Quoted from George Willson If you really want to use "we see," then go ahead and do it. There will always be people on both sides of the fence, and each will have their own reasons for doing it or not doing it.

There's a phrase in homebrewing called 'hot side aeration.'  This supposedly occurs when the unfermented beer is still hot (from the boil) and you introduce air to it, resulting in off flavors.  While this hasn't been proven one way, or another, most homebrewers will avoid hot side aeration just to be on the safe side.

There are people in Hollywood who will put your script down for using 'we see.'  I doubt you'll find anyone who'll put it down because you don't use it.


Phil

I was talking to a producer the other day, and I took the opportunity to ask him what he looks for when reading a script.

His answer.

"I need to know where the story is going within the first 15 pages (the hook), and I don't want to see it littered with typos and grammar errors."

That's it.  No mention of "we sees", writing things that can't be filmed, or any other technical stuff.

That's just one person's answer though.  Talk to someone else, and you'll probably get an entirely different answer.

I do think that the amount of technical hounding I see in in some reviews is a bit much though.  In the long run, it's not that huge a factor.

Unless of course, the writer is using 3/4 of a page to describe a guy sitting in a chair, or cutting an apple.

Quoted from Death Monkey This is a really interesting discussion and certainly brought a new perspective to the discourse. So nitpicking is an inhibitor? Following "the rules" minutely solely for the sake of following "the rules" could stand in the way of letting your script come alive? Some unfilmables are okay so long as they convey atmosphere, behaviour or  reactions that CAN be filmed? That's what I got from it, anyway.

That would be the hitting the nail swiftly on the head!

Just write the script and write whatever you want to get your story across.  If this means using a lot of "we" and other things you're not supposed to do, go ahead and do it.

Once you have the story down on the page, save it and start a re-write.   No point setting limitations on yourself out the gate.  Have fun writing.

And worry about making the thing engaging.  I have read so many scripts that are all proper, but they're boring.

tweak

Quoted from tweak Most software covers most of the formating issues for you.

All that the formatting software does is set the margins for you.  There's a lot more to it than that.  The software won't tell you to take out the WE SEEs from the script.  It won't tell you that it's wrong to describe:  Bob sits in his car, thinking about the four cups of coffee he had.  He wondered where the bathroom is..  

While it's true that story and characterization are also problems that writers face, formatting is the easiest to learn.  And a Hollywood reader will put a script down without reading it if he sees it's not formatted.



Phil

Quoted from dogglebe All that the formatting software does is set the margins for you.  There's a lot more to it than that.  The software won't tell you to take out the WE SEEs from the script.  It won't tell you that it's wrong to describe:  Bob sits in his car, thinking about the four cups of coffee he had.  He wondered where the bathroom is..   While it's true that story and characterization are also problems that writers face, formatting is the easiest to learn.  And a Hollywood reader will put a script down without reading it if he sees it's not formatted. Phil

Formatting also has a lot to do with personal preference.  Read a script for the new BSG series, and Ronald D. Moore breaks a lot of "rules' that come up here.  Read the script for "Batman Begins," and it violates some rules as well.  I think, story needs to come first.

Here's a quote from the BSG mini series from an action sequence:

"Leoben is clearly desperate and physically worked up."

and another one:

"Leoben is stunned, suddenly very unsure of himself -- but he still has the gun."

The acting direction gets you inside of the character.  The actor now needs to decide how to act unsure of himself or desperate.  Kinda a cool way to allow some freedom for the actors.

tweak

In regards to formatting, "we see", and other techinical nits:

Quoted from Me, from a different thread ...this is a forum for new writers.  For better or worse, there are plenty of young writers here posting the first thing they have ever written. And that is why the "rules" get tossed around so much. Do people break them?  Sure.  Sometimes to very entertaining effect. But it can quickly become counterproductive to run around shouting, "Screw the rules...break them all!" to someone completely new to the craft. Let's use driver's ed as an anology.  Does just about every experienced driver break the speed limit from time to time?  Some of them all the time?  Absolutely. But do you tell the brand new driver to screw speed limits because plenty of drivers ignore them and do just fine?  I hope not. Anyways, that is why the rules get harped on so much around here.  Not because everybody is anal -- but because they do have a place on forums such as this.

