, you can't write a 180 page spec, so forget about it.
As a matter of fact, with today's limited attention span, you better start making the scripts even shorter than usual, just to hold people's attention -- you know, just in case the reader forgot to take his addarell.
of course there's exceptions to rules. But, basic organized storytelling has structure. Idea is to apply it to our work.
It amazes me when people use a Tarantino example to say... well. hey, look at what Tarantino did here... see, you just gotta be unique like him -- now that's destructive advice for a spec unkown hoping to get somewhere.
Tarantino doesn't even need to write a script for his movies. he can just hand out actors lines on diner napkins, his vision of how ultimately his screenplays will transfer to film -- are in his head, ready to go.
You think he had to prove the Hateful Eight project with a structured script that makes sense to investors? All he had to do was pitch, saying ya, it's called "The Hateful Eight," about doods stuck in a snowstorm.
"You're gonna have your doods do their usual Liberal-racial-antagonistic-shit so we can make money?"
"Ofcourse, I will -- it's who I am! Just look at me today in the news. My earlier scripts (littered with errors) and by my own admission, would never have been given a second thought as a spec -- if it wasn't for who I am deep inside and the words: "a film by..."
"Okay then, we're on board -- here's some millions! Make us some millions. Go get em, tiger!"
I don't believe he's a good example to follow at all. I'd suggest checking out some of Abrams' earlier stuff, Black, Cameron, with realizing: no, you can't write a 180 page spec, so forget about it.
As a matter of fact, with today's limited attention span, you better start making the scripts even shorter than usual, just to hold people's attention -- you know, just in case the reader forgot to take his addarell.
You missed my point, Tony. The only reference to Taritino I made was the opening scene of Inglorious bastards which I found riveting despite the fact that it broke most of the rules in the author's article. I would have reached the same despite ho wrote it. i.e., my comment wasn't about the author - it was about the story.
And again - no offense - but I happened to disagree with most of the rules listed in the article - i.e., I would not recommend them to a novice. That's just my perspective.
"You're insolence really knows no bounds, doesn't it?"
I like this. Mind if I use it, or did you copy it from somwhere? Seriously.
You put your Tarantino knee pads on when you wrote the above BS biography? You really gonna attach your own name to that mush? That guy's not an honorable man in the slightest. And quite frankly, his movies are nothing to jump through hoops over, and certainly not anyone to role model after. Did he show us stuff we never seen before, ya -- wish I could un-see some of it, though.
Now, back on topic, I went back and re-read the 23 points and still for the life of me can't understand how you dismiss them so easily? Except for saying "correct spelling errors, duh -- doesn't need to be said" why dismiss good, free, advice like that? It's not a bible, ya know. It's a guide.
Eldave,
I like you, but let me quote what you said earlier and I don't believe I missed your point at all...
"The story rules you see can hamper a script, IMO. I'll give you an example - the first 20 pages (one scene) of Inglorious Bastards violated several of this author's rules and I happened to have found it to be one of the more riveting openings I have ever watched/read."
"You're insolence really knows no bounds, doesn't it?"
I like this. Mind if I use it, or did you copy it from somwhere? Seriously.
You put your Tarantino knee pads on when you wrote the above BS biography? You really gonna attach your own name to that mush? That guy's not an honorable man in the slightest. And quite frankly, his movies are nothing to jump through hoops over, and certainly not anyone to role model after. Did he show us stuff we never seen before, ya -- wish I could un-see some of it, though.
Now, back on topic, I went back and re-read the 23 points and still for the life of me can't understand how you dismiss them so easily? Except for saying "correct spelling errors, duh -- doesn't need to be said" why dismiss good, free, advice like that? It's not a bible, ya know. It's a guide.
Eldave,
I like you, but let me quote what you said earlier and I don't believe I missed your point at all...
"The story rules you see can hamper a script, IMO. I'll give you an example - the first 20 pages (one scene) of Inglorious Bastards violated several of this author's rules and I happened to have found it to be one of the more riveting openings I have ever watched/read."
Did I not read that correctly?
Tony - First, I think we are missing each other here - my comments have related to the first link you posted (12 rules) and I think I have already dealt with why I agree of disagree with each one in my first post.
In terms of the Quentin thing - I think you read it correctly but may be misapplying my point. In this script the protag isn't introduced, the premise isn't established, etc etc- yet I thought it was a great opening scene. Guess my rule would be write a great opening scene at the appropriate length for the story you are telling. I'm not into page counts.
Okay - now have taken a look at the 24: Thoughts:
You sent it to a major agency, studio, or production company as unsolicited material.
DISAGREE
Your logline was better than the actual script.
KIND OF AGREE IF THE PREMISE IS WHY YOOUR SCRIPT WAS REQUESTED BASED ON YOUR LOG LINE
You spent the first ten pages introducing the characters without setting up the premise and conflict.
DISAGREE
The scene description is overly long.
AGREE
The script is all dialogue, or at least a majority of it.
DISAGREE - HARD FOR ANYONE TO SAY WHAT THE BALANCE SHOULD BE NOT KNOWING THE STORY
You included a synopsis, casting breakdown, conceptual drawings, or anything else beyond the script itself.
THINK A SYNOPSIS IS FINE - THE OTHERS - I AGREE
Your script has scene numbers.
AGREE
You overuse exclamation points, CAPS, etc.
AGREE
You have overly busy formatting with camera angles, inserts, etc.
AGREE
Your script is either too short, or too long.
DISAGREE KIND OF - BUT I KNOW MANY SHARE THIS VIEW
Your script has multiple grammar, spelling, and typo errors.
AGREE
Your script opens up with upwards of ten major characters.
AGREE
You overuse fancy vocabulary and technical terms.
SOMEWHAT AGREE - DEPENDS ON HOW WELL IT'S DONE
Your script has a soft beginning.
GENERALLY AGREE
Your script doesn’t have enough conflict.
TOO SUBJECTIVE HERE
You don’t know what genre you’re writing in.
SILLY REALLY
Your script is written by-the-numbers… also known as formulaic storytelling.
OK WITH THIS - OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THE AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE HAS PREVIOUSLY INTRODUCED HIS OWN FORMULAS - IT'S NOT SAVE THE CAT - BUT IT'S HIS FORMULA.
Your protagonists are assholes.
TOTALLY DISAGREE
Nothing happens in the middle.
SOUNDS LIKE A FORMULA
The ending sucks.
SILLY - YES - NO PART CAN SUCK - BEGINNING MIDDLE OR END
All in all - this article IMO had better guidance then the one with 12 issues. This one would be more useful to newbies and could generate good debate among more experienced writers.
Pages: 
Author
Thoughts on this article?
Logged
Locked Board