If proper format should be discussed anywhere, it should be here.

George is doing things the right way, and there is plenty of room for more esoteric discussions of character development should you desire to start such a thread.

Alot of those merged threads have a lot of unrelated chit-chat retained in them, though, and could probably use a good "scrubbing".

Quoted from dogglebe The software won't tell you to take out the WE SEEs from the script.  It won't tell you that it's wrong to describe:  Bob sits in his car, thinking about the four cups of coffee he had.  He wondered where the bathroom is..

Well I agree that those things you mention have no place in a spec script (or any type of script for that matter), I don't see that as Format-issues. To me, format is the package - not the content.

Quoted from tweak Formatting also has a lot to do with personal preference.  Read a script for the new BSG series, and Ronald D. Moore breaks a lot of "rules' that come up here.  Read the script for "Batman Begins," and it violates some rules as well.  I think, story needs to come first.

When you are a reputable pro, and Hollywood asks you to write a script, you can write in on toilet paper and use your piss for ink.  When you are just starting out, however, you have to follow the rules.  If the scripts that you read are shooting scripts, then you throw the rules out anyway.

Quoted from sniper Well I agree that those things you mention have no place in a spec script (or any type of script for that matter), I don't see that as Format-issues. To me, format is the package - not the content.

Formatting is everything.  It's how you place the margins.  It's how you describe the actions (including how you break up actions).  It's how you pace everything.


Phil

I hate it when people say it's okay to break the rules and then refer to a studio assigned script written by an established writer.  Go read a spec script by a first timer and tell me how many rules they break.

I follow the rules because if I didn't, it would just be one more reason somone can stop reading my script -- and last time I checked, that's not a good thing.  

Seriously, what's the problem with following the rules and writing a kick-ass story at the same time?  I mean, the story is the hardest part, following the rules is simple.

...Oh, and thank you for putting this up.  Some times The Screenwriter's Bible feels a little out of date and it's good to read another source(ex: Who puts a space before and after their ellipses anymore?)

Quoted from Hoody Who puts a space before and after their ellipses anymore?

Um, I do, but I'm kind of anal about that sort of thing.

The "rules" of screenwriting are nothing new. They didn't emerge from the bog last night. You can find scans of screenplays typed out on a typewriter from the 30's and 40's that follow the "rules," and they do a good job of it. The Screenwriters Bible gives a lot of good format advice that can hardly be said to be out of date since it recommends what has been used for decades.

You are correct in saying that the rules are probably the easiest part of the whole process. You can spend months writing a killer script in whatever format you want, and then ten minutes making the format pretty once you're done. It's actually that easy.

What always gets me every time it comes up is this incessant complaining about these proverbial "rules." Check out the thread of Simply Recommended Scripts. Look at the names of those who write those scripts. Now find every time those people complain about the rules. Go ahead. See if it comes up.

That's great. We're happy for him. We're also happy that you're so well informed on the industry.

Here's what I don't understand: why are you so vehemently determined to debate against these rule things? You've proven your point; it's a point we're honestly already aware of. Some professional writers use the word "we" in their description. If you want to do this, please don't let me stop you.

Maybe you misunderstand the whole point of this forum... Well, I say maybe, but your continual posts on who breaks what rules actually illustrate this quite clearly.

The point to this forum is to help you write a script that reads well. In doing so, some will give you suggestions that follow certain guidelines that they likely follow themselves. Do you have to take them? No. Will you be flamed and driven from the community? No. Are we doing the best we can based on the info we have to work with? Yes.

I fail to see what you're trying to accomplish since you're the primary purveyer of this debate.

Seems to me that this argument keeps coming back over and over....so, I'll add to this.

As an avid reader of all sorts of screenplays, I know I have changed a lot in how I read them. I used to worry a lot about format and the rules. I agree with Bert's drivers licence anology. You take some lessons, do a test and if you pass they give you your licence. After that however, even though people know the rules they still develope their own "driving" style. Some people are aggressive drivers, some have to be first at every stop light or line, some are cautious and drive 5mph under the speed limit in the right lane and so on.

I have read a lot of scripts that have been perfectly formatted and totally void of typos, but the stories were so boring I really struggled to get through them. Some scripts may have ventured off the rules some, but I couldn't care less because the stories were awesome. I have also read some scripts where the way the writer writes is pure entertainment in itself. Those are tricky because sometimes you feel like the script was great until you start thinking about the story and realize it was only so so. Occasionally I run across something that is easy and clean looking and worded and formatted perfectly AND have an awesome story too. Now those are pure treasures.....then you watch the movie and wonder how the hell they managed to screw up such a gem.

Just my $ 0.2

This is all coming from an outsider looking in but I have read a lot of the forum posts over the last few weeks.  Please take this as completely friendly and well-intentioned and it sort of addresses a lot of things contained in all the links in this thread.

The main thing I’d like to offer is that you probably need to question where you get your rules and what you think of as rules.  There are lots of references to books around here so I’d like to just say that there’s a world of difference between Cole/Haag’s The Complete Guide to Standard Script Formats and anything that has an “art and craft of writing” vibe to it.   Cole/Haag =  format rules while “How to Write a Killer Comedy!” is a bunch of hints or guidelines cobbled together by some non-working writer trying to peddle a screenwriting book on Amazon.

I’m a little baffled where a lot of the “rules” on SS come from.  I see a lot of how evil “WE SEE:” is but can’t figure out who made the proclamation.  “We See” is really common and procedural episodics like CSI or Bones would be 100 pages long if they didn’t use it.  “We” do a lot of things these days -- WE HEAR, WE FOLLOW, WE STOP – and it’s all accepted and common format.

In the last few years the style of writing has changed and become more conversational.  It’s especially true of television and the “We” is part of that trend.  A friend refers to it as WE THE STUPID NON-READING EXECUTIVE.  If you write chatty and immediate the person in charge with a business degree (who doesn’t read anything but financial reports) will be able to follow the story.  

I’ve also noticed that there is this strange idea of spec script(the writer’s draft) vs. shooting script as if they were entirely different creatures.  Shooting scripts unless they are written by a director rarely have any mention of the camera or shots.  Just compare A Mighty Heart or American Gangster with Into the Wild which were all uploaded to the site recently.  All are shooting scripts but only the Sean Penn scripted and directed Into the Wild has a CU: or ORIGINAL WIDE SHOT.  A script is bought and rewrites are done but they are narrative/character changes.  Writers who aren’t directors don’t normally go back into a piece and add technical components like shots.  Directors and ADs have shot lists, breakdowns and storyboards to deal with how they want to shoot something.  

There are exceptions in scripts directed by people like Ridley Scott or Scorsese.  If you read The Departed by William Monahan you can see the occasional camera direction.  This means Scorsese and Monahan sat across from each other and Monahan wrote down what Scorsese planned to do in scene 17 and scripted the shot as described.  But it’s still a very different animal than P.T. Anderson’s There Will Be Blood which is what most people think of as a shooting script with the long shots and close-ups.

On the site there are also a lot of questions about building character but at the same time character description that isn’t “20s, beautiful with long, blonde hair” really seems to trouble people.  It’s the description of your character’s character and all she has going for her is that she is pretty and has great hair?  The gal behind the counter at Starbucks this morning fits that description but I don’t think any of that tells me how she is capable of fighting off an alien invasion.

It’s become a convention of modern horror that characters are SARAH (22) which is shorthand for this person has no purpose in my script other than to be killed and I’m not even going to bother making them human.  Regardless of genre whenever I hit a description that is TOM, 21, and handsome I just think they are going to die (even in a romantic comedy).

Character description is hard because you have to get a person physically and use those traits to define who he is at the point we meet him.  There’s “A tired MIKE ENSLIN, 35, drives his car down the empty road” which is very different than this from 1408: “At the wheel, driving this piece of shit, is MIKE ENSLIN, 35, a grizzled, weary soul.  He stares glassily at the road, a cigarette behind his ear, a styrofoam cup of Exxon coffee at his mouth.”  

Character description is one of the bits where you get to be a writer and it seems like a lot of you really limit your chances to define your characters by substituting an age and a description of wardrobe for real insight.

This all got to be a lot more longwinded than I originally intended so I’ll now step back from the keyboard.

This thread continues on (sort of) here:

http://www.simplyscripts.net/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?b-screenwrite/m-1205877916/s-new/